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)

Team Steroids

Here are some links:

An Unfair Advantage (Center of Applied Ethics)
In Defense of Steroids (Reason)
The Overhyped Harm of Steroids (National Review)
Don't Believe the Hype (Reason)
The Steroid Wars (New Yorker)
Yes, Steroids Enhance, But So Does Steak (Slate)
HGH: No Side Effects, But it Doesn't Work (Slate)
Remember, THG Was Legal and Not Banned by B'ball (Slate)

Team Egoism

First, you should read some of the section on Morality and Self-Interest (beginning on page 31o) in our Vice and Virtue textbook. Some specific articles worth reading: Rachels's "Egoism and Moral Skepticism" (pages 332-342), Pojman's "Egoism, Self-Interest, and Altruism" (345-349), Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness" (342-345), and Browne's "The Unselfishness Trap" (327-332).

Also, here are some links:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Article on Egoism
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy Article on Egoism
Reason's Issue on Ayn Rand
Rand, Net Philosopher-Queen (London Review of Books)
Benevolent Egoism: Yes, But is it Egoism? (Reason)

Team Death Penalty

First, you should read the section on the death penalty in the "Do the Right Thing" textbook. This includes the articles by Louis Pojman and Hugo Adam Bedau on pages 361-383.

Also, here are some links:

• Here's an encyclopedia of philosophy article on the death penalty.
• Here's a large collection of resources on the ethics of capital punishment. I mean, wow.
• What about the financial cost of the death penalty? Although it's common sense to think that keeping a criminal in prison for life would cost more than putting her to death, many studies suggest that the opposite is true. The additional legal battles in death penalty cases may cost more than a life sentence.
• Finally, here's a nice article on measuring the reliability of the justice system. How often do courts convict the wrong person?

Natty Law & Virtue Ethics

Here are some links on recent stuff we've done in class.

• An audio interview on Aquinas's natural law theory of ethics.
• Two audio interviews (one and two) on virtue ethics.
• An audio interview on Aristotle and happiness.

Also, here's a visual reminder of the just-right aspect of virtue ethics:

Midterm on Monday

This is just a reminder that the midterm is on Monday, November 3rd.

Also, CONGRATS TO THE WORLD CHAMPIONS OF BASEBALL!

Black + White = Gold

For those who don't know what a mashup is, you're in luck. You can start with one of the best ones out there:

(December 4th, from DJ Danger Mouse's Grey Album)

The internet has more to say about the Grey Album here.

Kant, You Ignorant Slut

I thought it might help us all if I opened up a post dedicated solely to complaining about how tough the Immanuel Kant reading was. Leave your best Kant insults insults in the comments of this post.

[can't get enough Kant?]
[want tips on reading these articles?]

Links Worthy of a Swine

Here are some links that are loosely related to the stuff on happy ethics (utilitarianism) that we are studying. Most of these deal with psychology. There's a lot of psychological research on happiness popping up lately. The first two links are overviews of the psychology of happiness:

Some Dark Thoughts on Happiness
and
Hedonic Man

The second is a slightly optimistic take on our ability to change our baseline level of happiness. This is important to know for an ethical theory that values maximizing happiness:

The Hedonic Set Point Can Go Up

The next link deals with a famous moral thought experiment, the trolley problem. This gets brought up a lot when evaluating happy ethics:

Psychology of the Trolley Problem

The last link is an advanced overview of consequentialist ethical theories. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, since it only looks at the consequences of an action to figure out whether an action is morally good or bad:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Entry: Consequentialism

So what makes you happy? WaWa? Ping pong? Cookies?

God Stuff

Here are some links on God ethics (divine command theory).

• A transcript and audio of the entire F.C. Copleston & Bertrand Russell debate on the existence of God excerpted in our John Arthur reading. (Or just click the 'play' button on the audio player below.)
  
• A quick explanation of the Euthyphro Dilemma.
• An advanced overview of God ethics from my favorite free online philosophy encyclopedia (yes, there are more than one free online philosophy encyclopedias).

Cole Hamels Is An Exception

Thanks to Josh, our anti-I'M-SPECIAL-ism pin made it to the Phillies game today. Not to go against the message of the pin or anything, but I'm taking credit for the win. Clearly the pin is lucky.

Paper #1 Guidelines

The first paper is due at the beginning of class on Friday, October 17th. It's worth 5% of your final grade. Here's the assignment:

Assignment: Write an argumentative essay on one of the topics below. Papers must be typed, and must be between 300-600 words long. Provide a word count on the first page of the paper. (Most programs like Microsoft Word & WordPerfect have automatic word counts.)

