Goodbye to Yesterday...

Your grades are now posted. Enjoy your summer!

Final Exam

Just a reminder that the final exam is Tuesday, May 5th at our normal time (6:00 p.m.) in our normal location (Fine Arts 339). The test should take you about an hour, but you will have until 9:00 to take it.

PowerPot

Here's Nadelmann's argument for legalizing drugs from Team Weed's PowerPoint presentation:

P1: Making drugs illegal has not significantly prevented the demand or supply of drugs.
P2: Legalizing illicit drugs could redirect resources to treat and prevent drug abuse.
P3: The legalization of drugs would provide the opportunity for agencies like the FDA to regulate and control the quality of drugs available- which could prevent high numbers of death associated with impure versions.
P4: Some illegal drugs are not more dangerous than tobacco and alcohol, despite the common misconception that they are.
P5: Current drug laws are paternalistic, discourage the tolerant attitudes of a democratic and pluralistic society and encourage individuals to behave as informants and invade the privacy of others.
P6: Between the reduced government expenditures on enforcing drug laws and new tax revenue from legal drug production and sales, public treasuries would enjoy a net benefit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C: Legalization of illicit drugs would prevent many of the current drug problems in America.

Background Info
Despite the war on drugs- marijuana usage is fairly mainstream: Grass City provides all the necessary “tools” for the upscale smoker along with well written informational pages on what everything is and how it all works.

The following statistics are from the CDC’s official website:

• In 2001, excessive alcohol use was responsible for approximately 75,000 preventable deaths and 2.3 million YPLLs (years of potential life lost) in the United States.
• Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States and is associated with multiple adverse health consequences, including liver cirrhosis, various cancers, unintentional injuries, and violence.
• Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the United States. Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million have a serious illness caused by smoking. For every person who dies from smoking, 20 more people suffer from at least one serious tobacco-related illness.

Dazed and Confused

Here are some links on drugs:

• The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency's case against legalizing drugs.
• James Q. Wilson's defense of keeping drugs illegal that we're reading in class.
  
• The two faces of America's drug policy.
• A case for keeping weed specifically illegal.
• Legalize Pot? We Think Not!
• Criminalizing pot keeps cops from doing police work, and crowds prisons.
• A recent article celebrating the 10-year anniversary of the groundbreaking study on the medical value of marijuana.
• What was the Supreme Court thinking when it kept medical marijuana illegal?
• A radio show on drug legalization. And another on pot laws.
• Facts on weed, from Ethan Nadelmann's organization trying to stop the drug war.
• Slippery Slope? Pot doesn't lead to heroin!

Finally, here's Nadelmann's interview on the Colbert Report:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Better Know a Lobby - Drug Lobby
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest

PowerPorn

Here's Marc Wicclair's argument against censoring pornography from Team Porn's PowerPoint presentation in class:

P1) Pornography sometimes depicts degrading but still legal practices, and censoring the depiction of legal practices is odd.
P2) Censoring porn may cause danger due to the resulting vague laws of what counts as "degrading."
P3) It's legally difficult to determine which films/photos actually condone the bad practices they depict.
P4) There's no solid evidence that porn causes more violence against women (in fact, it may prevent some by being cathartic).
P5) Censorship is only justified in cases of “clear and present danger,” and porn doesn’t cause any obvious “clear and present danger."
P6) Censorship would be the rule rather than an exception, and such pervasive censorship is incompatible with truly free society.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C) Pornography shouldn't be censored.

No Second Paper

Just a reminder that we decided to not assign a second paper for class. Everyone will get full credit (100 points) for the second paper.

We Have to Give?

Here is some stuff on giving to charity.

• Free Charity! The Hunger Site. Just clicking there donates food! Also, try the word game at FreeRice.
• Affordable Charities! $10 Club, Microcredit, & Oxfam.
• Research on Effective Charities! Want to know which charities aren't squandering their donations? Check out Charity Navigator or GiveWell.
• Peter Singer's been promoting his new book a lot lately. He's pointed out the biases that keep us from giving, and called out professors for not teaching about poverty.
  
