Help on paper writing

What a Philosophy Paper Should Look Like

Value Added - Quality is measured by how much value that person adds
How to add value:
1. Independent research (not required)
Books and academic articles are the best. Internet resources are always met with a little skepticism. Just because some dude put up that Descartes sucks on his blog doesn’t mean that it counts as a premise in your argument.
2. Your Own ideas (Extremely Valuable)
A. An Argument – Beginning and maintaining a Thesis (required)
B Opinions are cheap, unless backed by an argument
C. Clarifying and explaining issues ONLY is ok but only B- even if it is the best summary ever. I can read the original text, tell me something that isn’t in there. Show me that you understand what the thinker is actually saying, but do it while extrapolating on Your Own Ideas. Actually take a stand on an issue and argue for it using reasons, proofs, examples, and counterarguments.

Structure of the paper
Introduction – 1st Part
Topic and Thesis statement
Get readers attention. Spark the reader’s interest.
1. Statement of Problem
2. Statement of Solution
3. Why is this important/Why should anyone care

Exegesis – 2nd Part
Stating an opponents view or stating the problem as given by other person
Getting the other person straight – Give them the benefit of the doubt
Best way to do this is to use quotes – as evidence of their position
Quotes need citations. Just page # unless you use external – then MLA
Be Concise – don’t give historical backgrounds and dates of birth.

Analysis – 3rd Part
Your response – The body of the argument
How you solve the problem
Your thesis and your argument for it
Show why and how the problem is solved
Think of essay as an itch that needs to be scratched. Tell why the itch has gone away.

And for the love of all that is right and good with the world: 12pt, times new roman or Garamond (it is trendy and acceptable in the font world) Title page is the best but otherwise just Name: Class: and title. Don’t take up half a page with your information. Courier New and other huge fonts make you look silly and raise my eyebrow before I even start reading. Proofread. Don’t swear. Umm…don’t write it the night before and have fun….that’s it.

Midterm Assignment

Due October 13th

4-7 pages

You can choose either to address a theme such as 'the respect and dignity of human life' or 'utilitarianism' and discuss some of the various moral problems that we have looked at.

or

Discuss one of the moral problems we looked at, either abortion or the death penalty, and give each side of the issue before you yourself provide your opinion and argument

The first section of your paper should be a brief history of the issues. The second section of the paper should explain the arguments of the competing sides. The third and primary section of the paper should be a reasoned argument to a conclusion. I want to know what your thoughts on the issue are. Hopefully the essays we read and the information we look at will allow you to form a cohesive view of your own. Your job in this paper is to argue for that view and tell me why your argument has worth.

Second Case Study Assignment

Abortion Case Study Assignment- Due October 6th

Please read the case study and answer discussion questions for:

Case Study #2 on pg. 127. Please answer discussion questions #2 and #3
Case Study #5 on pg. 130. Please answer discussion questions #3 and #5

They are due at class time on October 6th.

What I am looking for:
A thoughtful opinion on the issue
Supported reasons why you think your argument has worth
Demonstrated knowledge about the issues involved
All I want is your name and section on the top. double spaced. Times New Roman. 12 point.
Put quotes taken from the book in quotation marks with a page number.
If you use outside sources you must cite them.

You are able to choose your midterm and final paper topics. So be on the look out for issues and questions that you find particularly interesting or ones that you want to learn more about. Don't limit yourself to just answering the question in a couple of sentences, if you have more to say, say it.

What not to do:
Waste a lot of paper space so that it looks like you did more than you did.
For Example: margins, triple space, big font, large title and name, etc.
Spend time and space restating the issue and the question. I know what is going on, just jump right into your argument.
Don't just repeat the question back to me, that doesn't count.

Medical, Religious, Moral, and Rights issues in the Abortion debate

Why is the abortion debate important? p. 90

Methods of abortion:

Medical: Only possible early in the pregnancy.
morning after pill
RU-486 – can be used in first 7 weeks

Surgical: most commonly used, 98-99% success rate
D&C - “spoon shaped curette inserted to scrape the surface of the uterine wall”
D&E - primary method, also known as vacuum aspiration, 90% of US abortions
IDX - partial birth, estimated 5000 yearly, “After partially delivering an intact fetus feet-first, the doctor punctures the fetus’s skull, suctions out the brains, and then crushes the skull so the fetus can fit easily through the woman’s birth canal.” (banned in 2003)

The question of religion:

“The moral controversy over abortion cannot be resolved simply by uncritically accepting religious dogma. At the same time, the arguments used by the different religions should not be dismissed offhand, because they are generally based on philosophical rather than purely theological arguments. Good ethical analysis, while eschewing arguments based solely on faith, entails beign open to, listening to, and subjecting to critical analysis, the moral arguments put forth by the various religions.”(83)

Both religious and non-religious sides need to take each other into account. The arguments presented from either side are serious arguments and must be dealt with and answered if one is going to hold a certain position. All opinions and arguments must be allowed to the table, you can’t just shrug one off because you disagree with the source of the argument. That is an ad hominem. You must address the argument itself, not the group giving it.

A couple important points in fetal development:
6-8 weeks – brain waves detected
8 weeks - all organs and structural features in place- fetus resembles a small child
40 weeks -birth

The Moral Status of the Fetus:

Is the fetus a person with all the rights that come with being a person?
Potential life – Because it has the potential to develop into a person, should it get the
same respect as a person. If less, how much less?
Harming the fetus during a federal crime is a separate prosecutable crime.
Discussion Question - should someone be charged for killing two people if killing someone who is only 4 weeks pregnant? 8? 39?
If the fetus can feel pain but is not considered a full human person, do we have to take into account how painful the abortion procedure is?

