Torture

Here are some links on the ethics of torture:

• The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on torture
• Mark Bowden's survey of interrogation practices
• The United Nation's Convention Against Torture
• Audio interview on the depicted use of torture in the movie Zero Dark Thirty:
  

Assisted Dying

Here are a few links on euthanasia:

• Some related ethical issues--like suicide and advanced directives--get their own entries in my favorite free online philosophy encyclopedia.
• The active/passive distinction highlights broader ethical worries: the difference between doing and allowing harms, and the doctrine of double effect.
• Tons of articles, videos, and other resources on euthanasia are available here.
• Last year, a moral philosopher was diagnosed with a brain tumor and wrote an article titled "It is monstrously wrong that patients cannot ask for euthanasia."
• In 1997, some well-known philosophers filed an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing in favor of euthanasia. The court didn't listen: in two separate cases later that year, it decided in favor of upholding bans on euthanasia.

Unfair and Arbitrary

Here are some links related to Nathanson's article outlining the problems in the U.S. legal system:

• Here's a decent overview article on measuring the reliability of the justice system. How often do courts convict the wrong person? 
• Brandon Garrett researched 250 cases in which DNA evidence overturned wrongful convictions.  His book is Convicting the Innocent.  One of his big points is just how unreliable eyewitness memory can be. 
• Most of us don't realize just how much of our memories are complete fabrications. In other words, our memory doesn't work the way we think it does.
• Studies show that arbitrary factors often influence verdicts, such as a defendant's attractiveness, or accent, or willingness to smile, or display of emotion in the courtroom.  
• And judges aren't above such biases: judges' verdicts are influenced by all sorts of weird factors, like the time of the day the verdict is made.
• Another big problem is the two-tiered court system: we seem to have one set of rules for the wealthy and powerful, and another set of rules for the rest of us.

Death Penalty Box

Here are some links related to our discussion of the death penalty:

• An encyclopedia of philosophy article on the death penalty.
• A large collection of resources on the ethics of capital punishment. I mean, wow.
• What's up with punishment in general? That's a big ethical issue.
• 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, studies suggest that the opposite is true. The additional legal battles in death penalty cases may cost more than a life sentence.
• Of course, for some death penalty opponents, it's not about whether innocent people are sentenced to death.

You Know Chicken's Chicken, Right?

Jonathan Safran Foer--author of the critically acclaimed novel Everything Is Illuminated--has a new book about his decision to not support factory farming called Eating Animals. Here's some stuff on it:

• A thoughtful review of the book by a philosopher.
• Another review: "You Know That Chicken Is Chicken, Right?"
  
• His appearance on the Colbert Report:

Moopheus

Here are some links on animal ethics:

• David Foster Wallace: Consider the Lobster
• How to Cut Back on Meat Slowly
• What Is The Meatrix? (see video below)
• Vegetarians Still Love the Smell of Bacon
• What If We Could Make Pain-Free Animals?
• Audio Interview: Jeff McMahan on Vegetarianism
  
• Huge List of Resources on the Moral Status of Animals

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.

Abortion

Here are some links related to our class discussions on the ethics of abortion:

• Recent scientific research suggests that the earliest fetuses can feel pain is about 24 weeks into a pregnancy.  
• One philosopher argues that even if you think abortion is morally acceptable, it's controversial and morally risky enough for you to lower your confidence in your own moral judgment.  
• Here are two articles debunking the myth of the Mozart Effect that we discussed in one of our classes. 

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.

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

An Argument's Support

One of the trickier concepts to understand in this course is the structure (or support) of an argument. This is a more detailed explanation of the term (it's the same as the handout). If you've been struggling to understand this term, the following might help you.

An argument's structure is its underlying logic; the way the premises and conclusion logically relate to one another. The structure of an argument is entirely separate from the actual meaning of the premises. For instance, the following three arguments, even though they're talking about different things, have the exact same structure:

1) All tigers have stripes.
Tony is a tiger.
Tony has stripes.

2) All humans have wings.
Sean is a human.
Sean has wings.