• NPR's Fresh Air ran a radio interview with someone who argues that a lot of current aid does more harm than good. (Donate to his organization here.)
• Here's a great article on the concerns about giving aid to African nations. I recommend reading the last section.
• Why would we give away the money we earn? (This article even references Thomas Nagel's anti-I'M-SPECIAL-ism.)
  

Finally, here's Peter Singer's recent Colbert Report interview .

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Peter Singer
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest

Naked Morality

Here are some links related to our discussion of the ethics of pornography:

• Is porn legitimate free speech?
  
• In class, we'll be focusing on criticisms of porn from a feminist perspective. But many argue that feminism and porn can coexist.
• Exorcising Pornography (1985 Boston Review)
• Exchange: Catherine MacKinnon & Ronald Dworkin (New York Review of Books)
• In Praise of Porn (Reason)

Hunting

-via FailBlog

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, some studies suggest that the opposite is true. The additional legal battles in death penalty cases may cost more than a life sentence.
• A nice article on measuring the reliability of the justice system. How often do courts convict the wrong person?
• I'll be mentioning "owning our ignorance" in class during our discussion of the death penalty. I like this issue so much that I've started a club about it!
  

Moopheus

Here are some links on animal ethics:

• Vegetarians Still Love the Smell of Bacon
• David Foster Wallace: Consider the Lobster
• How to Cut Back on Meat Slowly
• What Is The Meatrix?
  
• Animal Research (Peter Singer's Sometimes OK with It!)
• Peter Singer on Michael Vick & Dog Fighting
  
• Audio Interview with Peter Singer
• Michael Pollan's "An Animal's Place"
• Is Worrying About the Ethics of Your Diet Elitist?
• Huge List of Resources on the Moral Status of Animals

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Peter Singer

Ron Paul Interview
Bob Barr Interview

Green Screen
Bill O'Reilly Interview

Consensus Groups

Here are the group assignments for the consensus sessions. If you're not in a group yet, let me know as soon as possible so we can get you in one. Click on the Topic Heading for links to more info on your topic.

Death Penalty (April 7th)
-Group #1 (Pojman & Reiman articles): Elissa, Glenn, Justin, Michael
-Group #2 (Primoratz & Nathanson articles): Allison, Danielle, Jennifer

Pornography (April 14th)
-Group #1 (Longino article): Amanda, Carly, Erica, Joseph, Susan
-Group #2 (Wicclair article): Iryna, Lauren, Stephanie R.


Charity (April 21st)
-Group #1 (Singer article): Kelly, Kim, Nicole, Tiffany
-Group #2 (Hardin article): Emily M., Emily S., Katie, Steph D.

Drugs (April 28th)
-Group #1 (Nadelmann article): Irene, Megan, Samar
-Group #2 (Wilson article): Amber, Ann, Jess

Paper & Midterm Rescheduled

We decided in class to move the due date of the first paper back to Tuesday, March 31st.

Also, we're pushing the midterm back to Tuesday, March 31st.

Finally, here are some tips (one and two) on writing philosophy papers.)

Check the Source

-via GraphJam

Youth In Asia

Ali G's Take on Euthanasia

Consensus Session Guidelines

In the last five weeks of class we will be holding some consensus sessions on the current issue we will be discussing. Groups of about three students will be responsible for leading these consensus sessions. There will be two consensus sessions each class: one for each of the articles assigned to read for that week. Each session should last about 20-30 minutes.

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

1. Figure out the argument in your assigned article, and convert it into a clear premise/conclusion format.

2. Evaluate the argument as a group. Check each premise, and check the structure.

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 say what’s wrong about the argument. Nor is the goal to make sure the argument is good. The goal is to figure out whether it’s good or bad.

