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.

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.

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?

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.