Paper Topics:
1. Out of the eight ethical theories that we have studied—cultural relativism, God ethics (divine command), happy ethics (utilitarianism), Kant, Aquinas’s natural law, Aristotle’s virtue ethics, Kohlberg’s moral development, and Gilligan’s ethics of care—which do you think is best? Why? What are some (at least two) seemingly good objections that someone might make to that theory? How would you reply to those objections? Explain & defend your position.

2. Provide a detailed criticism of one of the ethical theories we’ve discussed in class. First, explain the theory, and present a charitable argument (what you take to be the best argument) in its favor. Then critically evaluate the argument. What are good objections to the argument? Consider how a proponent of the theory might respond to your objections, and explain why these responses are unsuccessful.

3. Which do you think is more important in determining whether an action is morally right or wrong: the consequences of the action (what happens as a result of the action), or the motivations behind the action (the reasons why someone chooses that action over other actions)? Why?

-Describe an ethical theory that we have studied that care more about the consequences of an action.
-Then describe an ethical theory that we have studied that care more about the motivations of actions.
-In arguing for one side over the other, describe a specific moral dilemma in which these theories would give different decisions based on the action’s consequences vs. its motivations. Be sure to fully explain and defend your position.

[NOTE: I’m not looking for one right choice here. You can choose either side, as long as you defend it with a well-reasoned argument.]

4. In class, we’ve discussed the “Hitler Intuition”: Hitler’s actions don’t just seem wrong for you or me; they seem objectively wrong. Many have used this intuition to support the claim that there must be an objective morality of some kind. Examine this intuition.

-If you agree that it is solid evidence for objective morality, explain exactly how this intuition works. What makes it objectively true that Hitler was immoral? What is the basis of your judgment? In other words, what grounds objective morality? Which ethical theory we’ve discussed do you think this supports? Explain and defend all your answers.
-If you do not believe that this intuition is solid evidence for objective morality, you are probably a relativist. Explain why this intuition doesn’t provide enough evidence for the existence of an objective morality. Why is it OK to say that Hitler’s actions weren’t universally bad? How is it that Hitler is simply bad to me, but not objectively bad?

5. Within the parameters of ethical theories discussed in class, write on a topic of your choosing. (Sean must approve your topic by Friday, October 10th.)

Quiz #1

Quiz #1 will be held at the beginning of class on Friday, September 26th. You will have about 25 minutes to take it. There will be a section on evaluating arguments, and 4 short answer questions on the topic of ethical relativism (the Herodotus, Ruth Benedict, and Thomas Nagel readings). The quiz is worth 7.5% of your overall grade.

Feel free to insult me in the comments for putting you through the terrible ordeal of taking a quiz on a Friday.

Relative to You, But Not to Me

Here are some links on ethical relativism.

• an advanced overview of various versions of moral relativism (from a free online philosophy encyclopedia)
• Ruth Benedict and Herodotus
• The Kwakiutl from Northwest America [Google Kwakiutl!]
• The Dobu of Melanesia
• Cannibalism!
• An interview with a moral psychologist who supports a sophisticated version of ethical relativism
• An argument against the DIVERSITY THESIS: cultures morally agree more than they disagree
• A webcam dialogue on morality, psychology, and religion

Evaluating Args

Here are the answers to the handout on evaluating arguments that we went over in class. Perhaps I should have titled the handout "So Many Bad Args!"

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

Overall Good (good structure and true premises)

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

Bad Structure (what if a dog were a student in our class?), so Overall Bad (even though the premises are true)

3) (from Stephen Colbert)
Bush is either a great prez or the greatest prez.
Bush isn’t a great prez.
Bush is the greatest prez.

Questionable Premises, so Overall Bad (even though it has a good structure)

4) All BCC students are humans.
Most humans are shorter than 7 feet tall.
Most BCC students are shorter than 7 feet tall.

Bad Structure (there could be a lot of tall BCC students even if most humans aren't tall), so Overall Bad (even though the premises are true)

5) Some people are funny.
Sean is a person.
Sean is funny.

Bad Structure (only some are funny, so I don't have to be funny), so Overall Bad (even though the premises are true)

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

False 2nd Premise (and questionable 1st premise), so Overall Bad (even though the structure is good)

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

Questionable 1st Premise, so Overall Bad (even though the structure is good)

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

Bad Structure (students could cringe for a different reason) (and questionable 1st premise), so Overall Bad

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

Bad Structure, so Overall Bad (even though the premises are true)

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

Questionable 1st premise, so Overall Bad (even though the structure is good)

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

Questionable 2nd premise, so Overall Bad (even though the structure is good)

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

Bad Structure (I don't have to sing for students to cringe) and False 2nd premise (and questionable 1st premise), so Overall Bad

13) This class is boring.
All boring things are taught by Sean
This class is taught by Sean.

Questionable 1st Premise and False 2nd Premise, so Overall Bad (even though the structure is good)

(More on Sisyphus)

Understanding Args

Here are the answers to the extra credit assignment on understanding arguments.