I recommend emailing me your group’s version of the argument and evaluation of it several days before you’re scheduled to lead a session. I can provide helpful feedback, and make sure you’re on the right track.

Instructions for Running the Consensus Session
During your consensus session, your group’s job is to present your findings regarding the 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.

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. Point out exactly where each premise in your argument came from in the reading itself.)

3. Briefly explain your group’s evaluation of the author’s argument.

4. Explain how your group came to the conclusion that the argument is good/bad. Discuss the back & forth process you went through to come to your conclusion.

5. Hold a small question and answer round with the rest of class to explain and clarify the argument and your evaluation of it.

6. Run a consensus session (a thumbs up/thumbs down vote) with the rest of class where you evaluate each premise of the argument and the argument’s structure.

7. Go back & forth with every dissenter with the goal of trying to reach a consensus on each vote.

Understanding Args

Here are the answers to the handout on understanding arguments that was assigned as optional extra credit.

1. (P1) Fairdale has the best team.
(C) Fairdale will win the championship

2. (P1) The housing market is depressed.
(P2) Interest rates are low.
(C) It's a good time to buy a home.

3. (P1) China is guilty of extreme human rights abuses.
(P2) China refuses to implement democratic reforms.
(C) The U.S. should refuse to deal with the present Chinese government.

4. (P1) The results of the Persian Gulf War were obviously successful for the U.S. military.
(C) The U. S. military is both capable and competent.

5. (P1) Scientific discoveries are continually debunking religious myths.
(P2) Science provides the only hope for solving the many problems faced by humankind.
(C) Science provides a more accurate view of human life than does religion.

6. (P1) Freedom of speech and expressions are essential to a democratic form of government.
(P2) As soon as we allow some censorship, it won't be long before censorship will be used to silence the opinions critical of the government.
(P3) Once we allow some censorship, we will have no more freedom than the Germans did under Hitler.
(C) We must resist all effort to allow the government to censor entertainment.

7. (P1) I'm very good at my job.
(C) I deserve a raise.

8. (P1) Jesse is one year old.
(P2) Most one-year-olds can walk.
(C) Jesse can walk.

9. (P1) The revocation of the 55 mph speed limit has resulted in an increased number of auto fatalities.
(C) we must alleviate this problem with stricter speed limit enforcement.

10. (P1) The last person we hired from Bayview Tech turned out to be a bad employee.
(C) I'm not willing to hire anybody else from that school again.

11. (P1) Maebe didn't show up for work today.
(P2) Maebe has never missed work unless she was sick.
(C) Maebe is probably sick today.

12. (P1) The United States, as the most powerful nation in the world, has a moral obligation to give assistance to people who are subjected to inhumane treatment.
(P2) The ethnic Albanians were being persecuted in Kosovo.
(C) It was proper for the U.S. to become involved in the air campaign against Kosovo.

----------------
Hat tip: I took some of the examples (with some revisions) from Beth Rosdatter's website , and some (with some revisions) from Jon Young's website .

Subjective To You, But Not To Me...

(click to enlarge)
Here are some links on our first topic: are moral claims merely opinions or are they factually based?

• BASIC: a conversation between cartoon dinosaurs on moral relativism (the theory similar to moral subjectivism)
• INTERMEDIATE: a clarification of what moral relativism & subjectivism are and are not
  
• ADVANCED: a detailed overview of various versions of moral relativism from my favorite free online philosophy encyclopedia (yes, there is more than one free online philosophy encyclopedia)
• An interview with a moral psychologist who supports a sophisticated version of moral subjectivism
• An argument against a key premise supporting moral subjectivism: cultures morally agree more than they disagree
• A video lecture titled "Is Morality Real or Do We Make it Up?"

Structure

One of the trickier concepts to understand in this course is the structure of an argument. This is a more detailed explanation of the term. 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, if they were true, would provide good evidence for us to believe 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 guarantee 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 Args
If we assume that all the premises are true, then the conclusion must 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 must 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, MUST the conclusion also be 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 guarantees 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 – they don’t naturally follow. 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 whales 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.

