Join the Club!

Still subscribed to this course blog? Nice.

So, I'm trying to start up a school club -- the "Owning Our Ignorance" club -- devoted to fun and logic, in that order. I've put up a blog for it over here.

Check it out. Please join if you're interested.

Goodbye to Yesterday...

Your grades are now posted. Happy New Year!


(Sorry, 9:00 class, I forgot to take your picture!)

Final Exam

Just a reminder that the final exam is on Friday, December 19th, in our normal classroom.

The exam is at our normal class period time: for the 9:00--9:50 a.m. class, it's at 9:00 a.m., and for the 10:00-10:50 a.m. class, it's at 10:00 a.m. The test will last 50 minutes.

Intellectual Honesty

Here's a little rant on a favorite topic of mine: intellectual honesty.

A simple goal of this class is to get us all to recognize what counts as good evidence and what counts as bad evidence for a claim. I think we're getting better at that. But it's not clear that we're caring about the difference once we figure it out.

Getting us to care is the real goal of this class. We should care about good evidence. We should care about it because it's what gets us closer to the truth. When we judge an argument to be overall good, THE POWER OF LOGIC COMPELS US to believe the conclusion. If we like an arg, but still go on stubbornly disagreeing with its conclusion, we are just being irrational.

This means we should be open-minded. We should be willing to let new evidence change our current beliefs. We should be open to the possibility that we might be wrong. This is how comedian Todd Glass puts it:


Admitting when we're wrong--or simply not guaranteed to be right, or not an expert--is a very important step in being intellectually honest. Here's an excerpt from a podcast I listen to called Jordan, Jesse GO! about owning our ignorance:


Here are the first two paragraphs of a great article I recently read on this:

Last week, I jokingly asked a health club acquaintance whether he would change his mind about his choice for president if presented with sufficient facts that contradicted his present beliefs. He responded with utter confidence. "Absolutely not," he said. "No new facts will change my mind because I know that these facts are correct."

I was floored. In his brief rebuttal, he blindly demonstrated overconfidence in his own ideas and the inability to consider how new facts might alter a presently cherished opinion. Worse, he seemed unaware of how irrational his response might appear to others. It's clear, I thought, that carefully constructed arguments and presentation of irrefutable evidence will not change this man's mind.

Ironically, having extreme confidence in oneself is often a sign of ignorance. In many cases, such stubborn certainty is unwarranted.

Moopheus

Here are some links on animal ethics:

• Vegetarians Still Love the Smell of Bacon
• David Foster Wallace: Consider the Lobster
• How to Cut Back on Meat Slowly
  
• Animal Research (Peter Singer's Sometimes OK with It!)
• Peter Singer on Michael Vick & Dog Fighting
  
• Audio Interview with Peter Singer
• Michael Pollan's "An Animal's Place"
• Is Worrying About the Ethics of Your Diet Elitist?
• Huge List of Resources on the Moral Status of Animals

The Meatrix

Paper #2 Guidelines

Due Date: Wednesday, December 17th, 2008

Worth: 15% of final grade

Assignment: Write an argumentative essay on the topic below. Papers must be typed, and must be between 600-1200 words long. Provide a word count on the first page of the paper. (Most programs like Microsoft Word & WordPerfect have automatic word counts.)

Explain your conception of personhood as it relates to morality.

(1) First, briefly explain and critically evaluate the different conceptions of personhood that we have discussed in class. Be sure to explain each conception offered by Mary Anne Warren, Stephen Schwarz, James Rachels, and Roger Scruton.

(2) Second, explain how each of these authors uses their conception to attempt to settle the particular ethical debate he or she wrote about. (Warren on abortion, Schwarz on abortion, Rachels on euthanasia, and Scruton on animal rights).

(3) Third, explain your conception of personhood: do you agree with one of these authors’ conceptions, or do you have one of your own?

(4) Fourth, explain the solution that your conception of personhood gives to the ethical debates of abortion, euthanasia, and animal rights.

