Thursday, May 21, 2009

Goodbye to Yesterday...

Your grades are now posted. Bye, 9:00 class!

Ahmad Weighing His OptionsIt's 9:25. Do You Know Where Your Final Is?Kyle Posing for His Senior Portrait

Enjoy your summer, 10:00 class!

Hook 'Em HornsAshton Giving the Stink EyeMonique's Stylish Hat

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

Don't Ever Change!!!

Friday, May 8, 2009

Final Exam

Just a reminder that the final exam is Wednesday, May 13th in our normal classroom at our normal class time. You will only have 50 minutes to take the test, so be sure to show up on time.

OK, One: Napping

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Stubborn = Intellectually Dishonest

Here's a little rant on a favorite topic of mine: intellectual honesty. A simple goal of this class is to get us all to recognize what counts as good evidence and what counts as bad evidence for a claim. I think we're getting better at that. But it's not clear that we're caring about the difference once we figure it out.

Getting us to care is the real goal of this class. We should care about good evidence. We should care about it because it's what gets us closer to the truth. When we judge an argument to be overall good, THE POWER OF LOGIC COMPELS US to believe the conclusion. If we like an arg, but still stubbornly disagree with its conclusion, we are just being irrational.

This means we should be open-minded. We should be willing to let new evidence change our current beliefs. We should be open to the possibility that we might be wrong. This is how Todd Glass puts it:


Here are the first two paragraphs of a great article I read in the Fall on this:

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.

Ironically, having extreme confidence in oneself is often a sign of ignorance. In many cases, such stubborn certainty is unwarranted.

Certainty Is a Sign of Ignorance

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Give Up

Because we ran out of time, we skipped over a section in class on giving to charity. It's an important issue, though, so I thought I'd give you some links on it, anyway.
Finally, here's Peter Singer's recent Colbert Report interview .

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Peter Singer
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical HumorNASA Name Contest


Sally Struthers Is On the Case

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Hunting

Monday, April 27, 2009

Moopheus

Here are some links on animal ethics:


Aw, It Doesn't Taste THAT Bad...

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Paper #2 Guidelines

Due Date: The beginning of class on Monday, May 11th, 2009

Worth: 15% 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 definition of “person” as it relates to morality.
(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.

(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.
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.

Present Immediate Capacity to Function as a Morning Person?

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Group Presentations: 11:00 Class

Here are the group assignments for the 11:00 a.m. class. If you're not in a group yet, let me know as soon as possible so we can get you in one.

Team Stem Cells (1st on Monday, 5/4/09)
Alex, Chris M., Ebony, Kim, Nichelle

Team Death Penalty (2nd on Monday, 5/4/09)
Christina, Karolina, Kyle B., Shanta, Tom

Team Homosexuality (3rd on Monday, 5/4/09)
Autumn, Mallory, Meghan, Nicole, Shardé

Team Pornography (1st on Wednesday, 5/6/09)
Amanda, Chris K., Diane, Jamie, Kevin, Tom B.

Team Steroids (2nd on Wednesday, 5/6/09)
Lisa, Mark, Nick, Shane, Spencer, Steve

Team Cosmetic Surgery (1st on Friday, 5/8/09)
Bernadette, Danielle, Justin, Kyle W., Rebecca

Team Wal-Mart (2nd on Friday, 5/8/09)
Alaina, Brooke, Gladys, Jess, Liz

Also, I mentioned this in class, but just in case...
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.

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.
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.

Group Presentations: 10:00 class

Here are the group assignments for the 10:00 a.m. class. If you're not in a group yet, let me know as soon as possible so we can get you in one.

Team Pornography (1st on Monday, 5/4/09)
Ashley, Casondra, Jessica, Juanita, Kristine, Zach

Team Stem Cells (2nd on Monday, 5/4/09)
Antonio, Aubrey, Jeremiah, Shaun, Vyvyan

Team Prostitution (1st on Wednesday, 5/6/09)
Casey, Chelsea, Dan, Jennifer, Lindsay, Stephen L.

Team Torture (2nd on Wednesday, 5/8/09)
Alex, Ashton, Chris, Ralph, Steve P., Yousef

Team Steroids (1st on Friday, 5/8/09)
Frank, Hasan, Joe A., Joe K., Mike, Tiana

Team Death Penalty (2nd on Friday, 5/8/09)
Andrew, Bill, Brittany G., Brittany S., Monique, Tim

Also, I mentioned this in class, but just in case...