The Rights of the Mother, Child and Father:
If the debate turns from whether or not the fetus is a person to who’s rights are most important the crucial questions change

The mother:
“Women should have the right to make decisions about their own bodies. To deny women this basic right…is to treat them as a means only.”(87)

We have no right to force unjust burdens onto people, by forcing a women to carry a baby to term we are subjecting her to things that may be against her will. Do we have a right as a society to do this? Doesn’t she have the right to not be used and her life risked?

“These include complications and deaths from self-induced and illegal abortions, overpopulation, the burden on women of mandatory motherhood, at least during the nine months of pregnancy…”(89)

The Child:
Is the mother’s autonomy and freedom more important than the fetus’s right to its potential life?

“Fetal alcohol syndrome, according to the Center for Disease Control, is the leading cause of mental retardation in the United States. More infants are born with fetal alcohol syndrome than the combined total of Down’s syndrome, spina bifida, muscular dystrophy, and HIV. Women who smoke during pregnancy also are at higher risk for having babies with low birth weight, respiratory problems, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).”(87)

Discussion Question: Say that a mother has chosen not to have an abortion, does the mother have a moral obligation to ensure the health and safety of the potential life by abstaining from drugs, alcohol and cigarettes? Does this tell us anything about our assumptions about how we view the rights of the ‘people’ involved?

The Father:
Not much. No requirement of informing, no requirement of any kind of involvement until the child is born. The argument is that because there is no chance of harming or killing the father physically in someone else’s pregnancy then they have little rights in the actual decision making process.

Selective Abortion and the potential for a slippery slope:

“Unlike elective abortion, in which the pregnancy itself is unwanted, in selective abortion it is the particular fetus rather than the pregnancy, that is unwanted. About 7 percent of infants are born with a physical and/or mental disorder. Prenatal diagnosis provides parents with information about most of these disorders as well as the gender of the fetus. The overwhelming majority of pregnancies in which the fetus is diagnoses as having a genetic disorder are terminated by selective abortion.”(88)

Where do we stop? What about sex or hair color, what if they are not genetically predisposed to run a 4 minute mile? Ex. Gattica. “With increasing knowledge of the human genome, geneticists may soon be able to prenatally diagnose tendencies toward obesity, cancer, and homosexuality – to name a few traits that most Americans consider undesirable in their children.”(89)

Abortion as a benefit to children:
This argument runs that if we only allow to be born the children that are wanted we will have no unwanted children and hence people will take better care to raise them better. So abortion is actually a good thing because it increases the quality of life for those who are born.

Abortion background info

Key Questions:
When does life begin? Is there a difference between life and a human person
Whose rights are involved and whose rights matter the most?
Safety
Under what conditions can we allow people to have abortions

Terminology:
Infanticide - killing of infants
Quickening - when the fetus is first noticed to be moving by the mother
insolent - when the soul enters the fetus
Viability - Ability of fetus to survive outside of the womb
Life - Any form of living animal or vegetable.
Human life - Any living entity which has human DNA. A spermatozoa, ovum, pre-embryo, embryo, fetus, newborn, and infant are different forms of human life. However, they are not all considered to have equal value.
Human person - This is a form of human life which is considered to be a person whose life and health should be protected. No consensus exists about when this state begins. Pro-lifers generally say it happens at or very shortly after conception, when a human life with a unique DNA begins. Pro-choicers generally say that it happens later in gestation; some believe that personhood only begins after birth when the newborn is breathing on its own.

The numbers

US:
43% of American women will have one
Have been on a steady rise since Roe V. Wade, until 90's when it started going back down
1313000 in 2000
25% of US pregnancies end in abortion
85 to 90% are terminated in the first 12 wks
About 80% of women having abortions were over the age of 18
78% of the women having abortions were unmarried.
CDC figures for 1995 show that 20% of women having abortions are in their teens; 33% are ages 20 to 24, and 47% are ages 25 or older.

Worldwide:
On the increase
45000000 in 1998
Frequent in south american Catholic countries
Vietnam is country with highest rate
former societ union(60%) and Romania(78%) - Contraceptives are in short supply


Story in the U.S.:
1821 1st antiabortion laws in Conneticut - up until then they were prohibited after quickening
1859 AMA condemned abortion as "unwarranted destruction of human life"
1855-1880 - most states passed anti-abortion legislation- most including 'therapeutic exception'
1960's - dissatisfaction with abortion laws, stemming from: "increase into he number of women in the workforce, a desire for smaller families increased publicity about the dangers of illegal abortion, impermanent in the safety of surgical abortion," and a increase in the public awareness of the desperation and horrible situations that were placed on women unable to receive one.
1965 Griswold vs. Conneticut - Right to privacy and 14th amendment interpreted
1969 - Planned Parenthood comes out in support of abortion, AMA switches its position to support it as well


Most important legal event for the current status of abortion laws - Roe v. Wade
1973
Right to privacy implied in the 14th amendment
Fetus is not a person
"[N]o case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment...All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the majority portion of the nineteenth century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."
State can set rules after viability - under States right to look after health of its inhabitants
Established exceptions to the viability rule if the health of the mother is at stake
which placed the life of the mother above that of the fetus
Abortion permitted up through the first trimester, after that the state can enter

1992: Planned Parenthood v. Casey - Replaced trimester system with floating viability

Current state:
38% think abortion is morally acceptable
66% against partial birth abortions

"The fact that abortion is currently legal does not mean that it is moral; nor does believing that abortion is immoral necessarily imply that it ought to be outlawed...This involves balancing concerns about abortion with other concerns such as equal economic rights for women."