Paper #1 Guidelines

Due Date: The beginning of class on Tuesday, March 10th, 2009

Worth: 100 points (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 & WordPerfect have automatic word counts.)

Topic: Explain and defend your conception of personhood as it relates to morality.

(1) First, briefly explain and critically evaluate the different conceptions of personhood that we have discussed in class. Be sure to explain each conception offered by Mary Anne Warren, Don Marquis, James Rachels (his account of a biographical life discussed in the handout), Peter Singer, and Michael Allen Fox.

(2) Second, explain how each of these authors uses their conception to attempt to settle the particular ethical debate he or she wrote about. (Warren on abortion, Marquis on abortion, Rachels on euthanasia, Singer on animal ethics, and Fox on animal ethics).

(3) Third, explain your conception of personhood: do you agree with one of these authors’ conceptions, or do you have one of your own?

(4) Fourth, explain the solution that your conception of personhood gives to the ethical debates of abortion, euthanasia, and animal ethics.

When considering your conception of personhood, be sure to answer the following questions: Which living creatures are persons, and which living creatures are not persons? Do you believe that you need to be a “person” in the moral sense in order to have moral rights (in particular, the right to life and the right to not suffer unnecessarily)? Can someone have moral rights before they have moral duties? Be sure to fully explain and philosophically defend each of your answers.

Quiz You Once, Shame on Me

As we decided in class, the quiz will be held at the beginning of class on Tuesday, February 24th. You will have about 25 minutes to take it. The quiz is worth 10% of your overall grade.

There will be two sections: the first section is on evaluating arguments, and will look just like the group work on evaluating arguments we did in class last week. There will also be a section of 4 short answer questions on the topic of moral subjectivism and realism (Are moral claims merely opinions or are they factually based?) These questions will be based on our class discussions of the Elliott Sober and Thomas Nagel readings.

Feel free to insult me in the comments for putting you through the terrible ordeal of taking a quiz.

Evaluating Args

Here are the answers to the handout on evaluating arguments that we went over in class. Feel free to call, text, email, or comment if you have a question about any of this.

1) All kangaroos are marsupials.
All marsupials are mammals.
All kangaroos are mammals.

P1- true
P2- true
structure- good
overall - good

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

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

3) Some people are funny.
Sean is a person.
Sean is funny.

P1- true (we might disagree over who specifically is funny, but nearly all of us would agree that someone is funny)
P2- true
structure- bad (the 1st premise only says some are funny; Sean could be one of the unfunny people)
overall- bad (bad structure)

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

P1- questionable ("annoying" is subjective)
P2- true
structure- 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)

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)
structure- bad (we don't know enough about the relationship between mammals and winged creatures just from the fact that bats belong to each group)
overall- good (bad structure)

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

P1- true
P2- questionable ("mean" is subjective)
structure- 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) This class is boring.
All boring things are taught by Sean
This class is taught by Sean.

P1-questionable ("boring" is subjective)
P2- false (it's reasonable to believe that there are some boring things not associated with Sean)
structure- good
overall- bad (bad premises)

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

P1- true
P2- true
structure- 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)
structure- good (same structure as arg #1, just repeated once more)
overall- bad (bad 3rd premise)

10) All students in here are humans.
All humans are shorter than 10 feet tall.
All students in here are shorter than 10 feet tall.

P1- true
P2- true!
structure- good (same structure as arg #1)
overall- sound

11) 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
structure- good
overall- bad (bad premises)

12) 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
structure- 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)

13) 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)

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)

(More on Sisyphus)

Room Change

We're getting a bigger room! Yay!

Our new classroom is room 339 of the Fine Arts building. We'll be meeting in the new classroom tonight.

Hopefully, we won't be packed like this anymore:

Join the Club!

So, I'm starting up a club -- the "Owning Our Ignorance" club -- devoted to fun and logic, in that order. I've put up a blog for it over here.