3) All blurgles have glorps.
Xerxon is a blurgle.
Xerxon has glorps.

There are, of course, other, non-structural differences in these three arguments. For instance, the tiger argument is overall good, since it has a good structure AND true premises. The human/wings argument is overall bad, since it has a false premise. And the blurgles argument is just crazy, since it uses made up words. Still, all three arguments have the same underlying structure (a good structure):

All A's have B's.
x is an A.
x has B's.

Evaluating the structure of an argument is tricky. Here's the main idea regarding what counts as a good structure: the premises provide us with enough information for us to figure out the conclusion from them. In other words, the premises, if they were true, would logically show us that the conclusion is true. So, if you believed the premises, they would convince you that the conclusion is worth believing, too.

Note I did NOT say that the premises are actually true in a good-structured argument. Structure is only about truth-preservation, not about whether the premises are actually true or false. What's "truth preservation" mean? Well, truth-preserving arguments are those whose structures are such that if you stick in true premises, you get a true conclusion.

The premises you've actually stuck into this particular structure could be good (true) or bad (false). That's what makes evaluating an arg's structure so weird. To check the structure, you have to ignore what you actually know about the premises being true or false.

Good Structured Arguments
If we assume that all the premises are true, then the conclusion will also be true for an argument to have a good structure. Notice we are only assuming truth, not guaranteeing it. Again, this makes sense, because we’re truth-preservers: if the premises are true, the conclusion that follows will be true.

EXAMPLES:
1) All humans are mammals.
All mammals have hair.
All humans have hair.

2) If it snows, then it’s below 32 degrees.
It is snowing right now.
It’s below 32 degrees right now.

3) All humans are mammals.
All mammals have wings.
All humans have wings.

4) Either Yao is tall or Spud is tall.
Yao is not tall.
Therefore, Spud is tall.

Even though arguments 3 and 4 are ultimately bad, they still have good structure (their underlying form is good). The second premise of argument 3 is false—not all mammals have wings—but it has the same exact structure of argument 1—a good structure. Same with argument 4: the second premise is false (Yao Ming is about 7 feet tall), but the structure is good (it’s either this or that; it’s not this; therefore, it’s that).

To evaluate the structure, then, assume that all the premises are true. Imagine a world in which all the premises are true. In that world, are you able to figure out from the premises that the conclusion is also true? Or can you imagine a scenario in that world in which the premises are true, but the conclusion is still false? If you can imagine this situation, then the argument's structure is bad. If you cannot, then the argument is truth-preserving (inputting truths gives you a true output), and thus the structure is good.

Bad Structured Arguments
In an argument with a bad structure, you can’t draw the conclusion from the premises – the premises don’t give you enough information. Bad structured arguments do not preserve truth.

EXAMPLES:
1) All humans are mammals.
All whales are mammals.
All humans are whales.

2) If it snows, then it’s below 32 degrees.
It doesn’t snow.
It’s not below 32 degrees.

3) All humans are mammals.
All students in our class are mammals.
All students in our class are humans.

4) Either Yao is tall or Spud is short.
Yao is tall.
Spud is short.

Even though arguments 3 and 4 have all true premises and a true conclusion, they are still have a bad structure, because their form is bad. Argument 3 has the same exact structure as argument 1—a bad structure (it doesn’t preserve truth).

Even though in the real world the premises and conclusion of argument 3 are true, we can imagine a world in which all the premises of argument 3 are true, yet the conclusion is false. For instance, imagine that our school starts letting dogs take classes. The second premise would still be true, but the conclusion would then be false.

The same goes for argument 4: even though Spud is short (Spud Webb is around 5 feet tall), this argument doesn’t guarantee this. The structure is bad (it’s either this or that; it’s this; therefore, it’s that, too.). We can imagine a world in which Yao is tall, the first premise is true, and yet Spud is tall, too.