William James and Pragmatism

Areas where one is justified in going beyond compelling evidence & logic
(1) morals
(2) personal relations
(3) religious faith

In all of these areas, faith in the fact may help create the fact. Truth is created by the person believing something to be true. We choose what is true based on what has the most "cash value"
They are true until we find evidence that the truth is otherwise. This is a sort of selective relativism that can be used only for certain issues, in particular ones that don't have an obvious answer because they are outside our realm of understanding.

The argument states that belief can be seen in terms of what are called "live and dead hypotheses". For example, the hypothesis that life exists on other planets might be totally uninteresting to a businessman whose time is used running his organisation; a NASA scientist, on the other hand, would most likely be very interested.

So, in choosing between two hypotheses or options - such as "God exists" and "God does not exist" - it is argued that we must consider three things:

1. Is the option forced? When a choice can be avoided it is not necessary to make a decision. If, for instance, I have to choose whether to live or die, the option is forced - there is no third alternative. If the choice is between doing my homework and watching tv, there are probably many other options - such as playing cards or staring at the wall.

2. Is the option living? If one or both of my choices are uninteresting or impossible, then the option can be said to be dead. Should I become Prince of Canad, talk to Einstein, or fly to the moon? These options are less likely to be living if achieving them is very unlikely, impossible or absurd. Furthermore, if I am not particularly interested in any of the options, then my heart is not in the choice.

3. Is the option momentous? Certain choices may present themselves once in a lifetime or only under very special circumstances. Other options may involve making a drastic change in one's life - such as marriage, having children, running away from home, etc. If a choice is easily undone, or has little effect, then it cannot be said to be momentous.

The two things that dictate how we form our beliefs are:
1. Our desire to know the truth.
2. Our fear of falling into error.

Whilst the first principle leads us to formulate hypotheses, the second keeps us from asserting to beliefs which do not appear absolutely certain.These two drives are seen as so ingrained in human nature as to be almost innate. The battle between them results in the content of the things we believe that we know.

Remaining skeptical about propositions where evidence is incomplete makes sense in many circumstances, because the advantages of believing (even if that belief were true) do not outweigh the disadvantages of skepticism.

The answers to scientific questions fall into this category. That is because the answer to a scientific question (e.g., when one has two alternative scientific hypotheses) is usually neither live, forced, nor momentous.

In contrast, James argues that the answers to certain questions are at least in part determined by our beliefs. For example, whether or not two people are friends depends upon whether both believe that they are friends. To remain skeptical about whether they are friends would preclude their being friends. In cases where the truth of a proposition depends upon personal action, faith (say, that X is a friend) based on a desire (that X be a friend) is permissible.

Hugo Bedau: Capital Punishment

“Central among these ethical considerations are the value, worth, and dignity of persons-the victims of crime, the offenders, and the rest of society.”(261)

It is morally wrong for Bedau to take human life no matter what. If we take a human life as a means to some other task we are damaging the dignity of human life. Part of our duty in the social contract is to maintain the integrity of our value of life, killing humans for any ‘means’ damages this. We as a society can not treat people as a means to an end.
“I mean any view that makes it permissible to kill persons in order to protect some other value (e.g., property) or in order to advance some social or political goal (e.g., national liberation)…” (261)

“The right to life seems to pose a problem for a policy of capital punishment. Even if a person has committed murder (so the argument runs) and has therewith intentionally violated another’s right to life, the criminal still has his or her own right to life. Would it not be a violation for the murderer’s right for him or her to be put to death as punishment? (262)

“The chief attraction of the idea of natural rights is that it provides each of us with moral armor (our rights) to protect us against burdens and deprivations that might be imposed on the ground that they are in the interests of the many or good for society in the long run…”(263)
p. 269 – note on societal downside of a government that kills its citizens
“A system like this does not enhance human life; it cheapens and degrades it. However heinous murder and other crimes are, the system of capital punishment does not compensate for or erase those crimes. It tends only to add new injuries of its own to the catalogue of human brutality.”(271)

He raises the inevitable question, why do we punish? “We re not likely to assess the morality of capital punishment correctly unless we understand the morality of punishment in general…” (265)

His answer… “[m]ost of us believe that it is not morally wrong and may even be our moral duty to use violence to prevent aggression directed against either ourselves or innocent third parties.”(267)

We have a duty to not use more force than is necessary. 266-267
“Unless there is a good reason for choosing a more rather tan a less severe punishment for a crime, the less severe penalty is to be preferred. This principle obviously commends itself to anyone who values human life and who concedes that, all other things being equal, less pain and suffering is always better than more..”(268)


“As for punishment it prevents crimes by incapacitation and by deterrence. The tows are theoretically independent because they achieve prevention very differently. Executing a murderer prevents crimes by means of incapacitation to the extent that the murderer would have committed further crimes if not executed.”(267)


Just as we have the duty to not overuse our power to get the job done, when the job is to remove a criminal from society, lifetime incarceration is just as effective as the death penalty. So, we shouldn’t use excessive force and execute murderers.

Conclusion: long term imprisonment gets the job done and state sponsored killing of humans is a violation of the natural rights that are supposed to protect us from being killed as a means to an end. Therefore death penalty is excessive and a moral wrong. P. 271

Christopher Morris - Punishment and the Loss of Moral Standing

Morris is justifying the use of the death penalty on the grounds of a social contract argument. Social Contract theory states that we give up some certain rights in order to gain others. For example, in the state of nature there is no police or governing body to punish one from doing harmful acts to one’s neighbor. But, consequently there is nothing protecting one from harm from one’s neighbor. So the theory goes that people entered into a contract of non-harm, and eventually contracts of property rights,etc.

