Vaudevillian Dialectic

Kantian Links

Here are some links related to Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics:

• An intermediate overview of Kant's theory of ethics.
• An advanced overview of Kant's ethics.
  
• Kant's theory is deontological (which is a fancy word that basically means morality is about more than just the consequences of an action). Here's an advanced overview of deontological ethics.
• Some harsh criticisms of Kant's ethical judgments. My favorite excerpt: "Kant's philosophical moral reasoning appears mainly to have confirmed his prejudices and the ideas inherited from his culture. Therefore, we should be nervous about expecting more from the philosophical moral reasoning of people less philosophically capable than Kant."
• A 3-minute video on Kant's ethics is below:
  

Group Presentations

Here are the groups for your consensus session presentations, along with the date of each presentation, the due date of your email, and the article your group is assigned to:

Embyronic Stem Cells
-Group 1 on October 26th (email due October 19th): Hyan article – pages 316-319: Christopher, Dana, Kendal, Megan
-Group 2 on October 28th (email due October 21st): Magill & Neaves article – pages 319-323: Brittney, Danny, Gabi, Phi

Genetic Control
-Group 3 on November 2nd (email due October 26th): Davis article – pages 285-294: Lakeisha, Melissa, Sangsu, Shanice

Cloning
-Group 4 on November 4th (email due October 28th): Kass article – pages 401-406: Alyssa, Avery, Eric, Potsy
-Group 5 on November 7th (email due October 31st): Strong article – pages 406-411: no one

Homosexual Parenthood
-Group 6 on November 9th (email due November 2nd): Hanscombe article – pages 406-409: Hannah, Leigh, Rhea, Robyn

Impaired Infants
-Group 7 on November 14th (email due November 7th): Engelhardt article – pages 543-548: no one

Euthanasia
-Group 8 on November 18th (email due November 11th): Callahan article – pages 596-600: Kelly, Marissa, Nick S., Tamara
-Group 9 on November 21st (email due November 14th): Rachels article – pages 585-589: Andrea, Ashley, Kim, Shana

Animal Research
-Group 10 on November 30th (email due November 23rd): Cohen article – pages 203-209: Greg, Joe, Lauren, Nick D., Tiffany

Race and Gender
-Group 11 on December 5th (email due November 28th): Dula article – pages 798-894: no one

The Economics of Health Care
-Group 12 on December 9th (email due December 2nd): Daniels article – pages 713-716: Becky, Lorraine, Mark, Pinky

If your name isn't on this list, please let me know as soon as possible so we can figure out what group you're in.

The Psychology of Happiness

Since utilitarianism focuses so much on happiness, I thought I'd share some links on the cool new psychological research on happiness popping up lately.

• Here's one overview of the psychology of happiness. And here's a second one.
• Recent studies suggest that our baseline level of happiness doesn't change much throughout our life. So, even if we won the lottery, we wouldn't wind up that much happier. This is potentially very depressing news, although some say there's room for some optimism, and others think the research is wrong.
• There's an insightful, accessible book by Harvard psychologist Dan Gilbert called Stumbling on Happiness. One of his big points is that we often don't know what makes us happy. Here's Gilbert's appearance on The Colbert Report:
  
• And here's Gilbert giving an awesome TED talk on his research:
  

Utilitarios!

Here are some links on the theory of utilitarianism:

• A neat little biography of know-it-all John Stuart Mill
• An advanced encyclopedia article on utilitarianism and other theories that focus on consequences of an action.
• The trolley problem gets brought up a lot when evaluating utilitarianism. A short video intro on it is below. Also, there's some new research on the psychology of the trolley problem.

Evaluating Arguments

Here are the answers to the handout on evaluating arguments that we did as group work in class.

1) All bats are mammals.
All mamammals live on earth.
All bats live on earth.

P1- true
P2- true
support- good
overall- good

2) All email forwards are annoying.
Some email forwards are false.
Some annoying things are false.

P1- questionable ("annoying" is subjective)
P2- true
structure- good (the premises establish that some email forwards are both annoying and false; so some annoying things [those forwards] are false)
overall - bad (bad first premise)

3) All males in this class are humans.
All females in this class are humans.
All males in this class are females.