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.

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.
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.

Group Presentations: 9:00 class

Here are the group assignments for the 9:00 a.m. class. If you're not in a group yet, let me know as soon as possible so we can get you in one.

Team Social Contract (1st on Monday, 5/4/09)
Angeleitha, Britné, Chris, Christina, Christine, Kyle

Team Taoism (2nd on Monday, 5/4/09)
Amanda, Danielle, Dave, Duong, Lynda, Rob

Team Death Penalty (1st on Wednesday, 5/6/09)
Ahmad, Khalid, Joe, Rachel, Raquel, Taylor

Team Steroids (1st on Friday, 5/8/09)
Alex, Clark, Jim, Kevin, Scott, Steve C.

Team Pornography (2nd on Friday, 5/8/09)
Aeisha, Bora, Chaurne, Jocelyn, Kavonya, Maria

Also, I mentioned this in class, but just in case...
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.

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.
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.

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Team Implants

Here are some links on the ethics of cosmetic surgery:
The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Alex Kuczynski
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical HumorNASA Name Contest

Kitty Has Low Self-Esteem

Team Taoism

Here are some links:

Team Social Contract

First, you should read the section on Economic and Social Justice that starts on page 461 in our "Do the Right Thing" textbook. I recommend specifically the article by John Rawls that begins on page 464. Also, here are some links.

Team Homosexuality

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:


Team Wal-Mart

Here are some links on the ethics of Wal-Mart:

Team Porn

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:

Team Death Penalty

First, you should read the section on the death penalty in the "Do the Right Thing" textbook. This includes the articles by Louis Pojman and Hugo Adam Bedau on pages 361-383.

Also, here are some links:

Team Torture

Here are some links:

Team Steroids

Here are some links:

Team Prostitution

Here are some links on prostitution:

Feminism & Prostitution (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Radio Show on Morality of Prostitution (Philosophy Talk: check the additional links at the bottom of this page)
Why Is Prostitution Illegal? (Slate)
So Why Is Porn Legal? (Slate)
Legalize It, Already! (Reason)
Prostitution in America and Europe (Atlantic Monthly)
Sex Trafficking Around the World (NY Review of Books)
It Helps Marriages! (Times of London)
Utilitarians for Hookers? (National Review)
Criticism of the Utilitarian Arg (National Review)

Team Stem Cells

First, for research on stem cells, you should check out the section of our Do the Right Thing textbook on fetal tissue transplants (pages 303-328). Here are some links on stem cell research:


If you're into the issue of cloning, you should check out the 3 articles on cloning in our Vice & Virtue textbook (pages 421-462), as well as Shannon Smith's article on cloning in our Do the Right Thing textbook (pages 349-360). Here are some links on cloning:

Sunday, April 5, 2009

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 = Baby Bear

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Midterm Reminder

Just a reminder: The midterm is this Friday (March 27th). It's worth 15% of your overall grade, and will cover everything we've done in class so far:
  • Evaluating Arguments
  • Relativism (Herodotus, Benedict, & Nagel readings)
  • God Ethics (Mortimer & Arthur readings)
  • Happy Ethics (Mill & Williams readings)
  • Kant's Ethics (Kant & Taylor readings)
We'll be reviewing for the midterm in class on Wednesday, so I'll be giving you more details about the test then.

BE THERE.
Show Your Work

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Kant's a Tool

I thought it might help us all if I opened up a post dedicated solely to complaining about how tough the Immanuel Kant reading was. Leave your best Kant insults in the comments of this post.

[can't get enough Kant?]
[smitten by Deontological Ethics?]
[want tips on reading these articles?]

I Made A Facebook Group About It

Monday, March 9, 2009

Paper & Midterm Rescheduled

We decided in class to move the due date of the first paper back until Wednesday, March 25th.

Also, we're pushing the midterm back to Friday, March 27th.

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

Sean, You're the Best

Saturday, March 7, 2009

Cookie Party!

Easter Basket CupcakesThe 11:00 a.m. class is having a cookie party! Bake or buy cookies, cupcakes, pies, cakes, krimpets, or whatever you want. Then bring your baked goods to class on Friday, March 13th. There's a Facebook Event invitation -- go join the event!