The basis of the social contract is that we give up our ability to harm others with whom we are in the social contract with, which is the rest of humanity. Morris says that if we violate the fundamental tenet by killing an innocent person we then forfeit our own right to life. The social contract if broken can mean that rights can be taken away, even the fundamental one,the right to life. This is only possible if the violation of the social contract is broken on the same level.

Some key quotes:

“[A] type of forfeiture theory, one according to which part (but only part) of the justification for punishment rests in the fact that wrongdoers lack certianrights, the presence of which would normally suffice to block the appropriate punishment…”(256)

“Given the imperfections of human rationality, it would be unwise to desire a system without sanctions fro violations of its norms.”(256)

“Their status is analogous to exile; they are banished, not from a physical space but from a moral space. They have lost, at least in part, their membership in the moral community.”(257)

“By their unwillingness to impose the constraints of justice on their conduct toward others, they lose the protection of justice.”(257)

Good essay answers

Good answers from the Quiz.

Utilitarianism:
“My reaction would be to do nothing because killing the man who killed Bob would bring more overall unhappiness than happiness. Although killing the murderer would make me happy it would not make the murderer’s family and friends happy. In fact, it would cause the grief therefore it would be immoral.”

“A moral reaction to Bob’s murder under Utilitarian theory would be to do nothing. Killing the other guy would not increase total happiness because then there would be two people dead versus only bob if you were to do nothing. However, should the inhabitants become upset, it would be moral to react how they collectively saw fit, as their total happiness is greater than that of Bob’s killer.

Natural Law:
“This would be moral because natural law states that a person has the right to punish another person who has wronged them”

“not killing others is something instinctually inside of us”

“Under natural law theory, it would be safe to assume that Bob’s killer would be punished in some way, whether he is banished, killed, etc. Because natural law theory claims that every man is entitled to life, liberty and property and that no other man is entitled to keep those from another, it can be concluded that Bob’s murderer has broken natural law, and should therefore be punished.”

Care Ethics:
“I don’t react to him killing Bob, because care ethics is that a caring relationship is more important than other moral issues, such as justice, but there is no more justice, so you could kill him but you don’t. The moral act is that you care enough for humans not to take another’s life.”

Deontology:
“We have a duty to our peers, one being not to kill”

The Perfect Answer: demonstrated knowledge of terms and provides a clear argument for the conclusion
“The murder of my best buddy, Bob, would cause me great dismay, especially since I would no longer have anyone to play checkers with. However, my main reaction would be to do absolutely nothing about it since the murder was actually morally justified by two theories.
Bob was not a very well liked man. In fact, he had a deadly disease that he was spreading throughout our group. The man who murdered my buddy did so out of a sense of duty to protect our people. This is the morality theory of deontology.
Aside from deontology, Bob’s illness caused a lot of pain and suffering for our group. By killing him the murderer made everyone feel relieved that the burden of Bob was over. This increased the overall happiness and saved our people from possible death. Therefore, he was moral according to Utilitarianism.
When all is said and done, although Bobs murder is a great sadness for me, the act was moral through deontology, it was the murderer’s sense of duty, and Utilitarianism, it produced the greatest happiness within our group. Therefore I would do nothing and mourn silently.”

Death Penalty Case Study - Due Sept. 20th

Case Study 1 p. 289
Discussion Questions 2 and 3

Case Study 2. p. 290
Discussion Question 3 and 4

1-2 pages. 3 page max.
They are due at class time on september 20th

What I am looking for:
A thoughtful opinion on the issue
Supported reasons why you think your argument has worth
Demonstrated knowledge about the issues involved

All I want is your name and section on the top. double spaced. Times New Roman. 12 point.

Put quotes taken from the book in quotation marks with a page number. If you use outside sources you must cite them.

You are able to choose your midterm and final paper topics. So be on the look out for issues and questions that you find particularly interesting or ones that you want to learn more about. Don't limit yourself to just answering the question in a couple of sentences, if you have more to say, say it.

What not to do:
Waste a lot of paper space so that it looks like you did more than you did. For Example: margins, triple space, big font, large title and name, etc.

Spend time and space restating the issue and the question. I know what is going on, just jump right into your argument. Don't just repeat the question back to me, that doesn't count.

Turn it in late and expect me to not dock you. It should only take a couple of hours max, there are 144 hours until it is due. Do not wait until you only have 6 hours left to start it, something might come up that might make you unable to get it in on time.

Punishment and the Death Penalty Day One

What is the Purpose of Punishment?
An assumption - Punishment is the appropriate moral response to wrongdoing
Retributive Justice
Deterrence
Rehabilitation/Reform
Protection of the community

Random Facts about death penalty:
1972 Furman v. Georgia death penalty ruled unconstitutional because too arbitrary
1976 Gregg v. Georgia reinstated
U.S., China, Iran account for 81% of all known executions
72% of Americans supported it in 2000 even though half of those polled thought it was
applied unfairly
20,000 murders a year, 300 convicted and sentenced to death
Much more costly to execute a criminal than detain him for life
Average time spent on death row is 10 years
Between 1973 and 1995 over two thirds of the death sentences had been overturned in the appeal process because of “procedural flaws or unsound evidence.
7000 executed between 1900 and 1985. 25 of those were innocent of capital crimes

Some Moral Issues surrounding the death penalty
Should the state murder?
What if the person is innocent?
“Lethal injection involves intravenous injection of a lethal dose of a barbiturate mixture that causes paralysis, suppression of breathing, and death by asphyxiation. Death generally occurs within minutes.”
Several death row inmates have been exonerated by DNA evidence.
Crime labs are currently backed up and often give faulty results

Is it ever ok to kill children
22 juvenile offenders killed as of 2003
Banned by United Nations
U.S. leads world in juvenile executions – last one outside of U.S. was in Iran in 2001