P1- true
P2- true
support- bad (the premises only tell us that males and females both belong to the humans group; we don't know enough about the relationship between males and females from this)
overall- bad (bad support)

4) No humans are amphibians.
All frogs are amphibians.
No frogs are humans.

P1- true
P2- true
structure-  good (the premises say that frogs belong to a group that humans can't belong to, so it follows that no frogs are humans)
overall- good

5) All bats are mammals.
All bats have wings.
All mammals have wings.

P1- true
P2- true (if interpreted to mean "All bats are the sorts of creatures who have wings.") or false (if interpreted to mean "Each and every living bat has wings," since some bats are born without wings)
support- bad (we don't know anything about the relationship between mammals and winged creatures just from the fact that bats belong to each group)
overall- bad (bad support)

6) Some dads have beards.
All bearded people are mean.
Some dads are mean.

P1- true
P2- questionable ("mean" is subjective)
support- good (if all the people with beards were mean, then the dads with beards would be mean, so some dads would be mean)
overall- bad (bad 2nd premise)

7) Oprah Winfrey is a person.
Some people ate tacos yesterday.
Oprah Winfrey ate tacos yesterday.

P1- true
P2- true (you might not have directly seen anyone eat tacos, but you have a lot of indirect evidence... with all the Taco Bells, Don Pablos, etc., surely lots of people ate tacos yesterday)
support- bad (the 2nd premise only says some ate tacos; Oprah could be one of the  people who didn't)
overall- bad (bad support)

8) All students in here are mammals.
All humans are mammals.
All students in here are humans.

P1- true
P2- true
structure- bad (the premises only tell us that students and humans both belong to the mammals group; we don't know enough about the relationship between students and humans from this; for instance, what if a dog were a student in our class?)
overall- bad (bad structure)

9) All hornets are wasps.
All wasps are insects.
All insects are scary.
All hornets are scary.

P1- true!
P2- true
P3- questionable ("scary" is subjective)
structure- good (same structure as in argument #1, just with an extra premise)
overall- bad (bad 3rd premise)

10) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Sean is singing right now.
Students are cringing right now.

P1- questionable (since you haven't heard me sing, you don't know whether it's true or false)
P2- false
structure- good
overall- bad (bad premises)

11) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Sean isn't singing right now.
Students aren't cringing right now.

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- true
structure- bad (from premise 1, we only know what happens when Sean is singing, not when he isn't singing; students could cringe for a different reason)
overall- bad (bad 1st premise and structure)

12) All students in here are humans.
Most humans are shorter than 7 feet tall.
Most students in here are shorter than 7 feet tall. 

P1- true
P2- true!
support- so-so (the premises state a strong statistical generalization over a large population, and the conclusion claims that this generalization holds for a much smaller portion of that population; while it could be true that the humans in here are a statistical anomaly, given the strength of the generalization, it's likely that most students in here are, in fact, shorter than 7 feet tall)
overall- so-so (not perfect, since the support isn't perfect, but pretty good)

13) (from Stephen Colbert)
Bush was either a great prez or the greatest prez.
Bush wasn’t the greatest prez.
Bush was a great prez.

P1- questionable ("great" is subjective)
P2- questionable ("great" is subjective)
support- good (it's either A or B; it's not A; so it's B)
overall- bad (bad premises)

14) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Students are cringing right now.
Sean is singing right now.

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- false
structure- bad (from premise 1, we only know that Sean singing is one way to guarantee that students cringe; just because they're cringing doesn't mean Sean's the one who caused it; again, students could cringe for a different reason)
overall- bad (bad premises and structure)

15) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Students aren't cringing right now.
Sean isn't singing right now. 

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- true
structure- good 
overall- bad (bad 1st premise)

16) If there is no God, then life is meaningless.
Life isn't meaningless.
There is a God.

P1- questionable (that's not an obvious claim to prove or disprove)
P2- questionable (again, that's not an obvious claim to prove or disprove)
support- good (the same structure as argument #13)
overall- bad (bad premises)

Quiz #1

Just a reminder that our first quiz will be held at the beginning of class on Wednesday, September 15th. It's worth 50 points (5% of your overall grade), and will be on understanding and evaluating arguments. The quiz will look a lot like the extra credit handout (on understanding arguments) from last week, and the group work handout (on evaluating arguments) from Monday.