When considering your conception of personhood, be sure to answer the following questions: Which living creatures are persons, and which living creatures are not persons? Do you believe that you need to be a “person” in the moral sense in order to have moral rights (in particular, the right to life and the right to not suffer unnecessarily)? Can someone have moral rights before they have moral duties? Be sure to fully explain and philosophically defend each of your answers.

We Have to Give?!?

Here is some stuff on giving to charity.

• Free Charity! The Hunger Site. You can donate food FOR FREE there! You can also donate rice for free by playing a word game at FreeRice.
• Here are some cheaper charities designed for people who can't donate a lot of money: The $10 Club, Microcredit, Oxfam.
• If you buy the arguments for giving to charity, you might want to research which charities aren't squandering their donations. Here are lists of reputable charities, sorted by type of charity (such as hunger or international relief).
• Here's an updated argument by Peter Singer with some interesting specific proposals.
• Here's the James Shikwati interview we read for class. (Shikwati's organization is online here. A similar organization you can donate to is online here.)
  
• The NPR program Fresh Air recently aired a radio interview with someone who agrees with Shikwati.
• Here's an interesting article in which Nicholas Kristof discusses many of the concerns Shikwati raises about giving aid to African nations. I especially recommend reading the last section of the article.
• Here's an article on all the reasons why we might give away the money we earn. This article even references Thomas Nagel's anti-I'M-SPECIAL-ism.
  

Now for some videos. Here is Peter Singer's appearance on The Colbert Report. He's talking about our next topic: animal ethics.

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Peter Singer

Ron Paul Interview
Bob Barr Interview

Green Screen
Bill O'Reilly Interview

And here's another short video of Peter Singer on giving to charity:

Youth In Asia

Ali G's Take on Euthanasia

Group Presentations: 10:00 Class

Here are the group assignments for the 10:00 a.m. class. If you're not in a group yet, let me know as soon as possible so we can get you in one.

Team Stem Cells (1st on Wednesday, 12/10/08)
Felicia, Lisa

Team Prostitution (2nd on Wednesday, 12/10/08)
Andrew G., Emily, Justin, Stef, Tareq, Tina

Team Steroids (3rd on Wednesday, 12/10/08)
Brandon, Jared, Mike H., Matthew, Tom

Team Torture (1st on Friday, 12/12/08)
Brittany, Jeanine, Lawren S., Megan, Sabrei, Victoria

Team Death Penalty (2nd on Friday, 12/12/08)
Andrew K., Jess, Krista, Lauren B., Melina

Team Porn (1st on Monday, 12/15/08)
Anthony, Josh, Mike F., Rob, Walt

Team Egoism (2nd on Monday, 12/15/08)
Alex, Dennis, K.C., Stephan, Weston

Also, I mentioned this in class, but just in case...

Attendance is mandatory for the group presentations on Wednesday (12/10/08), Friday (12/12/08), and Monday (12/15/08). It's the only time I'll be a stickler for it. Basically, I want you to show respect for the other groups presenting.

If you don't attend on either the days your group isn't presenting (and your absence isn't excused), your own personal presentation grade will drop. Each day you don't attend will lower your grade by a full letter grade.

One last thing: be sure to keep the presentations under 15 minutes. A 10-minute presentation is ideal, so we can have time for a short question-and-answer session afterwards.

Group Presentations: 9:00 Class

Here are the group assignments for the 9:00 a.m. class. If you're not in a group yet, let me know as soon as possible so we can get you in one.

Team Juice (1st on Wednesday, 12/10/08)
Chris, Jamil, Jason, Peter, Vince

Team Stem Cells (2nd on Wednesday, 12/10/08)
Alicia, Bill, Jeff, Robin, Vanessa

Team Prostitution (1st on Friday, 12/12/08)
Chas, Kristina, Matt, Rebecca

Team Business Ethics (2nd on Friday, 12/12/08)
Ayla, Bridgett, Flavio, Joe, Kitty

Team Torture (1st on Monday, 12/15/08)
Bernard, Greg, Jonathan, Mike

Team Porn (2nd on Monday, 12/15/08)
Amber, Jaime, Jay, Mahamadou, Troy

Also, I mentioned this in class, but just in case...