Deterrence
Death is the ultimate punishment and if people are afraid of being killed for their actions they are less likely to do them
No scientific support that it works

Retributive Justice
Lex talionis (rule of retaliation)
Retributive justice alone justifies death penalty, no need for deterrence
“A person who commits a crime creates a debt that must be paid to society. This debt is due regardless of whether the victim desires it.”(243)

Human dignity and the sanctity of life – Is it universal natural law?
No support in religious based morality
Banned in virtually all of Western Europe, Canada, South America, and Africa.
Bann supported by United Nations
“Because humans have intrinsic moral value, it is wrong to deprive them of their lives.”(244)

Distribution and Race
99% of those convicted are poor and using public defenders
White people are twice as likely to support the death penalty
Blacks are six times more likely than whites to end up on death row.
“[R]esearchers found that white support for the death penalty has strong ties to prejudice against blacks and that in some areas of the United States racial prejudice is the strongest predictor of support for the death penalty.”(245)

Philosophers on the Death Penalty
Arguments why the death penalty should be abolished:
Bentham: “All punishment is evil.” The deliberate infliction of suffering on a person who has committed an evil, such as murder, he argued, merely adds more evil and suffering to the world. Punishment, therefore, can be justified only if it is the only way to remove an even greater evil.

Camus: The state executing a person is far more grievous a sin than the original murder because it is pre-meditated. “Many laws consider a premeditated crime more serious than a crime of pure violence…For there to e equivalence, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from the moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life.”(246)

Arguments why we the death penalty is acceptable:
Kant: “The penal law is a categorical imperative…for if justice and righteousness perish, human life would no longer have any value in the world.” Murderer must die in order to satisfy requirement of retributive justice.

Kant: Punishment affirms the criminals’ dignity by acknowledgeing that, unlike children and “animals,” they are responsible for their actions. Denying people the right to punishment is to deny that they are rational beings capable of responsibility for their own actions.

Social Contract: You give up certain rights to gain others. By killing you take away all the rights of another individual and therefore give up all your rights to life. The right to life is the primary human right. This right, however, can be forfeited if we violate another person’s right to life.

Death penalty is the only way to make sure that an individual never kills again. “Just as people have the right to use lethal force to protect themselves, so too does the government have the right to use the death penalty to protect society from dangerous criminals.”(243)


Van Den Haag: The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense of Capital Punishment
The primary purpose of capital punishment is retribution. Equal treatment and deterrence not as important as justice. “The severity and finality of the death penalty is appropriate to the seriousness and finality of murder.”(251)

“The often-cited objection that capital punishment is applied in a discriminatory manner, therefore does not make capital punishment itself immoral, but rather the manner in which it is currently meted out.”(249)

Nearly all activities have some kind of risk. Getting a soda-pop out of the vending machine can kill you, but you still do it. Just because an activity has the chance to accidentally kill an innocent person doesn’t mean that it is practical to give it up.

Protecting the potential loss of innocent life is worth killing criminals whose life-value is not important or negligible.

Not willing to give up on deterrence.

“Execution of those who have committed heinous murders may deter only one murder per year. If it does, it seems quite warranted. It is also the only fitting retribution for murder I can think of.”(252)

Format of quiz

The format of the Quiz on Thursday Sept. 8th

Matching:
Match the philosopher that we looked at with their answer to the question ‘what is moral?’

Multiple Choice:
Over terminology that we covered in class and from the notes.

Short Answer:
Just give me in your own words the definition of Ethical Relativism, Categorical Imperative and Utilitarianism

Essay:
You will be given a fairly simple moral dilemma and asked to explain what the moral action would be and why, using two of the moral theories we looked at. There will be four choices, choose two

Possible choices: Rights ethics, virtue ethics, relativism, deontology, Utilitarianism, Care Ethics, Natural Law

Moral Theory Day 4

Moral Theory Day 4

Ayn Rand – Liberty Rights and ethical egoism

“There is only one fundamental right (all others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action – which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)”(62)

Lasses-faire capitalism is the only philosophy compatible with respect for the integrity and the reality of the individual human.

Why the U.S. is special – “All previous systems had held that man’s life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by permission of society, whichmay be revoked at any time. The United States held that man’s life is his by right (which means; by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of government is the protection of individual rights.”(62)

Welfare rights – entail the right to receive certain social goods such as eduction, medical care and police protection. Welfare rights are important because without a minimal standard of livingor education, we cannot pursue our legitimate interests. Socialist and Marxist countries place emphasis on such rights.

Welfare rights for Rand are bad, very bad. They involve forcibly taking goods from people who earned them and giving them to people who have not earned them and therefore do not deserve them. Welfare rights by definition inhibit individual freedom and are hence immoral.

“The right to life is the source of all rights- and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man, who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”(62)

The sole purpose of the government is to protect our rights of equality. Not that we all are equal or deserve the same stuff, but that we all equally are able to pursue that which we consider the good.

“It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.”(63)

List of supposed ‘rights’ on page 63

“If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are derived of rights and condemned to slave labor.”(63)


Discussion Questions:
Should the government guarantee happiness and minimal possessions or should it merely guarantee the pursuit of happiness and possessions?


Rights Ethics:

What are our natural rights?

applying rights ethics – pg. 35

Prima Facie – on first appearance

Problems -
“The theological basis of natural rights ethics, which privileges humans as a special creation, is difficult, if not impossible, to justify on either rational philosophical or empirical grounds.”(34)

We have no universal criteria for determining what these rights are so what we decide on lacks grounding.