An Argument's Support

One of the trickier concepts to understand in this course is the structure (or support) of an argument. This is a more detailed explanation of the term (it's the same as the handout). If you've been struggling to understand this term, the following might help you.

An argument's structure is its underlying logic; the way the premises and conclusion logically relate to one another. The structure of an argument is entirely separate from the actual meaning of the premises. For instance, the following three arguments, even though they're talking about different things, have the exact same structure:

1) All tigers have stripes.
Tony is a tiger.
Tony has stripes.

2) All humans have wings.
Sean is a human.
Sean has wings.

3) All blurgles have glorps.
Xerxon is a blurgle.
Xerxon has glorps.

There are, of course, other, non-structural differences in these three arguments. For instance, the tiger argument is overall good, since it has a good structure AND true premises. The human/wings argument is overall bad, since it has a false premise. And the blurgles argument is just crazy, since it uses made up words. Still, all three arguments have the same underlying structure (a good structure):

All A's have B's.
x is an A.
x has B's.

Evaluating the structure of an argument is tricky. Here's the main idea regarding what counts as a good structure: the premises provide us with enough information for us to figure out the conclusion from them. In other words, the premises, if they were true, would logically show us that the conclusion is true. So, if you believed the premises, they would convince you that the conclusion is worth believing, too.

Note I did NOT say that the premises are actually true in a good-structured argument. Structure is only about truth-preservation, not about whether the premises are actually true or false. What's "truth preservation" mean? Well, truth-preserving arguments are those whose structures are such that if you stick in true premises, you get a true conclusion.

The premises you've actually stuck into this particular structure could be good (true) or bad (false). That's what makes evaluating an arg's structure so weird. To check the structure, you have to ignore what you actually know about the premises being true or false.

Good Structured Arguments
If we assume that all the premises are true, then the conclusion will also be true for an argument to have a good structure. Notice we are only assuming truth, not guaranteeing it. Again, this makes sense, because we’re truth-preservers: if the premises are true, the conclusion that follows will be true.

EXAMPLES:
1) All humans are mammals.
All mammals have hair.
All humans have hair.

2) If it snows, then it’s below 32 degrees.
It is snowing right now.
It’s below 32 degrees right now.

3) All humans are mammals.
All mammals have wings.
All humans have wings.

4) Either Yao is tall or Spud is tall.
Yao is not tall.
Therefore, Spud is tall.

Even though arguments 3 and 4 are ultimately bad, they still have good structure (their underlying form is good). The second premise of argument 3 is false—not all mammals have wings—but it has the same exact structure of argument 1—a good structure. Same with argument 4: the second premise is false (Yao Ming is about 7 feet tall), but the structure is good (it’s either this or that; it’s not this; therefore, it’s that).

To evaluate the structure, then, assume that all the premises are true. Imagine a world in which all the premises are true. In that world, are you able to figure out from the premises that the conclusion is also true? Or can you imagine a scenario in that world in which the premises are true, but the conclusion is still false? If you can imagine this situation, then the argument's structure is bad. If you cannot, then the argument is truth-preserving (inputting truths gives you a true output), and thus the structure is good.

Bad Structured Arguments
In an argument with a bad structure, you can’t draw the conclusion from the premises – the premises don’t give you enough information. Bad structured arguments do not preserve truth.

EXAMPLES:
1) All humans are mammals.
All whales are mammals.
All humans are whales.

2) If it snows, then it’s below 32 degrees.
It doesn’t snow.
It’s not below 32 degrees.

3) All humans are mammals.
All students in our class are mammals.
All students in our class are humans.

4) Either Yao is tall or Spud is short.
Yao is tall.
Spud is short.

Even though arguments 3 and 4 have all true premises and a true conclusion, they are still have a bad structure, because their form is bad. Argument 3 has the same exact structure as argument 1—a bad structure (it doesn’t preserve truth).