Attendance is mandatory for the group presentations on Wednesday (12/10/08), Friday (12/12/08), and Monday (12/15/08). It's the only time I'll be a stickler for it. Basically, I want you to show respect for the other groups presenting.

If you don't attend on either the days your group isn't presenting (and your absence isn't excused), your own personal presentation grade will drop. Each day you don't attend will lower your grade by a full letter grade.

One last thing: be sure to keep the presentations under 15 minutes. A 10-minute presentation is ideal, so we can have time for a short question-and-answer session afterwards.

Team Business Ethics

Here are some links on the ethics of Wal-Mart:

• Is Wal-Mart good for the working class? Here's a great debate between an economist who says yes and an activist who says no.
• How did Wal-Mart become the biggest retailer? Some point to Sam Walton's big idea that lowering prices would increase total sales and lead to higher profits. But another important development was how Wal-Mart streamlined its inventory process.
  
• Yes, Wal-Mart has low prices, and apparently the prices at other stores also go down in the long run when a Wal-Mart comes to town.
• Here are many of the common criticisms of Wal-Mart.
  
• Beware of false dilemmas! This isn't a zero-sum game: Wal-Mart doesn't have to raise its prices to raise its wages.
• Here's the full episode of South Park about a "Wall-Mart" coming to town. Below are some clips from the episode.
  

If you're looking for other topics in business ethics, check out the course blog for the business ethics course I teach at Rowan.

Team Prostitution

Here are some links on prostitution:

Feminism & Prostitution (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Radio Show on Morality of Prostitution (Philosophy Talk: check the additional links at the bottom of this page)
Why Is Prostitution Illegal? (Slate)
So Why Is Porn Legal? (Slate)
Legalize It, Already! (Reason)
Prostitution in America and Europe (Atlantic Monthly)
Sex Trafficking Around the World (NY Review of Books)
It Helps Marriages! (Times of London)
Utilitarians for Hookers? (National Review)
Criticism of the Utilitarian Arg (National Review)

Team Torture

Here are some links:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Article on Torture
The Dark Art of Interrogation (Atlantic Monthly)
Torture at Abu Ghraib (New Yorker)
How Much Torture is OK? (Reason)
A "Never Torture" Policy is Absurd (Weekly Standard)
Should We Care How Intelligence Is Gathered? (Atlantic Monthly)

Team Porn

First, you should check out the section on censorship and porn in our Do the Right Thing textbook, which begins on page 513.

Also, here are some links:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Porn & Free Speech
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Porn & Feminism
Can Feminism & Porn Coexist? (Bitch Magazine)
Exorcising Pornography (1985 Boston Review)
Exchange: MacKinnon & Dworkin (New York Review of Books)
In Praise of Porn (Reason)

Team Stem Cells & Cloning

First, for research on stem cells, you should check out the section of our Do the Right Thing textbook on fetal tissue transplants (pages 303-328). Then, for research on cloning, you should check out the 3 articles on cloning in our Vice & Virtue textbook (pages 421-462), as well as Shannon Smith's article on cloning in our Do the Right Thing textbook (pages 349-360).

Here are some links on stem cell research:

Ethics of Stem-Cell Research (SEP)

Wikipedia Entry on Stem Cell Controversy
A Moral Defense of Stem-Cell Research (Boston Review)
New Technique that Doesn't Destroy Embryos? (New York Times)
[Clarification (NY Times) Quelling the Hype (National Review)]
Even Newer Technique
Will Stem-Cell Research Help? (National Review)
Selling Alternatives Short (National Review)
What About Adult Stem Cells? (Weekly Standard)
What Pro-Lifers are Missing in the Stem-Cell Debate (Slate)
Embryo Ethics (Boston Globe)

And here are some links on cloning:

Overview of Cloning Debate
Science of Cloning (Human Genome Project)
Email Debate on Cloning (Slate)
Human Clones: Why Not? (Slate)
UN Urges Ban on Cloning (Weekly Review)
Confusion over Cloning (New York Review of Books)