Virtue Ethics: Aristotle revisited

“A virtue is an admirable character trait or disposition to habitually act ina manner that benefits ourselves and others.”(36)

examples of doctrine of the mean – pg. 37

As all moral theories do it attempts to provide an equation to use to determine if something is moral or not. The principle tool being reason. The skills required are intellectual and moral virtues.

“Humans need community in order to be virtuous. The purpose of the state is to promote the virtuous or good life. Justice is the primary virtue of the state; unless a state is just and encourages the development of virtue in its citizens, it has no power to make its citizens good.”(37)

Nietzsche and the Ubermenschen

His attack on Christianity – humility and weakness are not virtuous traits

Care Ethics

Justice, impartiality, and reason take a back seat to compassion.

Sympathy is the guide in determining the moral act rather than reason

Discussion Question:
Which motivates you more to take action, a sense of justice or a feeling of sympathy for other persons?

Conclusion on page 41

Moral Theory Day 3

Moral Theory Day 3

Utilitarianism and John Mill -

Morality is determined solely by its consequences
The utility of the result is the sole factor in judging the morality of the action

Not the individual’s happiness that matters but the happiness of the entire community of “sentient beings” which are defined as anything that can feel pleasure and pain.

Greatest Happiness Principle
“Actions are right in the proportion that the tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.”(47a) – Mill
ex. Pg. 23

Mill’s distinction between the quality and the quantity of pleasure
“Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast’s pleasures; no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, no instructed person would be an ignoramus, no person of feeling and conscience would be selfish and base, even though they should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs…It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates sdissatisfied thana fool satisfied.”( 48a)

Strengths:
Practical and can be applied cross culturally
“it challenges us to rethink our traditional notions about moral community. If we are going to exclude or marginalize people or other animals, we have to offer a ratinal justification for our decision.”(22)

Discussion questions
Are there other desirable goals in life besides pleasure?

Do you agree with Mill that intellectual pleasures have greater moral value than physical base animalistic ones?

W.D Ross’s Seven Prima Facie Duties
p. 27

Discussion Question:
If we are able to agree universally on these does that mean that we will agree on everything?

Kant and the Categorical Imperitive

We talked last time abut universal laws and the question that remained from that discussion was ‘how do we agree upon these natural universal laws when there are literally thousands of different interpretations as to what they are?’ Kant provides a litmus test for the ‘natural law’ and surprise surprise the tool that is needed to motor the equation is reason.

Universal morals and the Golden Rule
Categorical Imperitive – Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

The Good Will – what matters is intentions not outcomes

Deontology – Duty, or doing what is right for its own sake, is the foundation of morality.

Beneficience – the duty to do good acts and to promote happiness
“To be beneficent when we can is a duty; and besides this, there are many minds so sympathetically constituted that, without any other motive of vanity or self-interest, they find a pleasure in spreading joy around them, and can take delight in the satisfaction of others so far as it is their own work.”(51b)

Reason is what the tool for determining whether something is moral
“The preeminent good which we call moral can therefore consist in nothing else than the conception of law in itself, which certainly is only possible in a rational being…”(52a)

Examples –
Do not lie, and kissing

Discussion Question?

What is wrong with this? If nothing, why don’t we use it?

Syllabus

Contemporary Moral Problems Syllabus
Philosophy 2400 sections 2 and 4
Fall 2005

Instructor: Charles Carlson
Office: Scott Hall 0107D
Phone number: 419-530-4522
E-mail: Charles_Carlson@hotmail.com
Office Hours: Tuesday and Thursday from 3:15 – 5:45

If you would like to meet with me at another time other than my office hours, please arrange with me in advance. I am almost always in my office hours but to make sure that we are able to meet up when you need to talk to me try to let me know if you are coming. My office is in a very confusing part of Scott Hall and getting directions from me beforehand will be helpful to you. The best way to contact me for any question or concern whatsoever is email, which I check far too often.

Text: Analyzing Moral Issues 3rd Edition, Judith A. Boss. ISBN 0072877030

Course Requirements
Two Essays (4-7 pages) over the topics we discussed. You should first pick one of the moral issues which we talked and read about. The first section of your paper should be a brief history of the issues. The second section of the paper should explain the arguments of both sides. The third and primary section of the paper should be a reasoned argument to a conclusion. I want to know what your thoughts on the issue are. Hopefully the essays we read and the information we look at will allow you to form a cohesive view of your own. Your job in this paper is to argue for that view and tell me why your argument has worth. 25% each 50% total

Five Case Studies (1-2 Pages)
At the end of each section in the book there are case studies. I will select which case studies and which questions to do and distribute them at the beginning of each topic. I will select two or three per assignment. On the days these are due we will look at the case studies as a class and discuss them. 5% each 25% total

One Quiz. September 8th there will be a quiz over the first couple weeks of class material. We will initially be discussing moral theory before we actually engage in some of the contemporary issues. It will be over material from the book and class and if you have attended regularly you will have a very good idea what it is going to be over. 10%

Late Work: You will lose five points per day for a late assignment, and anything over two weeks late will not be accepted (apart from reasons like death, imprisonment, or the end of the world).


Class participation and attendance: Please read all materials before coming to class. It helps to mark up your books and jot down ideas and sources of confusion while you read. Please bring your books and share any of these ideas or confusions during class time. Think about ways to apply these ideas to what you already know to test them, and think about comparisons and contrasts with other thinkers we look at. As a general rule, you should come to every class every day with something to say, even if it is never said. This is a class where class participation is crucial. Class participation is not continually talking and wasting class time through ambiguous argumentation. Nobody likes it when three people dominate all the talking in a class, this can only be prevented if everyone is willing to participate. This is a seminar-like class where the discussion among the class is important to the value of the class itself. Please have respect for what other people say and believe. Do not insult or condemn anyone for having a view that is different than your own. You are encouraged to provide reasoned and detailed arguments for why a particular view is flawed but just simply saying that it is wrong does not prove that the opposing view actually is wrong.

