


Enjoy your summer, 10:00 class!



(Sorry, 11:00 class, I forgot to take your picture!)

PHL 131-01, 131-02, and 131-04
Camden County College
Spring 2009
Ironically, having extreme confidence in oneself is often a sign of ignorance. In many cases, such stubborn certainty is unwarranted.Last week, I jokingly asked a health club acquaintance whether he would change his mind about his choice for president if presented with sufficient facts that contradicted his present beliefs. He responded with utter confidence. "Absolutely not," he said. "No new facts will change my mind because I know that these facts are correct."
I was floored. In his brief rebuttal, he blindly demonstrated overconfidence in his own ideas and the inability to consider how new facts might alter a presently cherished opinion. Worse, he seemed unaware of how irrational his response might appear to others. It's clear, I thought, that carefully constructed arguments and presentation of irrefutable evidence will not change this man's mind.
The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
Peter Singer | ||||
colbertnation.com | ||||
|
(1) First, briefly explain and critically evaluate the different definitions of “person” that we have discussed in class. Be sure to explain each definition offered by Mary Anne Warren, Stephen Schwarz, James Rachels (his account of a biographical life), and Roger Scruton.When considering your definition of “person,” 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 not be killed 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.
(2) Second, explain how each of these authors uses their definition of “person” to attempt to settle the particular ethical debate he or she wrote about. (Warren on abortion, Schwarz on abortion, Rachels on euthanasia, and Scruton on animal ethics).
(3) Third, explain your definition of “person”: do you agree with one of these authors’ definitions, or do you have one of your own?
(4) Fourth, explain the solution that your definition of “person” gives to the ethical debates of abortion, euthanasia, and animal ethics.
Attendance is mandatory for the group presentations on Monday (5/4/09), Wednesday (5/6/09), and Friday (5/8/09). It's the only time I'll be a stickler for it. Basically, I want you to show respect for the other groups presenting.One last thing: be sure to keep the presentations under 15 minutes. A 10-minute presentation is ideal, so we can have time for a short question-and-answer session afterward.
If you don't attend on either the days your group isn't presenting (and your absence isn't excused), your own personal presentation grade will drop. Each day you don't attend will lower your grade by a full letter grade.
Attendance is mandatory for the group presentations on Monday (5/4/09), Wednesday (5/6/09), and Friday (5/8/09). It's the only time I'll be a stickler for it. Basically, I want you to show respect for the other groups presenting.One last thing: be sure to keep the presentations under 15 minutes. A 10-minute presentation is ideal, so we can have time for a short question-and-answer session afterward.
If you don't attend on either the days your group isn't presenting (and your absence isn't excused), your own personal presentation grade will drop. Each day you don't attend will lower your grade by a full letter grade.
Attendance is mandatory for the group presentations on Monday (5/4/09), Wednesday (5/6/09), and Friday (5/8/09). It's the only time I'll be a stickler for it. Basically, I want you to show respect for the other groups presenting.One last thing: be sure to keep the presentations under 15 minutes. A 10-minute presentation is ideal, so we can have time for a short question-and-answer session afterwards.
If you don't attend on either the days your group isn't presenting (and your absence isn't excused), your own personal presentation grade will drop. Each day you don't attend will lower your grade by a full letter grade.
The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
Alex Kuczynski | ||||
colbertnation.com | ||||
|
First, you should check out the section of our Do the Right Thing textbook on homosexuality, which begins on page 607.
Also, here are some links and a video:
First, you should check out the section on censorship and porn in our Do the Right Thing textbook, which begins on page 513.
Also, here are some links:
Here are some links:
Here are some links:
Here are some links that are loosely related to the stuff on happy ethics (utilitarianism) that we are studying.
-If you agree that it is solid evidence for objective morality, 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.4. Motives vs. Consequences. Which do you think is more important in determining whether an action is morally right or wrong: the consequences of the action (what happens as a result of the action), or the motivations behind the action (the reasons why someone chooses that action over other actions)? Why?
-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 universally bad? How is it that Hitler is simply bad to me, but not objectively bad?
-Describe an ethical theory that we have studied that cares more about the consequences of an action.5. 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, February 27th.)
-Then describe an ethical theory that we have studied that care more about the motivations of actions.
-In arguing for one side over the other, describe a specific moral dilemma in which these theories would give different decisions based on the action’s consequences vs. its motivations. Be sure to fully explain and defend your position.
[NOTE: You can choose either side, as long as you defend it with a well-reasoned argument.]
P1- true2) (from Stephen Colbert)
P2- true
structure- good
overall - good
P1- questionable ("great" is subjective)3) Some people are funny.
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)
P1- true (we might disagree over who specifically is funny, but nearly all of us would agree that someone is funny)4) All email forwards are annoying.
P2- true
structure- bad (the 1st premise only says some are funny; Sean could be one of the unfunny people)
overall- bad (bad structure)
P1- questionable ("annoying" is subjective)5) All bats are mammals.
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)
P1- true6) Some dads have beards.
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 anything about the relationship between mammals and winged creatures just from the fact that bats belong to each group)
overall- good (bad structure)
P1- true7) This class is boring.
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)
P1-questionable ("boring" is subjective)8) All students in here are mammals.
P2- false (nearly everyone would agree that there are some boring things not associated with Sean)
structure- good
overall- bad (bad premises)
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)
P1- true!10) All students in here are humans.
P2- true
P3- questionable ("scary" is subjective)
structure- good (same structure as arg #1, just repeated once more)
overall- bad (bad 3rd premise)
P1- true11) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
P2- true!
structure- good (same structure as arg #1)
overall- sound
P1- questionable (since you haven't heard me sing, you don't know whether it's true or false)12) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
P2- false
structure- good
overall- bad (bad premises)
P1- questionable (again, you don't know)13) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
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)
P1- questionable (again, you don't know)14) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
P2- true
structure- good
overall- bad (bad 1st premise)
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)
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:
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://cccethics09.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.