Final Exam

Just a reminder: the final exam is Friday, December 21st, in our normal classroom and at our normal class time. You'll have 50 minutes to take it.

Extra Credit: "I Could've Done More"

Optional extra credit: Explain how Peter Singer thinks that we are in a similar situation as Oskar Schindler in this scene from Schindler's List. Do you agree with Singer? Why or why not?


The assignment doesn't have to be long (only about a paragraph). It's based on the Peter Singer article on pages 229-236 of the yellow textbook, and is due at the beginning of class on Friday, December 21st.  It's worth up to 10 points added to your final grade.

Quiz #2

Quiz #2 is worth 7.5% of your overall grade, and will be held at the beginning of class on Monday, December 10th. You'll have about 25 minutes to complete it. It will consist of about 5 or 6 short answer questions, and will be on everything we've covered since the midterm:

• abortion (Warren and Marquis)
• animal ethics (Norcross)
• death penalty (Primoratz, Nathanson)

Paper #2 Guideline

Due Date: The beginning of class on Wednesday, December 19th, 2012

Worth: 10% of your 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 have automatic word counts.)

Topic: Explain and defend your definition of “person” as it relates to morality, and specifically to the ethics of abortion and animal ethics.

(1) First, briefly explain and critically evaluate the different definitions of “person” that we have discussed in class. Be sure to explain the definition offered by Mary Anne Warren.

(2) Second, explain how each of the following authors uses the concept of “person” to attempt to settle the particular ethical debate she or he wrote about. (Warren and Marquis on abortion, and Norcross on animal ethics).
[NOTE: Many of these authors think personhood is irrelevant to their issue.]

(3) Third, explain and defend your definition of “person”: do you agree with one of the definitions we discussion in class, or do you have one of your own?

(4) Fourth, explain the solution that your definition of “person” gives to the ethical debates of abortion and animal ethics.

When outlining your definition of person, be sure to consider and answer the following questions: Which living entities are persons, and which living entities are not persons? Do you believe one needs to be a person in the moral sense in order to be worthy of moral consideration (for instance, do some non-persons have a right to not be killed and a right to not suffer unnecessarily)? Do persons have special moral significance? Can someone have moral rights before they have moral duties? Be sure to fully explain and philosophically defend each of your answers.

November 26th Class Canceled

I'm sick, so Monday's Ethics class is canceled.

This pushes a few things back on the schedule. Consensus group #1 on animal ethics is now presenting in class on Wednesday, November 28th. Consensus group #2--the Igor Primoratz article on the death penalty--will present on Friday, November 30th, and group #3--the Nathanson article on the death penalty--presents Monday, December 3rd.

Consensus Email Tips

I'd like to clarify something. In the email your group (9AM and 10AM) sends me a week before your consensus session presentation, I only want two things:

1. A formal premise/conclusion version of the main argument in your article.
2. Your group's systematic evaluation of this argument (check each premise and the argument's structure).

That's it! Furthermore, this is basically what I expect you to do in your group presentation: present and explain the main argument in the article, and lead a class-wide evaluation of this article using the thumbs-up/thumbs-down voting system.

In other words, I don't expect your group to give a general presentation on your topic. There's no need to go into a detailed explanation of the topic, or explain the science behind your issue, or whatever. Nor do I want you to make up your own argument for what you believe on the issue.

I just want you to present the author's argument as you understand it. I don't care whether you like or dislike this argument; your job is to (fairly) explain it to the rest of the class. If you dislike the arg, you can mention reasons why when you lead the class-wide evaluation of it.

So here's an example of the type of email I expect:

To: slandis@camdencc.edu, other members of your group
Sent: at least 1 week before our presentation
Subject: Ethics Group #1's Argument

Our Version of Mary Anne Warren's Argument
P1) A fetus is at best a potential person.
P2) A full-fledged person’s rights always outweigh a potential person’s rights.
P3) A pregnant woman’s right to have an abortion outweighs a fetus’s right to life.
C) Abortion is morally acceptable.

Our Evaluation of Her Argument
P1: we buy her definition of 'person,' but others might not...
P2: questionable! While persons' rights IN GENERAL might be more important than non-persons' rights, it's not clear this is ALWAYS true.
P3: this is supported by P2. We actually buy this, but not for the reason that Warren does. Her arg for this isn't the best.
Support: good! P1 and P2 get us to P3, and P3 is just a rewording of the conclusion.

That's it! It doesn't have to be a long email. Just give me the argument and your evaluation of it.

Midterm Exam

Just a reminder: the midterm exam is Friday, November 9th. It's worth 15% of your overall grade, and will cover everything we've done in class so far:

• Doing Philosophy
• Understanding and Evaluating Arguments
• Moral Skepticism vs. Moral Realism
• Divine Command Theory
• Natural Law Theory
• Utilitarianism
• Kant's Ethics
• Virtue Ethics
• Ethics of Care and Feminist Criticisms of Traditional Theories

You should be capable of briefly explaining each theory in your own words and briefly explaining the one or two criticisms of each theory that we discussed in class.  You also should be able to explain how to use each theory in ethical decision making--that is, explain what each theory would say we should do in some specific ethical dilemma outlined on the test.

The test is a mix of short-answer questions, argument evaluations, and essays. You'll have all 50 minutes of class to take it.

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.

Quiz You Once, Shame On Me

The first quiz will be held at the beginning of class on Friday, September 28th. You will have about 25 minutes to take it. The quiz is worth 7.5% of your overall grade.

There will be three sections: the first section is on evaluating arguments, and will look like the group work on evaluating arguments we did in class last week. Then there will be a section with 5 specific claims that you will have to identify as either subjective or objective.  The final section will consist of 3 or 4 short answer questions on the topic of moral skepticism and moral realism (Are there objectively correct answers to moral questions?) These questions will be based on our class discussions of chapters 19 and 21 from the BLUE  book and chapter 21 from the YELLOW book.