Avoid missing class. Much of the material for the exams will be covered in class and it will be crucial to your grade to attend regularly. You have three absences before it starts affecting your attendance and participation grade. 15%

Learning Disabilities: If you have a learning disability, please let me know, and I will help you contact the disability center on campus in order to make provisions for you.
Office of Accessibility (530-4981)

Academic Honesty: I expect the highest standards of academic honesty. Cheating, unauthorized collaboration on projects, and plagiarism (defined as the use of another’s ideas, thoughts, or phrases and representing those as your own) will result in failure of the assignment with no opportunity for make-up. See also the UT General Catalog 2004-2006 p. 26
Schedule of Semester’s Readings and Due Dates
Readings for assigned dates should be completed before coming to class

Moral Theory – What does the term morality mean?
Aug. 23rd – pg. 1-4 Intro to moral theory
Aug. 25th – pg. 5-16 and 42-47 Relativism and Aristotle
Aug 30th – pg. 17-19, 68-72, 58-61 Universality/Religion/Confucius and Locke
Sept. 1st – 20-31, 47-54 Kant and Mill
Sept. 6th – 32-42, 61-64 Rights/Virtue and Ayn Rand

Punishment and the Death Penalty
Sept. 8th – 233-239 Intro to the death penalty’s moral issues Moral Theory Quiz at beginning of class
Sept. 13th 240-252 Moral Issues and Van Den Haag
Sept. 15 – 253-272 Morris and Bedau
Sept. 20th – 272 to 279 Reiman and Case Studies Due

Abortion
Sept. 22nd – 77-83 Intro to abortion moral issues
Sept. 27th – 83-90 Medical and Moral issues
Sept. 29 – 91-105 Thomson and Noonan
Oct. 4th – 106-116 Warren and Marquis
Oct. 6th – 117-125 Hales and Case Studies Due

War and Terrorism
Oct. 11th – 629-636 Intro to War
Oct. 13th – Midterm Paper Due
Oct. 20th – 637 to 646 Moral Issues and Anscombe
Oct. 25nd - 649-665 Coady and Hashmi
Oct. 27th – 666-680 Grover and Granoff
Nov. 1st –681-695 Luban and Ruddick
Nov. 3rd – 696-699 and Case Studies Due

Sexual Intimacy and Marriage
Nov. 8th - 349-355 Intro to the Issues
Nov. 10th – 356-363 Marriage and Same Sex Issues
Nov. 15th - 364-367, 378-384 The Vatican and Ruse
Nov. 17th 392-397, 403-411 Nava,Dawidoff and Wasserstrom

Genetic Engineering and Cloning
Nov. 22nd 132-145 History of the Issue and Sex Case Studies Due
Nov. 29th 146-152 Ridley and Anderson
Dec 1st – 160-167
Dec. 6th – 168-174
Dec. 8th - Case Study Due

Final Paper Due Friday Dec. 16th (no late papers)

Moral Theory Day 2

Moral Theory Day 2

Universal Morality

God Given -
If Truth is not created by the person who wields it, then it must exist in some concrete location which we can refer to. One of the most frequent answers to the question ‘where does this truth lie’ is to say that it is in the sacred texts of a religion.

Divine Command Theory – Moral because God approves of it

Ad hominem on page 19

Morality already present in world by nature -
“A list of virtues or duties drawn up by a Bhuddist would not differ very greatly from one drawn up by a Christian, a Confucianist, a Mohammadan or a Jew. Formally all of the ethico-religious systems are universalist in scope.” – Morris Ginsberg

Religion provides a moral theory as one of its main purposes, and there are components of this moral theory which carry through to all religions. In particular something like the golden rule

Natural Law Theory – God commands something because it is moral, not the other way around

Morality is grounded in rational human behaviour, not God’s personal desires or feelings. Morality exists already embedded in the world but it takes informed reasoning to uncover it.

Thomas Aquinas-

Problems
If Morality is determined by a religion, which religion is it? There are literally thousands

Pg. 17 divinely inspired folk – “If someone claims that God spoke to her and commanded her to oppose cloning, we have no independent criteria for judging whether she, in fact, heard God or not.”(18)

How do we know when we have correctly reasoned to the natural moral right?

Aristotle

What is moral for Aristotle?
“Virtue, then, is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean, i.e. the mean relative to us, this being determined by a rational principle, and by that principle by which the man of practical wisdom would determine it.”(46)

All Actions aim at happiness –
“Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for his reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim.”(43)

The Mean –
Applying intellectual and moral virtue one can determine the appropriate amount one should engage in any activity.

Habit –
“For one swallow does not make a summer, nor does one day; and so too one day, or a short time, does not make a man blessed and happy…”(44)

“[w]e become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts.”(44b)

Confucius

What is moral for Confucius –
Duty to our fellow humans. A just and well ordered society(obey parents, good rulers)

Sayings -
“A gentlemen that studies in unlikely to be inflexible.”(69)

“There is no point in seeking the views of a Gentleman who, though he sets his heart on the Way, is ashamed of poor food and poor clothes.”(70a)

“Do not oppose on others what you yourself do not desire.”(70b)

To Rulers: “Just desire the good yourself and the common people will be good. The virtue of the gentleman is like wind; the virtue of the small man is like grass. Let the wind blow over the grass and ti is sure to bend.”(71a)

John Locke

What is moral for Locke?
Natural rights ethics

The state of nature and the existence of reason –
“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions”(59)

Natural Law –
“God,who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life and convenience.”(59b)

Discussion Questions:
Can you be religious and subscribe to a particular moral theory and engage in a reasoned moral debate about the morality of something. Shouldn’t you just repeat what the moral theory says?