1. (P1) Fairdale has the best team.
(C) Fairdale will win the championship

2. (P1) The housing market is depressed.
(P2) Interest rates are low.
(C) It's a good time to buy a home.

3. (P1) China is guilty of extreme human rights abuses.
(P2) China refuses to implement democratic reforms.
(C) The U.S. should refuse to deal with the present Chinese government.

4. (P1) The results of the Persian Gulf War were obviously successful for the U.S. military.
(C) The U. S. military is both capable and competent.

5. (P1) Scientific discoveries are continually debunking religious myths.
(P2) Science provides the only hope for solving the many problems faced by humankind.
(C) Science provides a more accurate view of human life than does religion.

6. (P1) Freedom of speech and expressions are essential to a democratic form of government.
(P2) As soon as we allow some censorship, it won't be long before censorship will be used to silence the opinions critical of the government.
(P3) Once we allow some censorship, we will have no more freedom than the Germans did under Hitler.
(C) We must resist all effort to allow the government to censor entertainment.

7. (P1) I'm very good at my job.
(C) I deserve a raise.

8. (P1) Jesse is one year old.
(P2) Most one-year-olds can walk.
(C) Jesse can walk.

9 (P1) The revocation of the 55 mph speed limit has resulted in an increased number of auto fatalities.
(C) we must alleviate this problem with stricter speed limit enforcement.

10. (P1) The last person we hired from Bayview Tech turned out to be a bad employee.
(C) I'm not willing to hire anybody else from that school again.

11. (P1) Maebe didn't show up for work today.
(P2) Maebe has never missed work unless she was sick.
(C) Maebe is probably sick today.

11. (P1) The United States, as the most powerful nation in the world, has a moral obligation to give assistance to people who are subjected to inhumane treatment.
(P2) The ethnic Albanians were being persecuted in Kosovo.
(C) It was proper for the U.S. to become involved in the air campaign against Kosovo.

----------------
Hat tip: I took some of the examples (with some revisions) from Beth Rosdatter's website, and some (with some revisions) from Jon Young's website.

Defining Our Terms

1. Tool: Here's one Urban Dictionary definition of "tool," the one I had in mind when referring to Dane Cook:

someone who tries too hard. a poser. one of those chic's who holds the sign saying "Carson Daly is Hot." the asstard who goes to a rock show because they heard one of the songs on the radio or mtv. or someone who insists on wearing velour sweat suits. Avril Lavigne.

2. Fugly: uh, rather ugly. Moe Szyslak has been called a few variations of this term.

3. Emo Kid: "Emo" has a ton of meanings. The wikipedia article on "emo" has a nice history of the term. Plus, there's always stand-up comedian Emo Phillips:


Did I forget any terms? Let me know!

Email Subscriptions

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

A blog (short for “web log”) 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. I used a blog for this course last semester, and it 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://ccc08ethics.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 Schedule

September 3—5: Intro to Class/Relativism
Wednesday: Introduction to Class (no reading)
Friday: Doing Philosophy (no reading)

September 8—12: Relativism/Divine Command
Monday: Relativism: Herodotus, Benedict (VV 134 -143)
Wednesday: Relativism: Nagel (VV 174 – 178)
Friday: Divine Command: Mortimer (VV 79-83)

September 15—19: Divine Command Theory/Utilitarianism
Monday: Divine Command: Arthur (VV 83-91)
Wednesday: Utilitarianism: Mill (VV 95-100)
Friday: Utilitarianism: Williams (VV 100-107)

September 22—26: Utiliarianism/Deontological Theory
Monday: QUIZ #1; Utilitarianism: group work (no reading)
Wednesday: Deontological Theory: Kant (VV 113-123)
Friday: Deontological Theory: group work (no reading)

September 29—October 3: Deontological Theory/Natural Law
Monday: Deontological Theory: Taylor (VV 128-133)
Wednesday: Natural Law: Dimock (DTRT 43-59)
Friday: Natural Law: group work (reread Dimock [DTRT 43-59])

October 6—10: Virtue Ethics
Monday: Virtue Ethics: Aristotle (VV 193-208)
Wednesday: Virtue Ethics: Rachels (VV 251-265)
Friday: Virtue Ethics: group work (catch up on the week’s readings)

October 13—17: Ethics of Care/Social Contract Theory
Monday: Ethics of Care: Kohlberg’s Moral Development (handout)
Wednesday: Ethics of Care: Gilligan’s Ethics of Care (handout)
Friday: PAPER #1 due; Social Contract: Rawls (DTRT 464-483)

October 20—24: Social Contract Theory/Review
Monday: Social Contract: Rawls (DTRT 464-483)
Wednesday: review for Midterm (no reading)
Friday: MIDTERM

