10/29 Classes Canceled

Due to Hurricane Sandy, Camden County College has canceled all classes and activities for Monday, October 29th.

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:

Consensus Groups: 10:00 a.m. Class

Here are the groups for our consensus sessions in the 10:00 class, along with the article you're assigned to present on and the date you're presenting:

Animal Ethics
-Group 1 on November 19 (email due Nov. 12) (Norcross article - YELLOW pgs. 307-322): Dennis, Kate, Ryan

The Death Penalty
-Group 2 on November 26 (email due Nov. 19) (Primoratz article – YELLOW pgs. 388-397): Lou, Mike H., Rich
-Group 3 on November 28 (email due Nov. 21) (Nathanson article – YELLOW pgs. 398-407): Jessenia, Tiffany, Tim

Euthanasia
-Group 4 on December 5 (email due November 28) (Rachels article - YELLOW pgs. 266-271): Alexandra A., Dylan, Kristin

Torture
-Group 5 on December 7 (email due Nov. 30) (Dershowitz article – YELLOW pgs. 293-306): Alex, Elizabeth, Sam

Environmental Ethics
-Group 6 on December 12 (email due Dec. 5) (Hill article – YELLOW pgs. 336-350): Devon, Ian

Charity
-Group 7 on December 14 (email due Dec. 7) (Singer article – YELLOW pgs. 229-236): Amy, Gianna, Mike C.
-Group 8 on December 17 (email due December 10) (Easterly handout: available here): no one

If you haven't been assigned to a group yet, let me know as soon as possible so we can get you assigned to one.

Consensus Groups: 9:00 a.m. Class

Here are the groups for our consensus sessions in the 9:00 class, along with the article you're assigned to present on and the date you're presenting:

Animal Ethics
-Group 1 on November 19 (email due Nov. 12) (Norcross article - YELLOW pgs. 307-322): Destinee, Kelly K, Kellie S.

The Death Penalty
-Group 2 on November 26 (email due Nov. 19) (Primoratz article – YELLOW pgs. 388-397): Andrew P., Caitlin, Courtney, Nora, Rebecca
-Group 3 on November 28 (email due Nov. 21) (Nathanson article – YELLOW pgs. 398-407): Allen, Andrew M., Ariel, Shauna

Euthanasia
-Group 4 on December 5 (email due November 28) (Rachels article - YELLOW pgs. 266-271): Joy, Katherin, Ryan, Tarra

Torture
-Group 5 on December 7 (email due Nov. 30) (Dershowitz article – YELLOW pgs. 293-306): Justin, Mike J., Mike Li., Sean

Environmental Ethics
-Group 6 on December 12 (email due Dec. 5) (Hill article – YELLOW pgs. 336-350): Brad, Mauricio, Mike Le., Paul

Charity
-Group 7 on December 14 (email due Dec. 7) (Singer article – YELLOW pgs. 229-236): A.C., Anthony, Chris, Joseph
-Group 8 on December 17 (email due December 10) (Easterly handout: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123621201818134757.html): no one

If you haven't been assigned to a group yet, let me know as soon as possible so we can get you assigned to one.

Consensus Session Guidelines

During the 2nd half of the semester we’ll be holding group presentations (9 a.m. class or 10 a.m. class) on specific issues we’ll be discussing in class. Your group’s assignment is to figure out the main argument from a specific article, then present that argument to your classmates in class and lead a discussion about whether the argument is good or bad. More specific directions are below:

Preparing for the Consensus Session
First, your group’s job is to understand and evaluate the argument contained in the readings for your issue.

Understand
1. Figure out the argument in your assigned article, and summarize it in a clear premise/conclusion format.
NOTE: Try to keep the argument concise and easy to understand.

Evaluate
2. Evaluate the argument as a group. Check each premise, and check the argument’s support.
3. When evaluating, play the back & forth game. That is, consider as many responses to the argument and your criticisms of it as you can think of. Is the argument misguided? Mistaken? Can you revise the argument to overcome the criticisms you come up with?
4. Try to reach a group-wide consensus on your evaluation of the argument.
NOTE: It doesn’t matter which side you end up on! The goal isn’t to show there’s something wrong about the argument. Nor do I want you to defend the argument no matter what. The goal is to figure out whether it’s good or bad.

Your group must email me (1) your version of the argument and (2) your group's evaluation of it one week before you’re scheduled to lead a session. I will provide helpful feedback, and make sure you’re on the right track.

Running the Consensus Session
During your consensus session, your group’s job is to present your article’s argument to the rest of the class, and lead a class-wide consensus session on each argument. Each group member should present about the same amount.

Presenting the Argument
1. Explain the main point of the reading.
2. Explain the author’s argument in support of this main point. (Explain it slowly and clearly, like you’re teaching it to the class. Explain what each premise means in easy-to-understand language. Point out exactly where each premise came from in the reading. Explain why the author believes each premise is true.)
3. Hold a small question and answer round with the class to explain and clarify the argument before evaluating it.

Consensus Voting
4. Run a consensus session (a thumbs up/thumbs down vote) with the rest of class where you evaluate the first premise of the argument.
5. Call on students to explain their evaluation (especially those who voted thumbs down or in the middle).
6. Go back & forth with every dissenter with the goal of trying to reach a consensus (complete agreement for the whole class). At this point, you can briefly explain your group’s evaluation of the premise, along with why your group evaluated it the way you did.
7. Based on the class-wide discussion, revise, defend, or clarify the argument as needed. Revote on any revisions.
8. Repeat steps 4 through 7 to evaluate each remaining premise and the argument’s support.

This is worth 150 points (15% of your overall grade). Except in unusual circumstances, each group member will receive the same grade.

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 a great overview of the psychology of happiness. And here is another, and another.
• 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 from my favorite free online philosophy encyclopedia on utilitarianism and other theories that focus on consequences of an action.
• (Yes, there is more than one free online philosophy encyclopedia. Here's another encyclopedia's entry on the same topic.)
• 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.

Natty Law

Here's a Bloggingheads video dialogue explaining and debating natural law theory:


Bloggingheads is a great resource that I've learned a lot from.  They post conversations between smart people on all sorts of interesting topics.  I recommend browsing the site, or checking out some of my favorites.

Am I A Jerk Because I Annoy You, Or Do I Annoy You Because I'm A Jerk?

Let's evaluate divine command theory!

• Two quick explanations (one and two) of the Euthyphro dilemma, the big criticism of divine command theory
  
• Some responses to the Euthyphro dilemma
• Other criticisms of divine command theory
• Important question: do the robot gods love what is pious because it is pious, or is something pious because it is loved by the robot gods?

• Let's hear God's response:

• But for obvious reasons, this one's my favorite:

God Ethics

Here are some links on divine command theory:

• A really nice overview of divine command theory
• A more advanced overview of divine command theory
• An article on the relationship between religion and morality
• Lots of philosophy links related to the broader question of whether there is or is not a god