Homework: Email Subscription

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

A blog 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. You don't have to visit the blog if you don't want to. It's just a helpful resource. I've used a blog for this course a lot, and it's 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://cccethics2012.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 Expectations

Read the Textbooks. The textbooks are, in my opinion, well written and quite helpful. While I do not assign a lot of reading, what I do assign is often dense and full of many insights. This means that you may not fully understand what you read the first time you read it. Do not despair; this is common. Ethics is a branch of philosophy, and philosophical writings in general are best understood upon multiple readings. You should develop the habit of reading the assigned pages a few times, including both before and after our class discussion of the relevant material.

Attend Class. While the books are informative, sometimes the assigned reading is only a launching point, and the key skills or concepts we’re learning during a given section go beyond the books. If you cannot attend class on a certain day, that’s fine (and outside excused absences, you need not tell me why—frankly, I don’t care why you’re not there). But you should not make a habit of missing classes.

Participate in Class. I like to describe our classroom as a judgment-free zone. I’m not concerned with students looking perfect or seeming smart in class. In fact, effective learning involves discussing precisely the things we don’t fully understand yet. Learning is a process that involves a lot of failing: getting things wrong, figuring out where we went wrong, and trying again. A lot of class time will involve this type of (helpful) failing. This may go against how many of your classes are run. Good. I think many of the assumptions underlying our current education institution aren’t conducive to effective learning.

Class is one of the most important times to engage in helpful discussions. If something confuses you, let me know! Chances are, it confuses a lot of students. Sometimes, I think I’ve understood something I read, only to discover upon discussing it that I haven’t really understood it. Getting feedback from a group of smart people who’ve read the same thing as you is invaluable to learning. I understand that some students are shy (I was quite shy myself in college), but try not to be timid simply out of fear of looking silly or stupid.

Practice. In addition to guided discussions, class time will involve a lot of informal group work. There will also be lots of optional extra credit assignments. These are chances to practice. We are mostly developing skills in this class, skills that cannot be picked up in five minutes. Skills take prolonged training and effort, like learning to play the piano or hitting a 90-mph fastball. Again, be OK with failing! Just try to fail better each time you practice.

Because of this, I try to measure students based on the progress they make throughout the course. A student who struggles early in the semester is not doomed to a low grade. Early struggles are merely a warning sign that more or a different kind of effort is required. On the other end of the spectrum, for a small percentage of students, getting a good grade in this class will be relatively easy. For such students, I encourage you to challenge yourself. Don’t settle for merely learning the most basic skills and coneptswe’re studying. Try to develop the more advanced skills touched on throughout the course. Read the articles linked to on the course blog! Talk to me outside class! Commit yourself to taking full advantage of this class.

Care About Learning. This should be your primary goal of taking this class—not getting a good grade, or socializing, or impressing me, or whatever. While I understand that these other things are important (I care a lot about the social value of college, for instance), these should not supersede your devotion to learning.

Course Details

Camden County College, Blackwood Campus
Philosophy 131
Spring 2012
Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays
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://cccethics2012.blogspot.com
Office Hourse: by appointment

Required Texts
The Fundamentals of Ethics, Russ Shafer-Landau (BLUE)
The Ethical Life, Russ Shafer-Landau (YELLOW)

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. In the second half of the course, we will apply these theories to particular ethical problems. Topics include abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, torture, aid to those in need, environmental ethics, and our treatment of animals.

We will also be developing various philosophical skills, including:

• Understanding: the ability to identify and explain an author’s main point in your own words, along with the ability to identify and explain an author’s argument in support of this main point.
• Evaluating: the ability to critically and charitably determine whether these arguments provide accurate, logical reasons in support of their main points, along with the ability to engage in critical and charitable dialogue with people who hold different views from your own.
• Defending: the ability to develop your own arguments in support of your opinions on the ethical issues we study, along with the ability to honestly assess your opinions and critically evaluate the quality of your arguments in support of them.

A broader goal of this course is to gain an appreciation for philosophical reflection. Hopefully, we will learn that careful, deliberate examination of the ethical assumptions we often take for granted can improve our own approach to morality, and make us better in our anticipated roles in the medical community.