October 27—31: Abortion
Monday: Abortion: Warren (DTRT 183-189)
Wednesday: Abortion: Schwarz (DTRT 190-208)
Friday: Abortion: group work (catch up on the week’s readings)

November 3—7: Euthanasia
Monday: Euthanasia: Rachels (DTRT 255-267)
Wednesday: Euthanasia: Chamberlain (DTRT 268-283)
Friday: Euthanasia: group work (catch up on the week’s readings)

November 10—14: Euthanasia/The Death Penalty
Monday: Euthanasia: Quill (DTRT 284 -288)
Wednesday: Death Penalty: Pojman (DTRT 361-370)
Friday: Death Penalty: Bedau (DTRT 371-383)

November 17—21: The Death Penalty/World Hunger
Monday: Death Penalty: group work (catch up on readings)
Wednesday: QUIZ #2; World Hunger: Singer (VV 365-374)
Friday: World Hunger: Arthur (VV 375-380) & Shikwati (VV 381-384)

November 24—26: World Hunger
Monday: World Hunger: group work (catch up on readings)
Wednesday: PAPER #2 due; work on group presentations (no reading)
Friday: THANKSGIVING BREAK (no class) (woo?)


December 1—5: Animal Rights/Affirmative Action
Monday: Animal Rights: Rachels (VV 467-473)
Wednesday: Animal Rights: Scruton (VV 496-500)
Friday: catch up day (no reading)

December 8—12: Group Presentations
Monday: prepare for group presentations (no reading)
Wednesday: group presentations
Friday: group presentations

December 15—19: Group Presentations/Review/Final
Monday: group presentations
Wednesday: review for Final Exam
Friday: FINAL EXAM

Course Details

Introduction to Ethics
Camden County College, Blackwood Campus
Philosophy 131
Fall 2008
Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
Section 03: 9:00 a.m. – 9:50 a.m. in Madison Hall, Room 311
Section 01: 10:00 a.m. – 10:50 a.m. in Madison Hall, Room 311

Instructor: Sean Landis
Email: slandis@camdencc.edu
Phone: 609-980-8367
Course Website: http://ccc08ethics.blogspot.com

Required Texts
Vice & Virtue in Everyday Life, 7th Edition, Christina & Fred Sommers (VV)
Do the Right Thing, 2nd Edition, Francis J. Beckwith (DTRT)

About the Course
This course is split into two halves: theory and practice. During the first half, we will study several ethical theories that attempt to answer broad questions about the nature of morality. What are the various ways that philosophers describe the difference between things that are morally right and wrong? Are the consequences of what we do more important than the motivation behind our actions, or vice versa? Does morality require God? Are ethical theories nothing more than cultural constructions?

In the second half of the course, we will apply these theories to particular ethical problems. Topics include abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, world hunger, and animal rights. The goal of this course is to develop a philosophical understanding of what underlies moral claims and apply this understanding to our own ethical beliefs.

Grades
90-100% = A
80-89% = B
70-79% = C
60-69% = D
below 60% = F

Midterm 15%
Final 25%
Quizzes (2) 7.5% each (15% total)
First Short Paper 5%
Second Short Paper 15%
Homework 5% total
Oral Report 15%
Attendance/Participation 5%

Exams: There will be a midterm and a final exam. The midterm tests everything covered during the first half of the course, and will last the full period (50 minutes) on the scheduled day. The final exam is cumulative—that is, it tests everything covered throughout the whole course. The final will last 50 minutes, and will take place on the last day of class.

Quizzes: Unlike the exams, quizzes will not be cumulative. That is, quiz #1 will test you on everything covered during the first 4 weeks of class, and quiz #2 will test you on everything covered after exam #1 (weeks 7 through 9). Quizzes will last 20 to 25 minutes, and be held at the beginning of the period on the scheduled day.

Oral Report: The oral report will be a group project presented in front of the class toward the end of the semester. Each group of 3-5 students will research a topic in ethics not discussed in class, and present a 10- to 15-minute lesson on it to the rest of class.

Papers: There will be two papers, the first a short one on ethical theory and the second a longer one on one or more of the applied topics we discuss.

Homework: Homework assignments are due at the beginning of class the day they are due.

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

Extra Credit: There will be some optional extra credit assignments available throughout the semester.

Classroom Policies
Academic Integrity: Cheating and plagiarism (using someone else’s words or ideas 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—and possibly the entire class. FYI: I’m pretty good at catching plagiarism. I recommend not trying it!

Excused Absenses: Make-up exams, quizzes, in-class projects, and oral reports will only be rescheduled for any excused absences (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.

Important Dates
August 29th: Last day to drop a course & receive a 100% refund.
September 15th: Last day to drop a course & receive a 50% refund.
September 15th: Late registration deadline.
September 22nd: Last day to sign up to audit a course.
December 3rd: Last day to withdrawal from Fall Classes.