We're having our first meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 11th, at Coffee Works in Voorhees. (I know that's a long way for y'all, but students from most of the schools I've taught at are planning to attend, so I'm trying to make it centrally located for them.)

Check it out! If you're interested, feel free to join us.

3rd Week Readings

Here is a slightly better version of the Elliott Sober reading assignment:

Elliott Sober - Ethical Subjectivism

Thanks to Tiffany for reminding me to post these! This version is a Word document. The document is ten pages long, but you only have to read the first six pages. It's not much easier to read than the photocopies I handed out in class, but it's a little better.

A copy of the Thomas Nagel reading assignment is also available online here. Both of these are the assigned reading to be read for our February 10th class.

Defining Our Terms

1. Tool: Here's one Urban Dictionary definition of "tool," the one I had in mind when referring to Dane Cook:

someone who tries too hard. a poser. one of those chic's who holds the sign saying "Carson Daly is Hot." the asstard who goes to a rock show because they heard one of the songs on the radio or mtv. or someone who insists on wearing velour sweat suits. Avril Lavigne.

To find out more, I suggest watching Tool Academy to see our heroes in action:

2. Fugly: uh, rather ugly. Moe Szyslak has been called a few variations of this term.

3. Emo Kid: "Emo" has a ton of meanings. The wikipedia article on "emo" has a nice history of the term.

4. Lame: South Park usually nails this term.

Did I forget any terms? Let me know!

Definitions of "Philosophy"

Here are some videos on the definitions of the word "philosophy" that we discussed in class. First, the Bobby Brown definition: Nothing says "philosophy as a worldview" like 1988 Bobby Brown.

Bobby Brown - My Prerogative
Now for the 3-year-old definition. Here's comedian Louis CK's take on the broad, fundamental questions kids ask (the routine starts 2:40 into the video).

Louis CK - Why?
I couldn't find a video on doing philosophy. If you know of one, let us know in a comment to this post.

Email Subscriptions

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

A blog (short for “web log”) 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. I used a blog for this course last semester, and it 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://ridersocial.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@rider.edu). I can check who's subscribed and who hasn't.

Course Details

Social Philosophy
Rider University, Spring 2009
Philosophy 201, Sections TO/TR
Tuesdays, 6:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.
Fine Arts Building, Room 375

Instructor: Sean Landis
Email: slandis@rider.edu
Phone: 609-980-8367
Office Hours: by appointment
Course Website: http://ridersocial.blogspot.com

Text
Social Ethics: Morality and Social Policy, 7th Edition, edited by Thomas Mappes and Jane Zembaty

About the Course
This course is designed to introduce students to thinking critically about how humans should behave toward each other as members of society. Throughout the semester we will examine several difficult and controversial ethical issues. Topics include abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, relief aid, pornography, hate speech, drugs, and animal ethics. The goal of this course is to develop a philosophical understanding of what underlies moral claims and apply this understanding to our own ethical beliefs.

In examining these topics, it is my hope that we can also develop the skills of doing philosophy—understanding and evaluating others’ attempts to answer broad and fundamental questions. Ultimately, though, our main goal is to learn decision-making tools we can use to provide our own answers to these puzzling issues. Hopefully, this course will demonstrate that careful, systematic, and critical thought about moral quandaries can be fruitful.

Grades
A = 934-1000 total points
A- = 900-933 total points
B+ = 867-899 total points
B = 834-866 total points
B- = 800-833 total points
C+ = 767-799 total points
C = 734-766 total points
C- = 700-733 total points
D = 600-699 total points
F = below 600 total points

Quiz 100 points
Midterm 200 points
Final 300 points
Consensus Leading 150 points
Paper #1 100 points
Paper #2 100 points
Attendance/Participation 50 points

Quiz: There will be one quiz, taken during the 4th week of class. The quiz will last 20 to 25 minutes, and be held at the beginning of the period on the scheduled day.