Sorry, 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. class, but this isn't for you. We can schedule a cookie party for our class some time in the future.

Friday, March 6, 2009

Check the Source

Yeah, she was there, or read it in a book, or something-via GraphJam

Monday, March 2, 2009

Another Snow Day!

Class is canceled today, Monday, March 2nd, because of the snow. In fact, all day and night classes at Camden County College are canceled.

Please go sledding! Take pictures!! SHOW THEM TO ME!!!

Sledding Is an Integral Part of Living a Fully Examined Life

Sunday, March 1, 2009

Links Worthy of a Swine

Here are some links that are loosely related to the stuff on happy ethics (utilitarianism) that we are studying.

So what makes you happy? WaWa? Ping pong? Cookies? Pancake Krimpets?

tomorrow i get swarm of deadly wasps

Sunday, February 22, 2009

God Stuff

Here are some links on God Ethics (divine command theory).
Silly Euthyphro, You Think Too Much

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Paper #1 Guidelines

New Due Date: Wednesday, March 11th 25th, 2009

Worth: 5% of your overall grade

Assignment: Write an essay in which you support your opinion with an argument. Papers must be typed, and must be between 300-600 words long. Provide a word count on the first page of the paper. (Most programs like Microsoft Word have automatic word counts.)

Paper Topics (Choose ONE of the following topics)
1. Defend a Theory. Out of the eight ethical theories that we have studied—moral relativism, God ethics (divine command), happy ethics (utilitarianism), Kant's ethical theory, Ross’s Deontology, Aristotle’s virtue ethics, Kohlberg’s moral development, and Gilligan’s ethics of care—which do you think is best? Why? What are some (at least two) of the best objections that someone might make to that theory? How would you reply to those objections to defend this theory? Explain & defend your position.

2. Criticize a Theory. Provide a detailed criticism of one of the eight ethical theories we’ve discussed in class. First, briefly explain the theory, and present what you take to be the best argument in its favor. Then critically evaluate the argument. What are good objections to the argument? Consider how someone who supports the theory might respond to your objections, and explain why these responses are unsuccessful.

3. Facts, Opinions, & the Hitler Intuition. In class, we’ll be discussing the “Hitler Intuition”: Hitler’s actions don’t just seem wrong for you or me; they seem objectively wrong. Many use this intuition to argue against moral relativism, and support the belief that moral claims are fact-based. Examine this intuition.
-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.
-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?
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?
-Describe an ethical theory that we have studied that cares more about the consequences of an action.
-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.]
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.)

It Tastes Like Burning

Monday, February 16, 2009

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.

Good or Bad Structure?

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Quiz You Once, Shame on Me...

UPDATE: We've moved the quiz back! The first quiz will be held at the beginning of class on Monday, February 16th Wednesday, February 18th. You will have about 25 minutes to take it. The quiz is worth 7.5% 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 relativism (Are moral claims merely opinions or are they factually based?) These questions will be based on our class discussions of the Herodotus, Ruth Benedict, and Thomas Nagel readings.

Feel free to insult me in the comments for putting you through the terrible ordeal of taking a quiz.
This is a Very Weak Insult

Friday, February 13, 2009

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 .

The LOLCat Dolls

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Relative to You, But Not to Me

HAPPY FUN TIMES
Here are some links on our first topic: are moral claims merely opinions or are they factually based?

We're All Allowed to Be Wrong

Friday, February 6, 2009

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. Students from most of the schools I've taught at are planning to attend.

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

Real Original, Landis

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Evaluating Args

Here are the answers to the handout on evaluating arguments that we went over in class. Perhaps I should have titled the handout "So Many Bad Args!"

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 anything 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 (nearly everyone would agree 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)

Try Again... FOREVAR!
(More on Sisyphus)

Friday, January 30, 2009

Defining Our Terms

Lame?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!

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Snow Day!

Our class is cancelled today, Wednesday, January 28th, because of the snow. All morning classes at Camden County College are cancelled today. The college opens at noon.

Enjoy!
The Days Are Just Packed!

Friday, January 23, 2009

Three-Year-Old Philosophers

Here's comedian Louis CK's take on the broad, fundamental questions that toddlers ask (the routine starts 2:40 into the video).

Louis CK - Why?
WHY? WHY? WHY?

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

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://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.

The internet is only good for logic blogs and cat pictures