Even though in the real world the premises and conclusion of argument 3 are true, we can imagine a world in which all the premises of argument 3 are true, yet the conclusion is false. For instance, imagine that our school starts letting dogs take classes. The second premise would still be true, but the conclusion would then be false.

The same goes for argument 4: even though Spud is short (Spud Webb is around 5 feet tall), this argument doesn’t guarantee this. The structure is bad (it’s either this or that; it’s this; therefore, it’s that, too.). We can imagine a world in which Yao is tall, the first premise is true, and yet Spud is tall, too.

That Beyoncé Video WAS Great...

Why doesn't Kanye give a toast to the tools?

Howard Sure Is a Duck

Howard the Duck is my favorite synecdoche for the 80's:

Philosophers In Their Own Words

Photographer Steve Pyke has a cool series of portraits of philosophers. Many of the philosophers also provide a short explanation of their understanding of what it is they do. Here are a few of my favorites:

Delia Graff Fara:

"By doing philosophy we can discover eternal and mind independent truths about the ’real’ nature of the world by investigating our own conceptions of it, and by subjecting our most commonly or firmly held beliefs to what would otherwise be perversely strict scrutiny."

Kit Fine:

"Philosophy is the strangest of subjects: it aims at rigour and yet is unable to establish any results; it attempts to deal with the most profound questions and yet constantly finds itself preoccupied with the trivialities of language; and it claims to be of great relevance to rational enquiry and the conduct of our life and yet is almost completely ignored. But perhaps what is strangest of all is the passion and intensity with which it is pursued by those who have fallen in its grip."

Sally Haslanger (only available in the book):

"Given the amount of suffering and injustice in the world, I flip-flop between thinking that doing philosophy is a complete luxury and that it is an absolute necessity. The idea that it is something in between strikes me as a dodge. So I do it in the hope that it is a contribution, and with the fear that I’m just being self-indulgent. I suppose these are the moral risks life is made of."

Philosophy: The Annoying 3-Year-Old

Here's comedian Louis CK's take on the broad, fundamental questions kids ask.

Louis CK - Why?

Homework #1: Email Subscription

So why does this course have a blog? Well, why is anything anything?

A blog is a website that works like a journal – users write posts that are sorted by date based on when they were written. You can find important course information (like assignments, due dates, reading schedules, etc.) on the blog. I’ll also be updating the blog throughout the semester, posting interesting items related to the stuff we’re currently discussing in class. You don't have to visit the blog if you don't want to. It's just a helpful resource. I've used a blog for this course a lot, and it's seemed helpful. Hopefully it can benefit our course, too.

Since I’ll be updating the blog a lot throughout the semester, you should check it frequently. There are, however, some convenient ways to do this without simply going to the blog each day. The best way to do this is by getting an email subscription, so any new blog post I write automatically gets emailed to you. (You can also subscribe to the rss feed, if you know what that means.) To get an email subscription:

1. Go to http://2011cccbioethics.blogspot.com.

2. At the main page, enter your email address at the top of the right column (under “EMAIL SUBSCRIPTION: Enter your Email”) and click the "Subscribe me!" button.

3. This will take you to a new page. Follow the directions under #2, where it says “To help stop spam, please type the text here that you see in the image below. Visually impaired or blind users should contact support by email.” Once you type the text, click the "Subscribe me!" button again.

4. You'll then get an email regarding the blog subscription. (Check your spam folder if you haven’t received an email after a day.) You have to confirm your registration. Do so by clicking on the "Click here to activate your account" link in the email you receive.

5. This will bring you to a page that says "Your subscription is confirmed!" Now you're subscribed.

If you are unsure whether you've subscribed, ask me (609-980-8367; slandis@camdencc.edu). I can check who's subscribed and who hasn't.

Course Details

Camden County College, Blackwood Campus
Philosophy 232-03
Fall 2011
Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
noon – 12:50 p.m. in Madison Hall, Room 311

Instructor: Sean Landis
Email: slandis@camdencc.edu
Phone: 609-980-8367
Course Website: http://2011cccbioethics.blogspot.com
Office Hourse: by appointment

Required Text
Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Medial Ethics, 9th Edition, by Ronald Munson

About the Course
This course is designed to introduce students to philosophical thinking and some specific ethical concerns unique to the medical community. During the course, we will be studying particular moral problems that face people in the biomedical professions. Topics include abortion, stem-cell research, genetic control, euthanasia, our treatment of animals, the economics of health care, race and gender, and truth telling.