Exams: There will be a midterm and a final exam. The midterm tests everything covered during the first half of the course, and will last about 80 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 about 80 minutes, and will take place during Finals Week.

Consensus Leading: In the second half of the semester, we will be holding some consensus sessions on the issue we’re discussing in class that week. The goal of these sessions is to determine whether we agree or disagree with the arguments from the reading assignment for that issue. Students will form groups (of about 4-5 students each) to lead one consensus session. Each group will first give a brief (5-10 minute) presentation and evaluation of the main arguments from the reading, and then run the consensus vote process itself.

Papers: There will be two papers (about 600-1000 words long each), one due in the seventh week of class, and another due toward the end of the semester.

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. Also, there will be a lot of informal group work throughout the semester. Group work can impact your attendance grade.

Extra Credit: There will be some optional extra credit assignments available throughout the semester.

Classroom Policies
Academic Integrity: Cheating and plagiarism (using someone else’s words or ideas 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—and possibly the entire class. FYI: I’m pretty good at catching plagiarism. I recommend not trying it!

Excused Absenses: Make-up exams, quizzes, in-class projects, and oral reports will only be rescheduled for any excused absences (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.

Important Dates
February 6th: Last day to drop a class
March 13th: Last day to withdraw at student discretion
April 17th: Last day to withdraw with consent of instructor
May 1st: Last day to withdraw due to psychological or physiological incapacity

Course Schedule

January 27th: Intro to Class
-Introduction to Class
-What is philosophy? / Doing Philosophy | (no reading)

February 3rd: Doing Philosophy
-More on Doing Philosophy: Understanding Args | (no reading)
-More on Doing Philosophy: Evaluating Args | (no reading)

February 10th: Intro to Ethics
-Are Moral Claims Facts or Opinions? | OPINIONS: Elliott Sober on Subjectivism (handout)
-Are Moral Claims Facts or Opinions? | FACTS: Thomas Nagel on Realism (handout)

February 17th: Abortion
-QUIZ; Abortion | Intro (pgs. 1-10) and Mary Anne Warren (pgs. 13-21)
-Abortion | Don Marquis (pgs. 21-27)

February 24th: Euthanasia
-Euthanasia | James Rachels (pgs. 58-71)
-Euthanasia | Daniel Callahan (pgs. 71-74)

March 3rd: Animal Ethics
-Animal Ethics | Peter Singer (pgs. 478-492)
-Animal Ethics | Michael Allen Fox (handout)

March 10th: Catch Up & Review
-PAPER #1 due; Catch up (no new reading)
-Review for midterm (no new reading)

March 17th: Spring Break
SPRING BREAK! (no class) (woo?)


March 24th: Midterm & Consensus Session
-MIDTERM
-What’s a Consensus Session?

March 31st: The Death Penalty
-The Death Penalty | Intro (pgs. 104-111), Louis Pojman & Jeffrey Reiman (pgs. 138-149)
-Consensus Session #1: The Death Penalty | Igor Primoratz & Stephen Nathanson (pgs. 125-138)

April 7th: Pornography
-Pornography | Intro (pgs. 217-224) and Helen Longino (pgs. 234-242)
-Consensus Session #2: Pornography | Mark Wicclair (pgs. 242-248)

April 14th: Relief Aid
-Relief Aid: Peter Singer (pgs. 43-443)
-Consensus Session #3: Relief Aid | Charles Lawrence (pgs. 254-256)

April 21st: Drugs
-Drugs | Intro (pgs. 272-278) and Ethan Nadelmann (pgs. 296-302)
-Consensus Session #4: Drugs | James Wilson (pgs. 302-308)

April 28th: Paternalism & Review
-Consensus Session #5: Paternalism | Robert Goodin (pgs. 289-296) and Sunstein & Thaler (handout)
-PAPER #2 due; Review for Final Exam | (no reading)

May 5th: Final Exam
-FINAL EXAM