What role does the ‘authority’ have in enforcing a moral theory? Pg. 44b What about if the leaders are un-virtuous themselves. What would Locke say?

Is the mean a personal thing? If so is Aristotle a relativist?

Moral Theory Day 1

Moral Theory 1st Lecture


“What good fortune for those in power that people do not think.” – Adolph Hitler

Vietnam War documentary Hearts and Mind – an unflinching look at how the United States conducted the war and the effects and aftereffects of the war on those who, in one way or another, were involved in it. One interview involved a former bomber who upon seeing the devastation he had brought to a small village and the people who lived in it realized he was responsible for the very same damage and transformed his understanding of his ‘job.’ Piloting his plane to a particular set of coordinates and pushing a switch to release his load of bombs was now inexorably linked with the knowledge that he bombs he dropped killed and maimed not only the enemy soldiers they were meant to kill and main, but innocent civilians as well. The aim of this class and my hope for it is that we will examine the various buttons that we push on command and analyze their moral worth ourselves.

The “eat it, it tastes good” example

Yale Psychologist Stanley Milgram and his experiment on Americans

“Those who were able to resist the authority figure…were able to provide justifications, in the form of moral principles and moral theory, for their refusal; they were able to say why continuing to deliver the shocks was wrong.”(pg. 1)

The goal of this class is to try and define the term Moral. And then to apply your definition of moral to contemporary issues were the ambiguity of morality is still an issue.

If you merely defer to the authority or refuse to take a stand when an obvious moral injustice is being committed you face the possibility of ending up as a pawn for an unmoral authority.

“Moral philosophy is the study of the values and guidelines by which we live, as well as the justification of these values and guidelines.”(pg. 2)

Is morality just a matter of opinion? Do some opinions have more weight than others? Do you want to have weight to your opinions?

A few logical fallacies to look out for:
Accident: committed whenever one argues that because a certain generalization is usually true, it holds in a particular case, even though that particular case has certain “accidental” characteristics which make the generalization inapplicable and thus not true for that particular case.
Example: The constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Therefore, my religious practice of human sacrifice is constitutionally guaranteed

Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to force): The fallacious appeal to force is committed whenever a threat of force or coercion is utilized to cause acceptance of a conclusion
Example: Instructor to class – I know you will be interested in attending every class this semester, because I will give failing grades to anyone who misses a class session.

Argumentum ad Hominem (to the man) The ad Hominem fallacy is committed whenever one tries to cause the rejection of a particular proposition by criticizing or abusing the person who asserts that proposition, rather than attacking the truth or falsity of the proposition itself.
Example: Of course we can’t accept Einstein’s theory of relativity! After all, Einstein was nearly blind, had wild and unruly hair, and could not even do elementary algebra problems!

Argumentum ad Ignorantium (appeal to ignorance): Committed whenever one concludes that a particular proposition s true because it has not been proven false. Or that a proposition is false because it has been unable to be proven true
Example: I have no evidence to prove that God is not playing hacky sack on the other side of this wall, so therefore God is playing hack on the other side of that door. Or Aliens have not been proven not to exist, so therefore they must exist.

Argumentum ad Populum (appeal to the masses) Committed whenever one attempts to cause acceptance of a particular conclusion by using tequniques to arouse the enthusiasm of the multitudes. (A frequent tool of advertising)

Two kinds:
Snob appeal: buy this sports car and you will be the envy of the neighborhood
Band Wagon: 30 million Americans can’t be wrong
“If all your friends jumped a bridge would you?”

Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority) Committed whenever one attempts to win the acceptance of a conclusion by appealing to a reputed authority on the subject when that authority is not in fact an authority on the subject in question.
Example: Kobe Bryant for Sprite

False Cause: I started my car and it started to rain, therefore starting the car was the cause of the rain.

Ignoratio Elenchi (irrelevant conclusion) committed whenever one attempts to prove a particular conclusion by using premises directed toward proving different conclusions.
Example: Tests have shown that the new drug Carlsonix has relieved headaches. Therefore Carlsonix cure’s cancer.

Bottom line when: Just because an argument is persuasive does not necessarily entail that is logically valid and correct.

What is a Moral Theory? What does it mean when somebody says they have a philosophy about life? Where do these theories come from?

Moral theories as roadmaps. Except that there is no Random Mcnally in the ethical world.

“We all approach the world with certain assumptions that, loosely, form our theories about what to expect in the world In any culture there are certain theories that are so embedded in the cultural worldview that they are uncritically assumed to be true. For example, in Western culture the theory that humans are superior to and separate from other animals is rarely questioned.”
We must constantly examine our foundational beliefs and provide justification for them if we are to make moral judgments based on them. So….why do we think that humans are superior to animals what makes us special?

Ethical Relativism – state that morality is different for different people. An ethical relativist claims that morality is invented or created by people; therefore morality, like fashion, can vary from time to time and form person to person. Cultural relativism is the theory that morality is relative to social norms and values of the society. “The fact of moral disagreements among individuals and between cultures raises the question of whether there are really any objective or universal moral principles.”(5)

Two Kinds:

Ethical Subjectivism –
“What I feel is right is right. What I feel is wrong is wrong.” – Rousseau
The basic idea is that morality is a private choice

Cultural Relativism –
“We recognize that morality differs in every society, and is a convenient term for socially approved habits.” – Ruth Benedict

If it is right within a particular culture to do some act, then that act inside that culture is moral.
Ex. Female Circumcision

Major Problems with Ethical Relativism
-doublethink
-Logical flaws
-Universal rights and wrongs in religion and culture