We will also be developing various philosophical skills, including:

• Understanding: the ability to identify and explain an author’s main point in your own words, along with the ability to identify and explain an author’s argument in support of this main point.
• Evaluating: the ability to critically and charitably determine whether these arguments provide accurate, logical reasons in support of their main points, along with the ability to engage in critical and charitable dialogue with people who hold different views from your own.
• Defending: the ability to develop your own arguments in support of your opinions on the ethical issues we study, along with the ability to honestly assess your opinions and critically evaluate the quality of your arguments in support of them.

A broader goal of this course is to gain an appreciation for philosophical reflection. Hopefully, we will learn that careful, deliberate examination of the ethical assumptions we often take for granted can improve our own approach to morality, and make us better in our anticipated roles in the medical community.


Grades
900-1000 points = A
800-899 points = B
700-799 points = C
600-699 points = D
below 600 points = F.

Test #1 150 points
Test #2 250 points
Quiz #1 50 points
Quiz #2 100 points
Consensus Session 200 points
Term Paper 150 points
Fun Fridays 50 points total
Attendance/Participation 50 points total

Tests: The first test covers everything we go over during the first month of the course (all the ethical theories we study), and will last the full period (50 minutes) on the scheduled day. The second test is cumulative—that is, it covers everything we study throughout the whole course. The second test will also last 50 minutes, and be held during finals week.

Quizzes: Unlike the exams, quizzes will not be cumulative. Quiz #1 will test you on everything covered during the first 2 weeks of class, and quiz #2 will test you on 4 weeks of material covered after Test #1. Quizzes will last 25 minutes, and be held at the beginning of the period on the scheduled day.

Consensus Session: This will be an in-class, group oral presentation. During the second half of the semester, we will be going over specific ethical debates. Each group of 3-6 students will be assigned to research the ethical topic that we’re discussing that week, present a short lesson on it to the rest of class, and run a voting session on the issue being debated.

Paper: This will be an argumentative essay based on some of the applied ethical issues we study in the second half of the semester.

Fun Fridays: There will three in-class graded assignments scheduled on some Fridays during the semester.

Attendance/Participation: Most of this will be based on your attendance. If you’re there every class, you’ll get full credit for the attendance portion of this grade. Also, there will be a lot of informal group work throughout the semester. Group work can impact this grade.

Extra Credit: I like giving extra credit! I’ll be giving some official extra credit assignments throughout the semester. I’ll also be offering some extra credit points more informally during class time. Remind me about this if I slack off on dishing out extra credit points.

Classroom Policies
Academic Integrity: Cheating and plagiarism (using someone else’s words or ideas in a paper or assignment without giving credit to the source) will not be tolerated in the class. Students found guilty of either will definitely fail the exam or assignment on which they plagiarize—and possibly the entire class.

Attendance: I take attendance each class. CCC policy prohibits you from completing a course if you have been absent for more than 2 weeks (6 classes)—excused or unexcused.

Excused Absences: Any assignment will only be rescheduled for an excused absence. Excused absences include religious observance, official college business, and illness or injury (with a doctor’s note). An unexcused absence on the day of any assignment or test will result in a zero on that assignment or test. Make-up quizzes and exams will be arranged through the Test Center (2nd floor of the Library).

Disability Accommodations: If you have special requirements let me know as soon as possible so we can make all necessary arrangements.

Course Schedule

*This schedule is tentative and will probably change a lot*

August 31—September 2: Intro to Class / Doing Philosophy
Wednesday: Introduction to Class (no reading)
Friday: Introduction to Doing Philosophy (no reading)

September 5—9: Arguments
Monday: LABOR DAY (no class)
Wednesday: Understanding Arguments (handout)
Friday: Evaluating Arguments (group work) (no reading)

September 12—16: Arguments & Utilitarianism
Monday: Argument wrap-up (no reading)
Wednesday: QUIZ #1; Intro to Ethical Theories (no reading)
Friday: Utilitarianism explained (pgs. 862-870)

