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

Moral Factoids

Here are some more links on the debate between moral skepticism and moral realism.

• Philippa Foot was a great moral philosopher who sadly passed away last year.  She spent a lot of her career arguing for moral realism.  
• An argument against moral skepticism: in an important sense, cultures morally agree more than they disagree.
• Some experimental philosophers are trying to find out whether people actually believe in objective moral truths.
• Who's to say what's right or wrong? How about philosophers?

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.

Relative to You, But Not to Me

Here are some links on our first topic: are there objectively correct and incorrect answers to moral questions?

• Cartoon T-Rex also says, "Beware of the relativist fallacy!"
• Philosopher Jesse Prinz offers a defense of moral relativism. 
• An interview with moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who supports a version of moral relativism.
• A pretty severe criticism of Haidt's defense of relativism.
• (Haidt gave a cool TED talk on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives.)
• A detailed overview of various versions of moral skepticism from my favorite free online philosophy encyclopedia.
• That encyclopedia's entry on moral relativism.
• (Yes, there is more than one free online philosophy encyclopedia. Here's another encyclopedia's entry on moral relativism.)

Evaluating Arguments Handout

Here are the answers to the handout on evaluating arguments that we did as group work in class.

1) All bats are mammals.
All mamammals live on earth.
All bats live on earth.

P1- true
P2- true
support- good
overall- good

2) All email forwards are annoying.
Some email forwards are false.
Some annoying things are false.

P1- questionable ("annoying" is subjective)
P2- true
support- good (the premises establish that some email forwards are both annoying and false; so some annoying things [those forwards] are false)
overall - bad (bad first premise)

3) All males in this class are humans.
All females in this class are humans.
All males in this class are females.

P1- true
P2- true
support- bad (the premises only tell us that males and females both belong to the humans group; we don't know enough about the relationship between males and females from this)
overall- bad (bad support)

4) No humans are amphibians.
All frogs are amphibians.
No frogs are humans.

P1- true
P2- true
support-  good (the premises say that frogs belong to a group that humans can't belong to, so it follows that no frogs are humans)
overall- good

5) All bats are mammals.
All bats have wings.
All mammals have wings.

P1- true
P2- true (if interpreted to mean "All bats are the sorts of creatures who have wings.") or false (if interpreted to mean "Each and every living bat has wings," since some bats are born without wings)
support- bad (we don't know anything about the relationship between mammals and winged creatures just from the fact that bats belong to each group)
overall- bad (bad support)

6) Some dads have beards.
All bearded people are mean.
Some dads are mean.

P1- true
P2- questionable ("mean" is subjective)
support- good (if all the people with beards were mean, then the dads with beards would be mean, so some dads would be mean)
overall- bad (bad 2nd premise)

7) Oprah Winfrey is a person.
Some people ate tacos yesterday.
Oprah Winfrey ate tacos yesterday.

P1- true
P2- true (you might not have directly seen anyone eat tacos, but you have a lot of indirect evidence... with all the Taco Bells, Don Pablos, etc., surely lots of people ate tacos yesterday)
support- bad (the 2nd premise only says some ate tacos; Oprah could be one of the  people who didn't)
overall- bad (bad support)

8) All students in here are mammals.
All humans are mammals.
All students in here are humans.

P1- true
P2- true
support- bad (the premises only tell us that students and humans both belong to the mammals group; we don't know enough about the relationship between students and humans from this; for instance, what if a dog were a student in our class?)
overall- bad (bad structure)

9) All hornets are wasps.
All wasps are insects.
All insects are scary.
All hornets are scary.

P1- true!
P2- true
P3- questionable ("scary" is subjective)
support- good (same structure as in argument #1, just with an extra premise)
overall- bad (bad 3rd premise)

10) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Sean is singing right now.
Students are cringing right now.

P1- questionable (since you haven't heard me sing, you don't know whether it's true or false)
P2- false
support- good
overall- bad (bad premises)

11) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Sean isn't singing right now.
Students aren't cringing right now.

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- true
support- bad (from premise 1, we only know what happens when Sean is singing, not when he isn't singing; students could cringe for a different reason)
overall- bad (bad 1st premise and structure)

12) All students in here are humans.
Most humans are shorter than 7 feet tall.
Most students in here are shorter than 7 feet tall. 

P1- true
P2- true!
support- so-so (the premises state a strong statistical generalization over a large population, and the conclusion claims that this generalization holds for a much smaller portion of that population; while it could be true that the humans in here are a statistical anomaly, given the strength of the generalization, it's likely that most students in here are, in fact, shorter than 7 feet tall)
overall- so-so (not perfect, since the support isn't perfect, but pretty good)

13) (from Stephen Colbert)
Bush was either a great prez or the greatest prez.
Bush wasn’t the greatest prez.
Bush was a great prez.

P1- questionable ("great" is subjective)
P2- questionable ("great" is subjective)
support- good (it's either A or B; it's not A; so it's B)
overall- bad (bad premises)

14) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Students are cringing right now.
Sean is singing right now.

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- false
structure- bad (from premise 1, we only know that Sean singing is one way to guarantee that students cringe; just because they're cringing doesn't mean Sean's the one who caused it; again, students could cringe for a different reason)
overall- bad (bad premises and structure)

15) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Students aren't cringing right now.
Sean isn't singing right now. 

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- true
structure- good 
overall- bad (bad 1st premise)

16) If there is no God, then life is meaningless.
Life isn't meaningless.
There is a God.

P1- questionable (that's not an obvious claim to prove or disprove)
P2- questionable (again, that's not an obvious claim to prove or disprove)
support- good (the same structure as argument #13)
overall- bad (bad premises)