Assignments
Each assignment is created carefully, and designed to both measure and improve upon specific skills that students are expected to develop throughout the semester. I try to explicitly point out the educational importance of each assignment (both below and when I assign it), but if an assignment’s value is ever unclear, let me know! I value student feedback. Sometimes complacency makes me continue using an assignment that isn’t very helpful, or sometimes I haven’t explained an assignment clearly enough.

Midterm and Final Exams: Exams are a chance to demonstrate your understanding of a wide variety of topics and skills that we’ll study throughout the semester. To this end, there will be a variety of question types on the exams. 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 also last 50 minutes, and be held during finals week.

Quizzes: Unlike the exams, quizzes will not be cumulative. Quiz #1 will test you on everything covered during the first 4 weeks of class, and quiz #2 will test you on everything we cover after the midterm. Quizzes will last 25 minutes, and be held at the beginning of the period on the scheduled day.

Consensus Session: These are in-class, group presentations during the 2nd half of the course. Each group of 3-6 students will be assigned to a specific article from the textbook that we’re discussing that week, present a short lesson on it to the rest of class, and run a voting session on the issue being debated. Groups should focus on teaching their article effectively. To this end, the main criteria groups shall be graded on are their understanding of the article and their ability to effectively communicate their understanding to the rest of class.

Papers: Paper #1 will be on ethical theories. Due toward the middle of the semester, this assignment provides you with an opportunity to demonstrate whether you have developed two of the most primary skills we’re learning this semester: the ability to understand an ethical theories, and the ability to evaluate a theory’s philosophical quality. Paper #2 will be longer and on some of the applied topics. Due at the end of the semester, this paper will focus partly on your ability to understand what we’ve discussed in class, but mostly be judged on your ability to explain and defend your own opinion on some ethical topics.

Homework: Although I assign a lot of optional extra credit assignments throughout class, there will only be a few graded homework assignments. These homework assignments will be similar to the various extra credit and in-class group work assignments we do. The graded homeworks, however, will usually come at the end of a particular section, after you have had a chance to try a variety of similar assignments in and out of class.

Fun Fridays: There will be 3 in-class graded assignments scheduled on some Fridays during the semester. These will be a chance to more casually discuss some issues more loosely related to the class, yet more closely connected to important practical concerns of our everyday lives.

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. In addition, informal group work can impact your grade. I value your attendance, and I expect you to show up each day. I also realize, though, that we sometimes need added motivation to attend each day, and I use this grade as a small carrot to motivate you.

Extra Credit: I like giving extra credit! I’ll be giving both official extra credit assignments to do outside class and offering extra credit points more informally during class time throughout the semester. Remind me about this if I slack off on dishing out extra credit points.

Grades
900-1000 points = A
800-899 points = B
700-799 points = C
600-699 points = D
below 600 points = F.

Midterm 150 points
Final 250 points
Quizzes (2) 75 points each (150 total)
Homework 50 points total
First Paper 50 points
Second Paper 100 points
Consensus Session 150 points
Fun Fridays 50 points total
Attendance/Participation 50 points

Important Dates
August 31st: Last day to drop & receive a full refund.
September 17th: Last day to drop & receive a 50% refund.
September 24th: Last day to sign up to audit the class.
December 5th: Last day to withdraw from the class.

Classroom Policies
Academic Integrity: Cheating and plagiarism (using someone else’s words or ideas in a paper or assignment 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 on which they plagiarize—and possibly the entire class. FYI: I’m pretty good at catching plagiarists. I recommend not trying it!

Attendance: I take attendance each class. My policy is that you cannot pass this class if you have been absent for more than 2 weeks (6 classes)—regardless of whether your absences are excused or unexcused. I value your attendance, and I expect you to show up each day. Missing more than two weeks of the course, for whatever reason, shows a lack of commitment to this class.

Excused Absences: Any assignment will only be rescheduled for an excused absence. 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. Make-up quizzes and exams will be arranged through the Test Center (2nd floor of the Library).

Disability Accommodations: If you have special requirements let me know as soon as possible so we can make all necessary arrangements.