September 19—23: Utilitarianism, Kant,& Ross
Monday: Utilitarianism evaluated (pg. 870)
Wednesday: Kantian Ethics (pgs. 870-876)
Friday: Ross’s Seven Duties (pgs. 876-881)

September 26—30: Natural Law Theory & Virtue Ethics
Monday: Natural Law Theory (pgs. 885-891)
Wednesday: Virtue Ethics (pgs. 905-907)
Friday: FUN FRIDAY #1: Self-Improvement (no reading)

October 3—7: Virtue Ethics & Feminist Ethics
Monday: Virtue Ethics (handout)
Wednesday: Ethics of Care / Feminist Ethics (pgs. 907-914)
Friday: Review for Test #1

October 10—14: Test #1 & Abortion
Monday: TEST #1
Wednesday: Abortion | Warren: Human vs. Person (pgs. 482-490)
Friday: Abortion | Warren (continued) (pgs. 454-461)

October 17—21: Abortion
Monday: Abortion | Warren (no new reading) (Sample Consensus Session #1)
Wednesday: Abortion | Marquis (pgs. 461-465) (Sample Consensus Session #2)
Friday: Abortion wrap-up (no new reading)

October 24—28: Embryonic Stem Cells
Monday: Stem Cells intro (pgs. 249-259) & Pontifical Academy (pgs. 324-325)
Wednesday: Stem Cells |Hyun; CONSENSUS SESSION #1 (pgs. 316-319)
Friday: Stem Cells | Magill & Neaves; CONSENSUS SESSION #2 (pgs. 319-323)

October 31—November 4: Genetic Screening & Cloning
Monday: Genetic Screening | McMahan (pgs. 281-284)
Wednesday: Genetic Screening | Davis; CONSENSUS SESSION #3 (pgs. 285-294)
Friday: Cloning | Kass; CONSENSUS SESSION #4 (pgs. 401-406, 341-346)

November 7—11: Cloning & Reproduction
Monday: Cloning | Strong; CONSENSUS SESSION #5 (pgs. 406-411)
Wednesday: Reproduction | Hanscombe; CONSENSUS SESSION #6 (pgs. 406-409, 369-377)
Friday: FUN FRIDAY #2: Heterosexism (pgs. 406-409)

November 14—18: Impaired Infants & Euthanasia
Monday: Impaired Infants | Engelhardt; CONSENSUS SESSION #7 (pgs 543-548)
Wednesday: Impaired Infants | Robertson (pgs. 536-543); group work
Friday: Euthanasia | Callahan CONSENSUS SESSION #8 (pgs. 596-600)

November 21—25: Euthanasia
Monday: Euthanasia | Rachels; CONSENSUS SESSION #9 (pgs. 585-589, 578-585)
Wednesday: Euthanasia| Lee (pgs. 589-593) and Oregon (pgs. 573-578)
Friday: THANKSGIVING BREAK (no class) (woo?)


November 28—December 2: Animal Research & Race and Gender
Monday: QUIZ #2; Animal Research | Singer (pgs. 196-203)
Wednesday: Animal Research | Cohen; CONSENSUS SESSION #10 (pgs. 203-209)
Friday: FUN FRIDAY #3: Sexism & Racism (pgs. 745-750, 788-792)

December 5—9: Race and Gender & Economics of Health Care
Monday: Race and Gender | Dula; CONSENSUS SESSION #11 (pgs. 798-804)
Wednesday: Health Care Economics| Old vs. New (675-684)
Friday: Health Care Economics | Daniels; CONSENSUS SESSION #12 (pgs. 713-716)

December 12—16: The Economics of Health Care
Monday: Health Care Economics | Sreenivassan (pgs. 716-724); group work
Wednesday: Health Care Economics | Wrap-up (pgs. 689-694)
Monday: TERM PAPER DUE; review for Test #2

December 19: Test #2
Monday: TEST #2 (noon-12:50 p.m.)

Important Dates
August 30th: Last day to drop a course & receive a 100% refund.
September 14th: Last day to drop a course & receive a 50% refund.
September 21st: Last day to sign up to audit a course.
December 2nd: Last day to withdraw from Fall classes.