The Ethics of Killing

I don't often recommend an entire book to students, but if you're interested in some thoughtful analysis of abortion, euthanasia, animals, killing, and personhood, among other things, you should check out Jeff McMahan's The Ethics of Killing. Here's a short description of the book:

"This magisterial work is the first comprehensive study of the ethics of killing, where the moral status of the individual killed is uncertain. Drawing on philosophical notions of personal identity and the immorality of killing, McMahan looks carefully at a host of practical issues, including abortion, infanticide, the killing of animals, assisted suicide, and euthanasia."

McMahan teaches philosophy at Rutgers. He also just wrote a follow-up book called Killing in War. This is exactly the kind of careful, thought-out approach that I think complicated, serious issues deserve.

Here's an audio interview with McMahan on personhood.

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. 

Personhood

Here are some links related to our ongoing discussion of the the moral status of persons:

• Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on person.
• Here is a nice essay that examines various proposed criteria for personhood, such as intelligence and the ability to communicate.
• Are dogs persons? One of my favorite radio shows recently devoted 3 episodes to the science of what dogs can and cannot understand.  Listen below:
  
  Part One
  Part Two
  Part Three
• How about dolphins: are they sea-persons?

Moral Psych Out

Here are some links loosely related to moral psychology:

• Here's a decent explanation of Lawrence Kohlberg's psychological theory of moral development that we mentioned in class.
  
• Psychological research on our moral judgments is a lot wackier today. For instance, clean smells make us behave better, while smelling farts makes us judge more harshly.
  
• There's some great new research on moral development in children, too. Here's Rebecca Saxe's TED Talk:
  
  
• One large strand of psychological research is on the impact of emotions on our moral reasoning. Here's Jonathan Haidt's TED Talk on the emotional difference between conservatives and liberals:
  

Delusions of Gender

Psychologist Cordelia Fine has a great new book out called Delusions of Gender. In it, she debunks a lot of the myths about so-called 'hard-wired' gender differences between boys and girls. Our brains are much more malleable than these myths suggest, and such perceived gender differences are likely either non-existent or the result of social pressures.

Fine wrote a nice summary of her book here, and there are two good reviews of her book here and here.  Below is an excerpt from a talk Fine recently gave.


Cordelia Fine: Discovering Sexism in Neuroscience
Here's a comparison of the different words used in ads for boys’ toys and ads for girls’ toys.

(hat tip: Feminist Philosophers blog)

Ethics of Care

Here's some stuff related to the ethics of care:

• Here's an excerpt from a video of Carol Gilligan explaining her work. The entire video is available here.
• For stuff on feminism in general, I highly recommend one of my favorite blogs: Feminist Philosophers.
• There's also a great blog called What Is It Like to Be a Woman in Philosophy? It's devoted to short accounts from women on their experiences while pursuing a career in philosophy.
  
• The cartoon Rose Is Rose offers a funny-ish critique of reason-centered approaches to ethics:

Breaking Habits

"If you want to change a habit, …don’t try and change everything at once. Instead, figure out what the cue is, figure out what the reward is and find a new behavior that is triggered by that cue and delivers that same reward."

-Charles Duhigg, author of The Power of Habit, on Monday's episode of Fresh Air

Just Right

Here is a trio of short audio interviews with philosophers talking about Aristotle's virtue ethics. All three interviews come from the "Philosophy Bites" podcast.

• Aristotle's ethics
  
  
• Aristotle on happiness
  
  
• Virtues
  

And here's a great overview on the current science of self-improvement: when trying to change something about yourself, which techniques work and which don't?

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.

Paper #1 Guideline

New Due Date: the beginning of class on Monday, November 12th, 2012

Due Date: the beginning of class on Monday, November 5th, 2012

Worth: 5% of your overall grade

Assignment: Write an essay on one of the topics below in which you support your opinion with an argument. Papers must be typed, and must be between 400-700 words long. Provide a word count on the first page of the paper. (Most programs like Microsoft Word have automatic word counts.)

Possible Paper Topics (Choose ONE of the following topics)
1. Defend a Theory. Out of the seven ethical theories that we’re studying—moral relativism, divine command theory, natural law theory, utilitarianism, Kant’s ethical theory, Aristotle’s virtue ethics, or Gilligan’s ethics of care—which do you think is best? Why? What are two of the best criticisms that someone might make to that theory? How do you reply to those criticisms to defend this theory? Be sure to fully explain & defend your position.

2. Criticize a Theory. Provide a detailed criticism of one of the seven ethical theories we’ve discussed in class. First, briefly explain the theory, and present what you take to be the best criticism(s) of the theory. Then critically evaluate your criticism(s). That is, consider how someone who supports the theory might respond to your criticisms, and explain why you think these responses are unsuccessful.

3. Moral Realism. Moral realists believe (a) moral claims are objectively true or false. Many moral realists also believe (b) there are no authorities whose decrees make things morally right or wrong. Are these two claims consistent with each other? Be sure to fully explain & defend your answer.

4. Facts, Opinions, & the Hitler Intuition. In class, we’re discussing the “Hitler Intuition”: Many people think that Hitler’s moral beliefs were not just different from ours; they were mistaken. Many use this intuition as evidence against moral relativism, and support for moral realism. Examine this intuition.

-If you agree that it is solid evidence for moral realism, 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 makes moral claims objectively true? 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 objectively immoral? How is it that Hitler is simply bad to me, but not objectively bad?

5. The Euthyphro Dilemma. The most common criticism of divine command theory is the Euthyphro dilemma: “Is an action good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?” Explain and evaluate this criticism. How is it a criticism of divine command theory? Do you think this is a good or bad criticism of divine command theory? Be sure to fully explain & defend your answer.

6. Choose Your Own Adventure! Write on a topic of your choosing related to some or one of the ethical theories we’ve discussed in class. (Sean must approve your topic by Friday, March 9th).

NOTE: This is not a research paper! I expect you to explain and defend these theories based on our discussions in class. You are not expected to do any outside research. (If you do, however, be sure to cite your sources.)

Everybody Thinks They're a Good Person

Here's comedian Kyle Kinane's analysis of his own moral character:

Kyle Kinane - Moral Fiber

His album is available here.