Friday, October 30, 2009
For those of you who missed today, you must write a detailed summary of Regan Ch. 6. You missed important discussion today.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Monday: Ch. 7 & 8: Animal Rights and Objections and Replies
Wednesday: Moral Philosophy and Change
I. The basic concepts:
If an individual has (basic) moral rights, then:
(1) Others are not morally free to harm that being by taking his or her most important goods (e.g., his or her life, bodily integrity, liberty, etc.). [contractarianisms deny this]
(2) Benefits that others might derive from harming that individual do not, cannot, justify harming that individual. [utilitarians deny this]
(1) and (2) we can see as a consequence of respect: to treat an individually respectfully requires that (1) you not harm that being by taking its most important goods and (2) you do not harm that being to try to achieve benefits for others.
Saying that the concept is instantiated, or that some beings have the property of having moral rights:
To say “humans have (basic) moral rights” is to say that
(1) “humans should not be harmed by taking away their lives, violating their bodies, restricting their liberty, etc. and
(2) that benefits that others might gain from doing so would not justify those kinds of harms.”
Respecting human beings requires this treatment.
Basic ways to deny this:
(1) Denying (1): No, others are morally free to harm individuals: harming individuals in these ways is not wrong.
· Two options, among many: egoism: “No, morally, I can harm you if doing so will benefit me more than anything else I can do.” Nihilism: “Nothing is right or wrong, good or bad, so harming you in any way is not wrong.”
(2) Denying (2): No, if there are enough overall benefits to be gained by harming individuals, then it’s morally OK to harm them.
· One option, among many: utilitarianism: “Acts are morally permissible when, and only when, they produce the greatest overall utility/intrinsic goodness. If achieving that requires harming you greatly, that’s morally permissible.”
II. So, for those beings that we (1) should not profoundly harm and (2) shouldn’t do this even if there were great benefits from doing so, what is it about those beings that makes this so?
1. Identify some candidate rights-making property (or properties). Get clear on what the property exactly is since, sometimes, the meanings of the terms used are not clear (e.g., human, person, “moral community” etc.”
2. Think about whether this seems true, in light of possible counterexamples (i.e., is this property a sufficient condition for having rights, i.e., _____________ ):
If an individual has this property (or properties), then we (1) should not profoundly harm that individual and (2) we shouldn’t do this even if there were great benefits from doing so.
3. Think about whether this seems true, in light of possible counterexamples (i.e., is this property a necessary condition for having rights, i.e., _____________):
We (1) should not profoundly harm that individual and (2) we shouldn’t do this even if there were great benefits from doing so only if an individual has this property (or properties).
4. Think about whether the property (or properties) seems to be the ones that make harming someone wrong: there must be some [essential] connection between this one and harm.
Patterns of Critical responses:
“No, morally we can profoundly harm this individual (especially if (2) there were great benefits from doing so) because this individual lacks this property (or properties): _________________.
 Important details about this account are provided in CASE Ch. 8. For many hard questions about this account, answers are given there.
 What’s being referred to when we speak of ‘humans’ and ‘human beings’ is not often clear. Here are some possibilities: (1) anything that’s biologically human, has human DNA, (2) anything of the species homo sapiens, (3) anything biologically human that’s living, (4) anything biologically human that’s living and would pretty easily “naturally” develop into a conscious individual, (5) anything biologically human that’s living and, in some sense, could develop into a conscious individual, (6) anything biologically human that’s living and has a mind (i.e., is conscious, can feel, etc.), etc.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
For more on utilitarianism, see this entry on Consequentialism:
Monday, October 19, 2009
Writing assignment: what is utilitarianism? (or what are the different kinds of utilitarianism?). What are Regan's arguments against it?
A SEARCH OF THE PHILOSOPHERS’ INDEX (AVAILABLE ONLINE THROUGH THE LIBRARY) OF “NARVESON OR CONTRACTARIAN” AND “ANIMALS”
· Contractarianism and Interspecies Welfare Conflicts By: Cohen, Andrew. Social Philosophy and Policy, 26(1), 227-257, 31 p. Win
Beastly Contractarianism? A Contractarian Analysis of the Possibility of Animal Rights By: Tucker, Chris, MacDonald, Chris. Essays in Philosophy, 5(2), 1-15, 15 p. June 2004. Abs
Contractarianism and Animal Rights By: Rowlands, Mark. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 14(3), 235-247, 13 p. 1997. Abs
Expanding the Social Contract By: Cavalieri, Paola, Kymlicka, Will. E
Commentary on 'Contractarianism Gone Wild: Carruthers and the Moral Status of Animals' By: Robinson, William S. Be
Contracts, Animals, and Ecosystems By: Wenz, Pe
Moral Matters By: Narveson, Jan. Pe
· Commentary: On the Utility of Contracts By: Sapon
ANIMAL RIGHTS REVISITED By: NARVESON, JAN. ETHICS AND ANIMALS.
JUSTICE AND THE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS: By: PRITCHARD, MICHAEL S, ROBISON, WADE L. Environmen
ANIMAL RIGHTS (IN POLISH). By: NARVESON, JAN. E
ANIMAL RIGHTS. By:
Thursday, October 15, 2009
1. There is no need for a long-winded introduction. Get to the point about what your paper will be about and what you will argue ASAP.
2. There is also no need for any "big words." Write simply and do not use any words you would not use in ordinary life, unless those words are absolutely necessary.
3. Related to 1 and 2, omit all needless words: always write in the most concise way possible. This will result in greater clarity.
4. Each paragraph should have only one topic.
5. Assume that your reader has not read the reading or is part of our class: do not write in a way that suggests you assume the reader is familiar with the reading or is part of our class.
Some more tips:
Some writing tips from Professor Nobis:
- The most common comments I write on papers are these: (1) What do you mean? and (2) Why think that? The first is in response to unclear claims: write clearly. The second is in response to claims that need defense: give reasons.
- Write in short sentences: if any longer sentence can be broken into two or more sentences, do it because it's easier to read then.
- Each paragraph should deal with one, and only one, topic. You should be able to say, "This paragraph is about this: _____."
- Omit all needless words and needless discussion. Your reader's time is valuable so don't waste it.
- Make sure everything is clear. Use simple words: no need for anything nebulous.
- Your papers should have a short introduction, culminating in a thesis, a main point, the point that your paper is supposed to defend. The most direct way of presenting this sort of thesis is this: "I will argue that _(short sentence here: 'all abortions are wrong', 'Dr. Doopy's argument against euthenasia is unsound,' etc.___."
- Your introductory paragraph, or a paragraph immediately after it, should give the reader an overview of what you will be doing in the paper. It should briefly explain the overall structure (e.g., "First I will ___ and then I will ____. Finally I will ______.")
- Omit anything totally obvious and uninformative (e.g., "This issue has been debated for hundreds of years."). Everyone already knows this, so don't waste time telling us what we already know.
- Don't write, "Well, _____." No "well's".
- Don't say, "'Mr. Bubbles feels that this is wrong." Say, he believes, or thinks, or (if he does) argues. His views are probably not his "feelings" or his emotional reactions.
- Also, no ' . . . ' unless you are shortening a quote. No "trailing off" in hopes that the reader will think what you are hoping they will think.
- Don't ask rhetorical questions. Make statements, don't ask questions. Your reader might answer your questions for you in ways you'd like. But if you do ask questions, make sure there is a question mark.
- It's OK to use "I". People use "I" to communicate clearly, so use it.
- "Arguments" are not people's conclusions. They are the conclusions and the reasons they give in favor of those conclusions.
- If I ask you to raise objections to a theory, argument, claim, or whatever, it's fine to raise objections that are discussed in our readings. What's not good, however, is to raise an objection that is discussed in the readings but the author responds to the objection and shows that it's not a good objection. If you raise this same objection, but do not discuss the author's response (and respond to that response), this suggests that you didn't do the reading very closely.
- If an author states a conclusion (or a main point) and gives reasons for it, then that author has given an argument. If an author has given an argument, do not say that the author has not given an argument: you might not have found the argument (yet), but the argument is still there! Keep looking!
- Keep focused and don't argue for more than you can give reasons for.
- You have succeeded in writing a paper if you can give that paper to a smart and critical someone who is not familiar with your topic and this person will understand the views and arguments you are discussing, as well as whatever criticisms you raise. You can do an empirical test to determine whether you are writing well, and it's basically just to see if others understand your writing! If not, you need to keep working at it.
- Finally, good writing, like many things, takes a lot of time. If you don't take the time to work at it, you probably won't do very well and you probably won't improve. I recommend writing something about double the length needed and then editing down and re-organizing and re-writing to remove the needless words, irrelevant distractions, and -- most importantly -- improve your statement of whatever argument you are trying to develop.
- Strunk and White's The Elements of Style is excellent, the section III. ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLES OF COMPOSITION is especially good: