Morehouse College Bioethics

2011-11-26T06:22:00.001-08:00

“Racism and Health Care: A Medical Ethics Issue,” Annette Dula, from A Companion to African-American Philosophy (Blackwell, 2003).http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/dula.pdf

2011-11-14T06:46:00.001-08:00

Current reading: Katie McShane, “Environmental Ethics: An Overview,” from Philosophy Compass: http://goo.gl/tZHil

New Email Group

2011-11-01T08:26:00.000-07:00

All students, please sign up for this email group; please ignore the widget to the right about signing up for an email group: it will soon be removed!

http://groups.google.com/group/morehouse-bioethics-2011

2011-10-31T11:12:00.001-07:00

Paper onRegan and Cohen (and potentially other authors) on whether any animals have (any)moral rights and/or whether animal experimentation is morally permissible.

Draft due Friday,Nov. 5: please bring 3 copies of your paper or email it by 9 AM so Professor Nobiscan print it out for you.

Assignment:Regan argues that (some) animals have moral rights and that animalexperimentation is morally wrong. Cohen (and others) argue that animals do nothave moral rights and that animal experimentation is morally permissible.

Your task inthis paper is to explain their arguments here and discern whose, if anyone’s,arguments are sound or more likely to be sound. This, of course, will involveexplaining what the various thinkers mean when they make claims, such as thoseabout rights.

Your papermust, of course, have an introduction. The introduction should explain what thepaper will do. The introduction must culminate in a thesis.

Your papershould be well organized. Sections should have headings.

It should beclear and understandable, written for someone who has not read Regan or Cohen.

Your papershould have a conclusion.

2011-10-07T11:12:00.001-07:00

Concerns about your paper that isdue Monday in class; we will then finish up discussion ofWarren. Friday a complete introduction and outline for a body and conclusion ona paper about her article is due.

1. Does yourpaper have an introductory paragraph?

2. Does you introduction explain what you are going to do inthe paper?

3. Does your introductory paragraph culminate in a clearthesis, the conclusion that you will argue for?

4. Do you explain all relevant arguments by Beckwith, inadequate detail?

a. Arguments are always arguments for some conclusion, i.e., reasons given for some conclusion. So,do you explain:

i. His argument that abortion is wrong?

ii. His argument that Boonin’s argument is unsound, or Boonin’s position is false.?

iii. Any other relevant arguments?

5. Do you explain whether these various arguments are sound ornot, i.e., whether Beckwith gives good reason to believe what he thinks weshould believe?

6. Is your paper well organized?

a. Does each paragraph focus on only one topic?

b. Could your paper be outlined to exhibit its structure?

c. Does your paper have section headings to make the structureclear?

7. Is your paper clearly written?

a. Do you make your claims in the simplest, most concisemanners possible?

b. Are your sentences grammatically correct?

c. Are there spelling errors?

8. Would someone who was not familiar with the Beckwith articlebe able to understand your paper?

a. Do you assume things that this reader would not understand?

9. Does your paper have a concluding paragraph, that sums upwhat you have done in your paper?

10. Didyour paper go through multiple drafts and revisions, to improve it? Did youtake advantage of reviewers’ comments?

2011-10-03T08:58:00.001-07:00

http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/reading.html

Guidelines on Reading Philosophy

It will be difficult for you to make sense of some of the articles we'll be reading. This is partly because they discuss abstract ideas that you're not accustomed to thinking about. They may also use technical vocabulary which is new to you. Sometimes it won't be obvious what the overall argument of the paper is supposed to be. The prose may be complicated, and you may need to pick the article apart sentence by sentence. Here are some tips to make the process easier and more effective.

2011-10-01T06:34:00.000-07:00

Things to do for Bioethics:

1. Email Dr. Nobis the most recent draft of your Beckwith paper by 5 PM Sunday: nathan.nobis@gmail.com

2. Monday will be writing consult with Dr. Nobis and peer review day.

3. For Monday, also bring a list of characteristics of a good philosophy paper, developed from the Pryor article, Nobis's tips and any other guidelines on how to write a philosophy paper found online (or anywhere else):http://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+write+a+philosophy+paper&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a The purpose of this list is to evaluate your own paper in terms of whether it meets the requirements for a philosophy paper.

4. Wednesday, we will move onto the Mary Anne Warren article, "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion." Copies of this were handout out Friday but it can also be found online via Google:
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/warren_article.html
Your writing assignment is to write something where you (a) identify the parts of her article, i.e., the overall structure and (b) identify the arguments of her article.

2011-09-21T06:52:00.001-07:00

Bioethics

Writing Assignment for Monday, September 26

Carefully read and study this short, 2 page article byFrancis Beckwith on abortion, handed out in class and available here:

http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/AbortionAbout.pdf

Other writings by this author onabortion are available at his webpage here, in case you would like to see hisposition and arguments developed in greater detail:

http://web.me.com/francis.beckwith/FrancisBeckwith.com/Welcome.html

Then, carefully read and study this article on how to writea philosophy paper by Jim Pryor:

http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html

Then, write a paper about the Beckwith article.

This paper should conform to Pryor’s advice. It should:

1. Have an introductory paragraph.

2. Have a thesis.

3. Explain Beckwith’s arguments.

4. Offer criticisms and critiques of arguments: your objections and critiques or onesthat could be raised by someone.

5. A response to these criticisms and critiques:what might Beckwith say in response?

6. A conclusion and concluding paragraph.

Due Monday, in class, in hardcopy but also sent via email toProfessor Nobis by 8 AM that Monday: Nathan.nobis@gmail.com

2011-09-13T10:36:00.001-07:00

For Wed., please read Ch. 2 on comas. Thus, Chs. 1-3 and the final chapter have been assigned.

2011-09-08T06:11:00.001-07:00

If you are having troubles with WebCT (including not being able to login), please contact:

Anne Grey (agrey @ morehouse.edu) , with your

- Name

- email

- crn of the course

- your Tigernet ID (if you have one)

- your school

For Friday

2011-09-07T17:46:00.000-07:00

For Friday, let's augment our beginning discussion of Ch. 1 with Ch. 3, which is on the related topic of Physician Assisted Suicide. Please augment your writing assignment on Ch. 1 with discussion of Ch. 3.

We read this case today:
http://www.darenville.com/pdf/cegep/b2/reading/Crime_and_Plot/A%20Crime%20of%20Compassion.pdf

2011-09-03T12:05:00.001-07:00

Ch 1 is on "Requests to Die." Your writing assignment is this: when, if ever, should a "request to die" be honored, and why? Form your answer on the basis of the cases and arguments discussed in the chapter.

2011-08-30T05:07:00.001-07:00

For Wed., please read the chapter on moral theories from Pence group. This was distributed in class and I sent it by email to some students who were missing.

Syllabus, Fall 2011

2011-08-26T14:27:00.000-07:00

Syllabus:

Topics: Bioethics - 45517 - HPHI 475A - 01

AVAILABLE IN PDF HERE: http://goo.gl/FGHNl

Note: Students are responsible for understanding all the information and policies presented in this syllabus. Students will be referred to it if they have questions that are answered here. A syllabus is not a contract and can be revised, if needed, to promote learning and other educational goals.

*Scheduled Meeting Times*
Type	Time	Days	Where	Date Range	Schedule Type	Instructors
Class	10:00 am - 10:50 am	MWF	Sale Hall 106	Aug 24, 2011 - Dec 09, 2011	Lecture	Nathan M. Nobis (P)

WebCT: https://webct.morehouse.edu/webct/public/home.pl

Course blog (being phased out): http://morehousebioethics.blogspot.com/

Instructor: Nathan Nobis, Ph.D., www.NathanNobis.com

Preferred Email: nathan.nobis@gmail.com; nnobis@morehouse.edu

Telephone: 404-215-2607

Office: Sale Hall 113, Philosophy & Religion Department

Office Hours: 2:00-3 PM MW and by appointment.

Department of Philosophy and Religion: Mission and Objectives:

The two-fold objective of this Department is to prepare students for graduate or professional study in the fields of philosophy and religious studies and to enable them to satisfy the College requirements in the general education program. The courses in philosophy and religion seek to provide the student not only with a firm base in these two academic disciplines, but also with a means for self-examination and self-orientation. The work in philosophy aims to develop a critical and analytical approach to all the major areas of human inquiry. The work in religion aims to describe, analyze and evaluate the role of religion in the life of humans since earliest times and how the religious quest continues as a variegated and often tortuous climb toward human growth and fulfillment.

1. BRIEF COURSE DESCRIPTION: Provides an introduction to philosophical bioethics, focusing on ethical issues that arise in biomedical and scientific research, medical ethics, health care practice and policy and environmental studies.

EXTENDED COURSE DESCRIPTION: According to bioethicist Paul Thompson, “When Van Rensselaer Potter coined the term ‘bioethics’ in 1970, he intended for it to include subjects ranging from human to environmental health, including not only the familiar medical ethics questions . . but also questions about humanity's place in the biosphere.” This course will discussion bioethical issues, understood in this broad sense. It provides students with the opportunity to improve their skills at reasoning critically about moral issues. Students will learn some basic logical concepts and argument analysis skills and apply them to theoretical and practical questions about morality. We will practice identifying clear (i.e., unambiguous) and precise moral conclusions (i.e., exact perspectives taken on moral issues) and the premises, or reasons, given for and against these conclusions. We will then practice evaluating these reasons to see if they provide rational support for these conclusions or not.

We will think about what helps people think more carefully and critically about moral issues and what factors and influences discourage this.

We will discuss influential ethical theories and moral principles – answers to the questions ‘What’s the basic difference between a morally permissible and a morally impermissible (or wrong) action?’ and ‘What makes wrong actions wrong and what makes permissible actions permissible?’ – and apply our argument analysis skills to moral issues in bioethics: see below and our books’ tables of contents for a list of topics.

2. COURSE PREREQUISITES: Students are required to have had at least one course in philosophy, ideally introduction to ethics and/or critical thinking. Students will benefit most from the course when they enter it with the abilities to:

a. read critically and identify the structure and components of an argumentative essay or passage, i.e., the conclusion(s), the premises(s) or supporting elements, and so forth;

b. write clear, concise and simple grammatical, spelling-error-free sentences and well-organized expository and argumentative essays, as taught in Introductory English courses;

c. speak clearly, concisely, and grammatically.

Basic mathematical and scientific literacy is desirable.
Familiarity with moral issues, common positions taken on them and reasons given in favor of these positions is desirable, since we will build on any previous understanding.
Intellectual and moral virtues, such as curiosity, patience, and openness to the possibility of error and the need for change, are desirable as well.

3. COURSE OBJECTIVES: Upon successfully completing this course, students will be able to use the set of argument analysis skills below to identify and evaluate moral arguments:

a. identify whether any presentation (“text”) is “morally argumentative” or not, i.e., whether it presents an argument for a moral conclusion on a moral issue or not;

b. identify conclusions of morally argumentative presentations, evaluate these conclusions for clarity and precision, and (if needed) reconstruct / restate the conclusion in clear and precise terms;

c. identify stated premises or reasons in morally argumentative presentations, evaluate these conclusions for clarity and precision, and (if needed) reconstruct / restate these premises in clear and precise terms;

d. identify (if needed) unstated premises in argumentative presentations that are logically essential to the structure of an argument and state them as part of the argument in clear and precise terms;

e. identify and distinguish factual/empirical/scientific and moral/philosophical premises in moral arguments;

f. evaluate moral arguments as (1) logically valid or invalid (or otherwise logically cogent) and (2) sound or unsound (or otherwise strong);

g. identify and explain reasons given to think an argument is sound, reasons to think it is unsound (often using counterexamples to general moral premises), and responses to these reasons.

Students will be able to accurately explain historically influential moral theories and common arguments against them, in light of their implications, explanatory power and theoretical virtues and vices.

Students will be able to accurately explain (in essays and oral presentations) the most common arguments given on a number of controversial moral issues, from a variety of perspectives, and criticisms of these arguments.

4. ASSIGNMENTS & GRADING:

12 weekly short writing assignments, often on the readings, always due Monday before class through WebCT: 5 points each, 60 points total. ( 30% of total grade)

Writing assignment for this Monday (8/29): what makes a class go best for enabling you to learn the best you can, in terms of the material, structure, organization, classroom atmosphere, instructor’s behavior and attitude, your own behavior and attitude, and so on?

4 Argumentative Essays, approximately 5 pages, includes pre-writing and writing workshop activities: 20 points each, 80 points total. (40% of total grade)
Argumentative Research Paper and Presentation, where – as one possible writing project – you find a new argumentative writing on a topic we have discuss, identify its argument and critique its argument; includes pre-writing and writing workshop activities. 40 points (20% of total grade)
Attendance and participation, including a spoken presentation and preparation of the “Minutes” – which is a review of last last’s material and discussion – and volunteering to lead class discussion at least once. 20 points. (10% of total grade)

No work will be accepted late except with a written, college-approved excuse.

Final grades will be determined by the quantity and quality of work done only: students who need a certain grade should work to ensure that they earn that grade.

Plagiarism and cheating is not allowed and will be severely penalized by either a zero on an assignment (and no chance for making up that assignment) or failing the course. Do not consult any outside sources for any assignments or examine the work of any other students – current or past students – unless directed to do so by the instructor.

6. ATTENDANCE REGULATIONS AND CLASS POLICIES.

Class attendance is required for all Morehouse College courses. Each student is allowed four absences in this course. In addition, two late-arrivals will count as one absence. Students who are late are responsible for informing the instructor at the end of the class period that they are present, otherwise they may be recorded as absent. Excuses for absences should be submitted no later than two weeks from occurrence.

Students who accumulate more than four officially unexcused absences may have their course grade lowered. Daily attendance will be recorded. Each student should keep a record of his or her absences. Students who miss exams or quizzes due to unexcused absences will not be allowed to make them up. Students who fail to submit the essays on the due date, without official excuse, may be penalized. Students who take a trip that is officially sponsored (and therefore excused) by the College must inform the instructor prior to the trip to discuss how their class work can be made up. Students should make a point of informing the instructor of any required special accommodation.

Fall 2011 Academic Calendar
1	Wednesday	24-Aug-11	First Day of Class
2	Friday	2-Sep-11	End Drop/Add
	Saturday	4-Sep-10	Withdrawal Period Begins
3	Monday	5-Sep-11	Labor Day
8	Monday-Friday	October 10-14, 2011	Mid-term Week
	Monday-Friday	November 7-11, 2011	Academic Advising Week
	Monday-Friday	14-Nov-11	Web Registration Begins
	Friday	18-Nov-11	Last Day to Withdraw
	Thursday-Friday	November 24-25, 2011	Thanksgiving Day
	Wednesday	30-Nov-11	Last Day of Classes
15	Thursday-Friday	December 1-2, 2011	Reading Period
15	Thursday-Friday	December 1-2, 2011	Senior Final Exams
16	Monday-Friday	December 5-9, 2011	Final Exams
	Thursday	8-Dec-11	Senior Grades due by Noon
	Friday	9-Dec-11	Semester Ends
17	Tuesday	13-Dec-11	All Final Grades due by Noon

A GREEN SYLLABUS: This course contains content that allows it to contribute to Morehouse’s Institute for Sustainable Energy program, its planned academic Minor in Energy and the Morehouse-Wide Initiative for Sustainable Energy (M-WISE) program: This content is indicated in green below.

7. Required textbooks: always bring all the books to each class:

Medical Ethics: Accounts of Ground-Breaking Cases, 6^t^h (or any) Edition, by Gregory Pence, McGraw Hill, 2010, 416 pages, ISBN 0073407496 / 9780073407494; http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0073407496/information_center_view0/ Available used online.
Exploring Ethics: An Introductory Anthology, any (1^st or 2^nd) edition, Edited by Steven M. Cahn (Oxford University Press). http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/he/subject/Philosophy/Ethics/IntroductiontoEthics/?view=usa&ci=9780199757510 Available used online.
This course contains content that allows it to contribute to Morehouse’s Institute for Sustainable Energy program, its planned academic Minor in Energy and the Morehouse-Wide Initiative for Sustainable Energy (M-WISE) program. http://www.morehouse.edu/news/InsideMorehouse_w/dec10jan11/hbcu-energy.html Thus, we will read a selection of online articles dealing with environmental ethics, including philosophical issues concerning “sustainability”:

“Environmental Ethics,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-environmental/
Katie McShane, “Environmental Ethics: An Overview,” from Philosophy Compass: http://goo.gl/tZHil
Piers Stephens (Philosophy, UGA: http://www.uga.edu/phil/people/stephens.htm), "Sustainability" - Encyclopedia entry in J. Baird Callicott & Robert Frodeman's "Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy" or http://goo.gl/imIoZ
Selections on “Future Generations and Sustainability Questions,” from The Environmental Ethics & Policy Book, Donald VanDeVeer and Christine Pierce, 2^nd Edition, Wadsworth 1998: http://www.amazon.com/Environmental-Ethics-Policy-Book-Philosophy/dp/0534561888

i. Preview - http://goo.gl/VPpLL

ii. “Environmental Problems and Future Generations,” Bryan Norton (GA Tech): http://goo.gl/EgY4L

iii. “The Nuclear Train to the Future,” Richard Sylvan and Val Plumwood: http://goo.gl/dWm80

iv. “Sustainability: An Economist’s Perspective,” Robert Solow: http://goo.gl/yxjpi

v. “Sustainability,” Robert Goodin http://goo.gl/9Dm7i

vi. “‘Sustainable Development’: Is it a Useful Concept?” Wilfred Beckerman http://goo.gl/24mDV

vii. “On Wilfred Beckerman’s Critique of Sustainable Development,” Herman Daly http://goo.gl/Az7PR

A detailed schedule of reading and writing assignments will be developed in the next few days, based on student input and preferences:

Tables of Contents:

1. Medical Ethics: Accounts of Ground-Breaking Cases, 6^t^h Edition, by Gregory Pence, McGraw Hill, 2010, 416 pages, ISBN 0073407496 / 9780073407494

Part One: Ground-Breaking Cases about Death and Dying
    Chapter 1: Requests to Die: Elizabeth Bouvia and Larry McAfee
    Chapter 2: Comas: Karen Quinlan, Nancy Cruzan, and Terri Schiavo
    Chapter 3: Physician-Assisted Dying: New Frontiers
Part Two: Ground-Breaking Cases about the Beginnings of Human Life
    Chapter 4: Abortion: The Trial of Kenneth Edelin
    Chapter 5: Assisted Reproduction, Multiple Births, and Elderly Parents—Time to Regulate?
    Chapter 6: Embryos, Stem Cells, and Cloning
    Chapter 7: The Ethics of Treating Impaired Babies
    Chapter 8: Can Medical Research on Animals Be Justified?: The Gennarelli and Taub Cases
Part Three: Interlude for Ethical Theory
    Chapter 9: Research on Human Subjects
Part Four: Ground-Breaking Cases about Research
    Chapter 10: Surgeons’ Desire for Fame: The Ethics of the First Heart, Hand, and Face Transplants
    Chapter 11: Allocation of Artificial and Transplantable Organs: The God Committee and Live Donors
    Chapter 12: Using One Baby for Another: Babies Fae, Gabriel, and Theresa, and Conjoined Twins
    Chapter 13: Involuntary Psychiatric Commitment: The Case of Joyce Brown
    Chapter 14: Testing in Advance for Genetic Disease
Part Five: Ground-Breaking Cases about Individual Rights versus the Public Good
    Chapter 15: Preventing the Global Spread of AIDS
    Chapter 16: Medicine and Inequality
    Chapter 17: David Reimer: The “John/Joan Case”
    Chapter 18: Ethical Theories and Bioethics

Exploring Ethics: An Introductory Anthology, any (1^st or 2^nd) edition, Edited by Steven M. Cahn

ISBN13: 9780199757510ISBN10: 0199757518, Paperback, 432 pages

Preface

INTRODUCTION

1. Morality and Moral Philosophy, William K. Frankena

2. Crito, Plato

PART ONE: CHALLENGES TO MORALITY

3. How Not to Answer Moral Questions, Tom Regan

4. God and Morality, Steven M. Cahn

5. The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, James Rachels

6. Right and Wrong, Thomas Nagel

7. Egoism and Moral Scepticism, James Rachels

8. Happiness and Morality, Steven M. Cahn and Jeffrie G. Murphy

9. The Nature of Ethical Disagreement, Charles L. Stevenson

PART TWO: MORAL THEORIES

10. The Categorical Imperative, Immanuel Kant

11. A Simplified Account of Kant's Ethics, Onora O'Neill

12. Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill

13. Strengths and Weaknesses of Utilitarianism, Louis P. Pojman

14. The Nature of Virtue, Aristotle

15. Virtue Ethics, Bernard Mayo

* 16. The Ethics of Care, Virginia Held

17. The Social Contract, Thomas Hobbes

18. A Theory of Justice, John Rawls

PART THREE: MORAL PROBLEMS

19. A Defense of Abortion, Judith Jarvis Thomson

20. On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, Mary Anne Warren

21. Why Abortion Is Immoral, Don Marquis

* 22. Virtue Theory and Abortion, Rosalind Hursthouse

23. Active and Passive Euthanasia, James Rachels

24. Active and Passive Euthanasia: A Reply to Rachels, Thomas D. Sullivan

25. Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Peter Singer

26. World Hunger and Moral Obligation: The Case Against Singer, John Arthur

27. Terrorism, Michael Walzer

28. Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?, Lionel K. McPherson

* 29. Torture, Henry Shue

* 30. Ticking Bombs, Torture, and the Analogy with Self-Defense, Daniel J. Hill

31. Two Concepts of Affirmative Action, Steven M. Cahn

32. What Good Am I?, Laurence Thomas

33. The Case for Animal Rights, Tom Regan

34. The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research, Carl Cohen

35. We Are What We Eat, Tom Regan

* 36. Philosophical Problems for Environmentalism, Elliott Sober

* 37. Death, Thomas Nagel

* 38. The Meaning of Life, Richard Taylor

CONCLUSION

39. Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King, Jr.

* 40. Phaedo, Plato

Index

2009-12-22T11:13:00.000-08:00

Annual Georgia Student Philosophy Symposium - April 10, 2010

Keynote speaker: Professor David Schmidtz Department of Philosophy,
University of Arizona

Undergraduate and graduate students in all disciplines encouraged to
submit their work on any philosophical topic.

Scope: Original papers on any philosophical topic from graduate and
undergraduate students are welcome. The conference format will be
symposium-style: each session will include presentation/reading,
commentary, and brief Q&A/discussion period. Undergraduate and
graduate
authors will be selected for presentation. All accepted submissions
will available online in the Proceedings of the Georgia Student
Philosophy Symposium.

Prizes: One prize valued at $100 will be awarded to the most
outstanding paper by a graduate student. Another prize valued at $100
will be awarded to the most outstanding paper by an undergraduate
student. Prizes may take the form of books of the winner's choice.
Winners will be selected on the basis of philosophical content/
insight, clarity of written expression, and general appeal to a
student audience.

Submission Requirements: Papers must be prepared for blind review
(i.e., no author-identifying information or notes in the body of the
paper, only on the cover page). Reading length of paper should not
exceed twenty-five minutes (approx 3750 words). When submitting,
please include the following in the body of the email:

1. Author's name
2. Paper/presentation title
3. Brief abstract (~100 words describing topic discussed in paper)
4. Academic status (undergraduate/graduate), major, university
affiliation
5. Regularly checked email address

Submissions that fail to include all of the above will not be
accepted. No more than one submission per author will be considered.
Authors should email their submission as a Word or PDF attachment to
Shane Callahan at scallahan2@student.gsu.edu

Deadline: Papers must be received no later than January 20, 2010.
Notification of acceptance will be emailed by February 21, 2010.

For any questions (including queries from students traveling from
outside the area who may need overnight accommodations) - contact
Shane Callahan at scallahan2@student.gsu.edu

Sponsored by the Zeta Chapter (Georgia) of Phi Sigma Tau, and the
Center for Ethics, Student Forum Georgia State University

Posted by Andrew I. Cohen, Department of Philosophy, Georgia State
University - aicohen@gsu.edu

2009-12-07T11:04:00.000-08:00

Books for Philosophy of Religion, Spring 2010; links to used copies on Amazon.com:

1. A Thinker's Guide to the Philosophy of Religion (Paperback) by Allen Stairs and Christopher Bernard Longman; 1 edition (October 7, 2006); please find used if possible.

2. Why Lord? Suffering and Evil in Black Theology, by Anthony Pinn (Continuum, 1999).

3. A Rulebook for Arguments, by Anthony Weston, Hackett Publishing; any edition; please find used if possible)

2009-12-01T17:53:00.000-08:00

The Third Annual Southeast Philosophy Congress invites submissions from undergraduate and graduate students in any area of philosophy. The Congress, hosted by Clayton State University in Morrow, Georgia, runs February 12-13, 2010, with keynote speaker George Rainbolt from Georgia State University. Presented papers will be published in online and print proceedings.

Talks run 20 minutes, followed by a 10 minute question/answer period. Please email papers, accompanied by a brief abstract, to Dr. Todd Janke: ToddJanke@Clayton.edu. Submission deadline is January 31, 2010. To allow time to plan travel, speakers will be notified immediately upon acceptance and selection will close when all slots are filled. The registration fee of $45.00 includes lunch both days and a print copy of the proceedings.

2009-12-01T12:38:00.001-08:00

Final Examination Schedule
FALL 2009
Last Day of Classes: Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Reading Period: Thursday, Thursday, December 3rd and Friday, December 4th 2009
Final Examination Week: Monday, December 7th through Friday, December 11th
Classes That Meet Days Examination Date Examination Time

10:00 AM MWF Tuesday, December 8th 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM

2009-11-24T08:44:00.001-08:00

For Wedneday, the following reading are assigned and/or re-assigned:

Gregory Pence, Ch. 4. “UTILITARIANS VS. KANTIANS ON STOPPING AIDS,” from The Elements of Bioethics (McGraw Hill, 2006)http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/pence.pdf

3. “Racism and Health Care: A Medical Ethics Issue,” AnnetteDula, from A Companion to African-American Philosophy (Blackwell, 2003).http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/dula.pdf

You might want to take a look at this as well:

“The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer, The NY Times.http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/19990905.htm

For Monday, we will move on to Pence Ch. 5.

2009-11-23T06:45:00.001-08:00

FOR MONDAY: PRINT OUT AND READ: Gregory Pence, Ch. 4. “UTILITARIANS VS. KANTIANS ON STOPPING AIDS,” from The Elements of Bioethics (McGraw Hill, 2006)http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/pence.pdf

Oh, BTW, the due date on the Regan paper (see blog and previous emails for the assignement) has been changed to the Monday after we get back from Thanksgiving so that we can have more time to do more of the Pence book.

2009-11-18T12:00:00.001-08:00

Oh, BTW, the due date on the Regan paper (see blog and previous emails for the assignement) has been changed to the Monday after we get back from Thanksgiving so that we can have more time to do more of the Pence book.

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Nathan Nobis wrote:
I only made copies for people in class today and said they need it. I cannot help students who don't come to class and don't tell me their needs! :)

2009-11-09T07:56:00.001-08:00

Paper 2 assignment

Explain Regan's moral theory that he calls the "rights theory." This is a theory that ascribes moral rights to (some) humans and (some) animals. Explain what this theory is, what rights are, and so forth, in a manner that someone who has not read the book would understand.

Explain what practical consequences follow from Regan's rights theory, i.e., what should we do, if it is true?

Explain Regan's argument in favor of the rights theory. How does he support his theory? How does he argue that we should accept it?

Present three of what you think are the strongest and/or most important and/or interesting objections to Regan's rights theory and/or the arguments he gives in its favor. These objections can be from the Regan book, the Preface to the Case for Animal Rights book or the Cohen article. Objections from any other source must be approved by Dr. Nobis.

Bring 3 copies of your paper on Friday, November 20. We will plan to read three students' papers in class for feedback.

Final version due Monday, November 23.

2009-11-06T10:39:00.001-08:00

For Monday, the xerox of the preface to the Regan Case for Animal Rights book that I handed out in class. Many objections are considered there.

I mentioned this paper today, FYI:

"Carl Cohen's 'Kind' Argument For Animal Rights and Against Human Rights"Journal of Applied Philosophy, March 2004, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 43-59. [PDF]).

For Wednesday, we will move on to the Pence Elements of Bioethics book, Chapter 1. If you don't have it and can't get it let me know and I will copy the chapter.

2009-11-04T08:03:00.001-08:00

For Friday, re-read the section on "Philosophical Objections" in the objections and reply chapter. Also read these pages by Carl Cohen, who is discussed in those pages:

Carl Cohen, “Why Animals Do Not Have Rights,” from Cohen and Regan, The Animal Rights Debate (Rowman & Littlefield, 2001) at http://ethicsandanimals.googlepages.com/cohen-ar-debate.pdf

Video: Carl Cohen, "Why Animals Do Not Have Rights”: http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~rebert/arlectures/media/index.php?f=2&v=cohen Also here: http://youtube.com/profile_videos?user=rainerebert&p=r (GET EXACT LINK)

For Monday, please read that Preface of The Case for Animal Rights that I handed out today.

2009-10-30T11:01:00.001-07:00

Monday, Regan Ch. 7 & 8, 'Animal Rights" and "Objections and Replies."

For those of you who missed today, you must write a detailed summary of Regan Ch. 6. You missed important discussion today.

2009-10-28T12:02:00.001-07:00

Friday: Ch. 6. Human Rights
Monday: Ch. 7 & 8: Animal Rights and Objections and Replies
Wednesday: Moral Philosophy and Change

2009-10-28T11:59:00.000-07:00

What are moral rights? The basics of a rights-like view[1]:

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[2] 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?

The pattern:

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): _________________.

[1] Important details about this account are provided in CASE Ch. 8. For many hard questions about this account, answers are given there.
[2] 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.

2009-10-20T09:07:00.001-07:00

The cruelty-kindess view is similar to a virtue ethics theory; for more on those, see:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/virtue/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

For more on utilitarianism, see this entry on Consequentialism:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism

2009-10-19T07:58:00.001-07:00

For Wednesday, we will briefly discuss the "cruelty kindness view" and start discussing utilitarianism.
Writing assignment: what is utilitarianism? (or what are the different kinds of utilitarianism?). What are Regan's arguments against it?

2009-10-19T07:56:00.000-07:00

To get to the Philosophers' Index on campus go here:
http://www.auctr.edu/rwwl/Home/databasesincludinggalileob/tabid/109/Default.aspx#ReligionPhilosophy

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. Winter 2009. Abstract: I discuss a contractarian account of the moral status of nonhuman animals. Contractarian norms might constrain any comparison of welfare between humans and animals. Contractarian agreement will likely express some partiality to humans over animals. While the norms emerging from the contract might be silent or inconsistent in some tragic or catastrophic cases, in most ordinary conflicts of welfare, contractors will agree to norms that produce some determinate resolution. What the agreement says can evolve if the contractors or the circumstances change. I close with some remarks on contractarian indeterminacy. (AN PHL2133257)

Database: Philosopher's Index

· 3.

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. Abstract: It is largely thought that contractarian affirms the meager moral standing commonly attributed to most animals. In the face of this consensus, animal advocates who feel the need to philosophically ground the moral status of animals have turned to other potential sources. This is not a hard choice for animal advocates to make: utilitarianism is a respectable moral theory that affords animals moral consideration with relative ease. Nevertheless, we argue that this separation is a mistake. Contractarians can offer an account of the moral status of animals that is at least as compelling as that offered by utilitarianism. Grounding the moral worth of animals in contract theory also produces an importantly different account, one that can ground animal rights, as opposed to mere considerability, which some animal advocates will find more appealing than the utilitarian alternative. (edited) (AN PHL1774295)

Database: Philosopher's Index

· 5.

Contractarianism and Animal Rights By: Rowlands, Mark. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 14(3), 235-247, 13 p. 1997. Abstract: It is widely accepted, by both friends and foes of animal rights, that contractarianism is the moral theory least likely to justify the assigning of direct moral status to nonhuman animals. These are not, it is generally supposed, rational agents, and contractarian approaches can grant direct moral status only to such agents. I shall argue that this widely accepted view is false. At least some forms of contractarianism, when properly understood, do, in fact, entail that nonhuman animals possess direct moral status, independently of their utility for rational agents, and independently of whatever interests rational agents may have in them. The version of contractarianism I shall focus upon is that defended by John Rawls. (AN PHL1654884)

Database: Philosopher's Index

Add to folder Remove from folder

· 6.

Nasty, Brutish, and Short: The Illiberal Intuition that Animals don't Count By: Taylor, Angus. Journal of Value Inquiry, 30(1-2), 265-277, 13 p. June 1996. Abstract: A consistently liberal ethic views as ends-in-themselves all who are subjectively concerned for their own good, and who have the ability in some way to choose what is best for themselves. With this in mind, I argue 1) that contrary to the contractarianism of Jan Narveson, a consistently liberal ethic must recognize many nonhuman animals as members of the moral community, and 2) that all sentient beings have inherent value and thus have moral rights that may be overridden only when satisfaction of our vital needs requires such action. (AN PHL1641992)

Database: Philosopher's Index

Add to folder Remove from folder

· 7.

Expanding the Social Contract By: Cavalieri, Paola, Kymlicka, Will. Etica and Animali, 8, 5-33, 29 p. 1996. Abstract: Is the present exclusion of nonhuman animals from the polis warranted? We argue that it is not. Against the background of contractarian doctrine in general, and Rawls's theory in particular, we challenge the presumption that only humans are entitled to equal justice. This presumption rests upon several mistakes, including a muddled use of the notion of "person", arbitrary species bias, and insufficient factual information. We also argue that Rawls's discussion of nonhuman animals fails to live up to his own impartialist commitments. We conclude that justice as impartiality requires expanding the traditional boundaries of the political community, and supports the immediate inclusion of the other great apes. (AN PHL1638478)

Database: Philosopher's Index

Add to folder Remove from folder

· 8.

Commentary on 'Contractarianism Gone Wild: Carruthers and the Moral Status of Animals' By: Robinson, William S. Between the Species: A Journal of Ethics, 10(1-2), 49-52, 4 p. Winter-Spring 1994. Abstract: Peter Carruthers has claimed that his version of contractarianism can support certain distinctions that his theory of ethics regarding animals requires. Boonin-Vail's paper disputes this, holding that the required distinctions cannot be maintained in a principled way within Carruthers's contractarian framework. I defend Carruthers's ability to make the needed distinctions. One key point turns on being careful to exclude certain obvious "moral" judgments from behind the veil of ignorance, where they cannot legitimately enter because they depend on "results" of contracting. Another requires careful separation of "intrinsic" (noninstrumental) possession of moral rights from possession of "full" moral rights. (AN PHL1255729)

Database: Philosopher's Index

Add to folder Remove from folder

· 9.

Contracts, Animals, and Ecosystems By: Wenz, Peter S. Social Theory and Practice: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal of Social Philosophy, 19(3), 315-344, 30 p. FALL 1993. Abstract: The review essay discusses issues raised in "The Animals Issue" by Peter Carruthers and "The Animal Rights/ Environmental Ethics Debate" edited by Eugene C Hargrove. Carruthers is shown to present poor arguments for contractarian ethics, and for rejection on contractarian ground of animals' direct moral considerability. The Hargrove collection, by contrast, includes interesting and helpful essays that argue against animal rights on holistic environmentalist grounds. The review essay accepts holistic environmentalism but maintains that protection of many individual animals, and vegetarianism, partly out of concern for animal welfare, are morally required of industrial people. (AN PHL1245810)

Database: Philosopher's Index

Add to folder Remove from folder

HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

· 10.

Moral Matters By: Narveson, Jan. Peterborough: Broadview Pr. 1993. Abstract: "Moral Matters" is a series of essays on the familiar general moral issues, preceded by an unconventional introduction to moral philosophy in a broadly Hobbesian contractarian framework, which criticizes the usual "consequential/deontological" classification. Topics treated: suicide, euthanasia, criminal punishment, war, animal rights, starvation, population control, abortion, sexual ethics (sex, love, marriage, family), pornography, non-discrimination, affirmative action, and obeying the law. A radically liberal ("libertarian") view is argued for each. It is intended to be used with any anthology in which proponents of other viewpoints speak for themselves. (AN PHL1240476)

· Commentary: On the Utility of Contracts By: Sapontzis, Steve F. Between the Species: A Journal of Ethics, 8(4), 229-232, 4 p. FALL 1992. Abstract: This paper discusses whether participants in Rawls' original position could be incarnated as animals. In response to an argument that they could not be, it is argued that Rawls' criticisms of utilitarianism would not inevitably lead to defining individuality in terms of life-plans--something animals generally lack--and calling for the respecting of such individuality. Finally, it is argued that contractarian analyses of justice must inevitably fail to provide a complete theory of justice. (AN PHL1238744)

Database: Philosopher's Index

Add to folder Remove from folder

· 12.

ON A CASE FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS. By: NARVESON, JAN. Monist: An International Quarterly Journal of General Philosophical Inquiry, 70, 31-49, 19 p. January 1987. Abstract: THIS ESSAY DISCUSSES TOM REGAN'S "THE CASE FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS". ITS CENTRAL ARGUMENT IS IDENTIFIED AND ANALYZED AND FOUND TO BE BOTH INVALID AND TO PROCEED FROM QUESTIONABLE PREMISES. FURTHER, REGAN'S ARGUMENT DEPENDS STRONGLY ON APPEALS TO INTUITION, ESPECIALLY INTUITIONS ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF "MARGINAL HUMANS." BUT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO ACCOUNT FOR THEM, AND BESIDES, REGAN'S VIEW THAT ANIMALS HAVE STRONG RIGHTS, REQUIRING US TO BE VEGETARIANS AND TO REFRAIN FROM RESEARCH ON THEM, IS ALSO UNINTUITIVE. A CONTRACTARIAN ACCOUNT IS OFFERED, CONTRA REGAN, WHICH GIVES ANIMALS NO "BASIC" RIGHTS. (AN PHL1149752)

Database: Philosopher's Index

Add to folder Remove from folder

· 14.

ANIMAL RIGHTS REVISITED By: NARVESON, JAN. ETHICS AND ANIMALS. CLIFTON: HUMANA PR. 1983. (AN PHL1124243)

Database: Philosopher's Index

Add to folder Remove from folder

· 15.

RATIONAL EGOISM AND ANIMAL RIGHTS. By: JAMIESON, DALE. Environmental Ethics: An Interdisciplinary Journal Dedicated to the Philosophical Aspects of Environmental Problems, 3, 167-172, 6 p. Summer 1981. Abstract: JAN NARVESON HAS SUGGESTED THAT "RATIONAL EGOISM" MIGHT PROVIDE A DEFENSIBLE MORAL PERSPECTIVE THAT WOULD PUT ANIMALS OUT OF THE REACH OF MORALITY WITHOUT DENYING THAT THEY ARE CAPABLE OF SUFFERING. I ARGUE THAT RATIONAL EGOISM PROVIDES A PRINCIPLED INDIFFERENCE TO THE FATE OF ANIMALS AT HIGH COST: THE POSSIBILITY OF PRINCIPLED INDIFFERENCE TO THE FATE OF 'MARGINAL HUMANS'. (AN PHL1110134)

Database: Philosopher's Index

Add to folder Remove from folder

· 16.

JUSTICE AND THE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS: A CRITIQUE OF RAWLS. By: PRITCHARD, MICHAEL S, ROBISON, WADE L. Environmental Ethics: An Interdisciplinary Journal Dedicated to the Philosophical Aspects of Environmental Problems, 3, 55-61, 7 p. Spring 1981. Abstract: ALTHOUGH THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE INITIAL SITUATION OF JUSTICE IN JOHN RAWLS' "THEORY OF JUSTICE" CHOOSE PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE ONLY, THEIR CHOICES HAVE IMPLICATIONS FOR OTHER MORAL CONCERNS. THE ONLY CHECK ON THE SELF-INTEREST OF THE PARTICIPANTS IS THAT THERE BE UNANIMOUS ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRINCIPLES. BUT, SINCE ANIMALS ARE NOT PARTICIPANTS, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT PRINCIPLES WILL BE ADOPTED WHICH CONFLICT WITH WHAT RAWLS CALLS "DUTIES OF COMPASSION AND HUMANITY" TOWARD ANIMALS. THIS IS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE INITIAL SITUATION'S ASSUMPTION THAT PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE CAN BE DETERMINED INDEPENDENTLY OF OTHER MORAL CONSIDERATIONS. WE QUESTION THIS ASSUMPTION, AND SHOW THAT SATISFACTORY MODIFICATIONS OF RAWLS' INITIAL SITUATION UNDERMINE ITS CONTRACTARIAN BASIS AND REQUIRE THE REJECTION OF EXCLUSIVELY SELF-INTERESTED PARTICIPANTS. (AN PHL1108753)

Database: Philosopher's Index

Add to folder Remove from folder

· 17.

ANIMAL RIGHTS (IN POLISH). By: NARVESON, JAN. Etyka, 18, 147-168, 22 p. 1980. Abstract: (NOTE: THE ARTICLE IS A POLISH TRANSLATION OF MY "ANIMAL RIGHTS REVISITED", PUBLISHED IN "ANIMAL REGULATION STUDIES" 2, PP. 223-236 (1980)). WHAT THE AUTHOR REGARDS AS THE THREE MAJOR ETHICAL/POLITICAL PHILOSOPHIES OF CURRENT INTEREST ARE EXPLORED: LIBERTARIANISM, UTILITARIANISM, AND CONTRACTARIANISM. NONE IS FOUND TO GIVE MUCH SUPPORT FOR STRONG ANIMAL RIGHTS. THE MOST INTERESTING, IT IS SUGGESTED, IS CONTRACTARIANISM, WHICH GIVES NO SUPPORT FOR THEM AT ALL ON THE BASIC LEVEL. ANIMALS NEITHER POSE THE KIND OF THREAT THAT WOULD MAKE A CONTRACT RATIONAL, NOR ARE THEY CAPABLE OF MAKING AND KEEPING AGREEMENTS WERE THAT DESIRABLE. (AN PHL1111304)

Database: Philosopher's Index

· 19.

ANIMAL RIGHTS. By: NARVESON, JAN. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 7, 161-178, 18 p. March 1977. Abstract: THE VIEWS OF PETER SINGER, AND VARIOUS AUTHORS IN THE SINGER/REGAN ANTHOLOGY "ANIMAL RIGHTS AND HUMAN OBLIGATIONS", ARE EXPLORED. THEIR CASE AGAINST "SPECIESISM," THAT ONLY MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN SPECIES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR MORAL CONSIDERATIONS, IS ACCEPTED, BUT THE FURTHER INFERENCE THAT ANIMALS HAVE STRONG RIGHTS, ESPECIALLY NOT TO BE KILLED FOR FOOD, IS QUESTIONED. UTILITARIANISM WOULD, FOR EXAMPLE, SEEM TO LEAVE ROOM FOR THE EATING OF ANIMALS, THOUGH RATHER PRECARIOUSLY. HOWEVER, THE GENERAL VIEW OF MORALITY WHICH IS ARGUED TO MAKE BEST SENSE OF OUR INCLINATION TO THINK THAT EATING ANIMALS IS PERMISSIBLE IS A CONTRACTARIAN/EGOIST ONE. THIS MAKES IT OBVIOUS THAT WE HAVE NO OBLIGATIONS TO ANIMALS, SINCE WE NEED INCUR NONE (AND CAN'T ANYWAY, OWING TO LACK OF COMMUNICATION); AT THE SAME TIME IT MAKES SENSE OF OUR DUTIES TO WEAKER HUMANS. BUT THE WHOLE ISSUE IS AGREED TO BE A DIFFICULT ONE. (AN PHL1055345)

· 20.

NARVESON ON EGOISM AND THE RIGHTS OF ANIMALS. By: REGAN, TOM. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 7, 179-186, 8 p. March 1977. Abstract: I CHALLENGE NARVESON'S ATTEMPTS (1) TO INCLUDE INFANT AND SEVERELY MENTALLY-ENFEEBLED HUMANS WITHIN THE CLASS OF BEINGS PROTECTED BY MORAL RULES DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS AND (2) TO EXCLUDE ALL NON-HUMAN ANIMALS BOTH FROM THE CLASS OF BEINGS PROTECTED BY MORAL RULES AND FROM THE CLASS OF BEINGS HAVING RIGHTS. (AN PHL1054933)

2009-10-15T08:22:00.000-07:00

Some quick thoughts and suggestions about your papers and writing generally:

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:
http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk5.html

2009-10-15T08:01:00.001-07:00

FYI, mentioned yesterday:

http://www.philosophy.umd.edu/Faculty/pcarruthers/Blurb-AI.htm

THE ANIMALS ISSUE: MORAL THEORY IN PRACTICE

(Cambridge University Press, 1992.)

ISBN 0-521-43092-5 ISBN 0-521-43689-3 (pbk.)

COVER BLURB

Do animals have moral rights? In contrast to the philosophical gurus of the animal rights movement, whose opinion has held moral sway in recent years, Peter Carruthers here claims that they do not. The animals issue provides an admirably clear discussion of the role theoretical considerations have to play in determining our moral judgement. Carruthers explores a variety of moral theories, exposing the weaknesses of those that would accord rights to animals, and concluding that contractualism (in the tradition of Kant and Rawls) offers the most acceptable framework. From such a perspective animals lack direct moral significance. This need not entail of course that there are no moral constraints on our treatment of them.

This provocative but judiciously argued book is for all those interested in animal rights, whatever their initial standpoint. It will also serve as a lively introduction to ethics, demonstrating why theoretical issues in ethics actually matter.

‘A highly intelligent and philosophically probing discussion of our obligations to other animal species.’

Stephen L. Darwall, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor

‘Those interested in the issue of animal rights should read this book. Carruthers lays out the philosophical issues involved in the use of animals in medical research with clarity and sincerity. Anyone who cares about the trade-off between acquiring human knowledge to help cure disease and the use of animal for those purposes will enjoy new perspectives on the issue as a result of Carruthers’ fascinating arguments.’

Michael S. Gazzaniga, Dartmouth Medical School

Preface (see below)

1. Moral Argument and Moral Theory

2. Utilitarianism and Contractualism

3. Utilitarianism and Animal Suffering

4. Utilitarianism and the Harm of Killing

5. Contractualism and Animals

6. Animals and Rational Agency

7. Contractualism and Character

8. Animals and Conscious Experience

(not available: contains errors; for my current views, see 'Sympathy and Subjectivity' and 'Suffering without Subjectivity'.)

Conclusion

Notes

Index

PREFACE

The animal rights movement has gained considerable momentum in recent years, fuelled, in part, by the theoretical arguments of moral philosophers. Indeed, it is striking that almost all of the books and articles recently published on this issue have argued in favour of the moral standing of animals. This is not because the consensus amongst moral philosophers as a whole is that animals have rights. It is rather because, for one reason or another, most of those who take the opposite view have chosen to remain silent. This book is written in an attempt to redress the balance.

My view is that the case for the moral standing of animals is weak, and that the contrary case is, by contrast, very powerful. In fact, I regard the present popular concern with animal rights in our culture as a reflection of moral decadence. Just as Nero fiddled while Rome burned, many in the West agonise over the fate of seal pups and cormorants while human beings elsewhere starve or are enslaved. This reaction is, to a degree, understandable. For animal sufferers are always blameless, and the steps necessary to improve their situation are generally plain. Our response to human suffering, in contrast, is often complicated by the suspicion that the victims, or their political representatives, are at least partially responsible for their fate, and by knowledge of the fearsome complexity of the economic and social problems involved in such issues as famine relief. Whatever may have been true of Nero, our species of decadence may consist in a weakness for easy options, rather than in any failure of moral sensitivity.

The recent explosion of interest in animal rights has had a variety of sources, no doubt, besides moral paralysis in face of the enormity of the world’s human problems. One such source may be the increasing urbanisation of Western culture, that has dramatically diminished the extent of personal working contact with animals. The sentimentality that many people feel for their pets has thus come to spread itself over the whole animal domain. But another source has undoubtedly been intellectual. The philosophical gurus of the animal rights movement have managed to seize the moral high ground, charging those who oppose them with inconsistency or morally arbitrary speciesism. The main purpose of this book is to show that these charges can be rebutted. Besides exposing the implausibility of those theories that would grant rights to animals, I shall defend a theoretical framework that accords full moral standing to all human beings, while non-arbitrarily withholding such standing from animals.

In attacking those who attribute moral standing to animals, however, I am not opposing those who are animal lovers, as I explain in the opening chapter. Indeed, I count myself as belonging to the latter group. But it is one thing to love animals for their grace, beauty, and marvellous variety, and quite another to believe that they make any direct moral claims upon us. Nor should I be seen as placing myself in opposition to recent ecology movements. But my view is that rare species of animal and rain-forests are worth preserving for their importance to us, not because they have moral significance, or moral rights, in their own right. Far from being strengthened, the ecology movement is only weakened by association with such extreme and indefensible views.

This book is aimed primarily at non-philosophers, in the sense that I try to take nothing for granted, and lay out my material as clearly and explicitly as I can. All I assume is that my readers are prepared to think while they read, and that they can follow the course of a rational argument. This does not mean, however, that I talk down to my audience. I do not write from any position of specialised knowledge or superior wisdom, but only as one who has tried to think honestly and openly about the issues. In any case, I belong to that breed of contemporary philosopher who holds that the life-blood of philosophy is accessibility. Where philosophy retreats into technicality it withers and dies, and where it takes refuge in obscurity it only forms a rallying point for those who care nothing for truth.

I have two remarks to make about grammar. One is that although human beings are, strictly speaking, a species of animal, for reasons of simplicity I shall use the term `animal’, throughout, in such a way as to contrast with `human being’. So when I raise the question whether any animals have rights, what I am asking, in fact, is whether any non-human animals have rights. My second remark is political. Wherever necessary I shall use the colloquial plural pronouns `they’ and `their’ in impersonal contexts, in place of the pernicious masculine singular `he’ and `his’ required by strict English grammar. For I do not wish to endorse the impression that only men ever do or think anything worth mentioning. I find this option less distracting than the use of the feminine `she’ and `hers’ favoured by some writers. Yet it is less stylistically barbaric than `s/he’ and `his/hers’, and less unwieldy than the constant use of `he or she’ and `his or hers’.

As for my intellectual debts, it was originally through discussions with Clare McCready that I came to feel that I had a distinctive approach to the question of animal significance, that might be worth putting down on paper. I am grateful to her for her strident but thoughtful opposition. Thanks also go to the following individuals for their comments and advice on previous drafts: David Archard, Stephen Buckle, Nick Bunnin, Daniel Dennett, Debbie Fitzmaurice, Peter Harrison, Jennifer Jackson, Susan Levi, Stephen Makin, Christopher McKnight, Susan Mendus, Onora O’Neill, Peter Singer, Robert Stern, Robert Wurtz, and an anonymous reader for Cambridge University Press. That I have not acknowledged their individual contributions in the pages that follow does not mean that they are not remembered – only that a text of this sort should be as uncluttered by scholarly apparatus as possible. I am also grateful to my students at the Universities of Queen’s Belfast, Michigan, Essex, and Sheffield, on whom I tried out my ideas at various stages of their formation.

2009-10-12T12:16:00.000-07:00

Hi,
Sorry for not having class today. Something broke on my flood repair rigging and I couldn't risk my basement flooding again and all that goes with it.
For Wednesday, we will finally talk about indirect duty views from mindlessness and contractarianisms, simple and Rawlsian.
For Friday, we will talk about the "cruelty kindness" view.
Here are some encyclopedia articles on topics in the readings thusfar:

Animal Minds:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/ani-mind/
Actually, this looks excellent, so you should take a look at it!
More later!

Consciousness:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/consciou/

Social Contract Theory, or contractarianism:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/

2009-10-07T07:20:00.001-07:00

Hi,
Only 3 students were here and on time today. There will be a writing assignment due Friday.

First, read and re-read from the beginning of the book to page 48.

Second, here's the writing assignment:

Explain the versions of the moral theory contractarianism that Regan discusses.
Present his arguments against these contractarianisms.
Explain whether his arguments are sound or not.

Also, send me an email to let me know some of the things in the assigned sections that you have found interesting.

Thanks and see you ALL Friday.

2009-09-23T07:54:00.000-07:00

Read the article on McGinn on abortion for Friday.

No class Monday.

Paper due Wednesday. Assignment below.

Next Friday: start Regan book

----------------------------------------------------

Paper 1: Bioethics

On McGinn

Due next Wednesday, Sept. 30. Bring 3 copies to class.

Assignment:

First, read Jim Pryor’s Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper available here:

http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html

We have read and discussed much of Colin McGinn's Moral Literacy. His book presents both a general approach to moral questions and an application of that approach to a number of moral issues.

In his article “Two Kinds of Potentiality,” Dale Jacquette critiques McGinn’s response to the moral issue of abortion and, perhaps, McGinn’s general approach to moral issues.

In this paper you should explain Jacquette’s critique of McGinn’s arguments on abortion. To do this, you must first explain McGinn’s arguments on abortion, as well as his general perspective on how to think about moral issues. You then must explain Jacquette’s objections to his arguments. Finally, you must explain whether Jacquette’s arguments are sound or not, i.e., whether his response to McGinn shows that McGinn’s arguments are unsound. You should explain how McGinn might respond to Jacquette.

Your paper should have a paragraph long introduction that explains what you are going to do and concludes with a clear, concise, simple thesis: “I will argue that (e.g.,) Jacquette’s objections to McGinn are sound and so ____” or “I will argue that (e.g.,) Jacquette’s objections to McGinn are not sound and so ____”

5 pages or so.

Due next Wednesday, Sept. 30. Bring 3 copies to class.

Late papers will be severely penalized.

I am giving you a copy of the Jacquette article. If you would like the file to print it out in a larger format, email me: nathan.nobis@gmail.com

2009-09-18T11:34:00.001-07:00

For Monday, we will discuss the Monday: drugs and concluding chapter on virtue in McGinn.

BE ON TIME!

Wednesday we will move onto the Regan book.

2009-09-09T11:06:00.001-07:00

Revised:
For MONDAY, McGinn Ch. 2 on abortion. Writing assignment: what are the arguments? What's his main conclusion(s)? What are his reasons? Are his arguments any good or not?

NOTE: I WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY LATE WORK. IF YOU ARE NOT IN CLASS, YOUR WORK IS LIKELY LATE AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED, UNLESS YOU HAVE AN OFFICIAL EXCUSE.

For Wed: Ch. 5, Sex, in McGinn - writing assignment

For Friday: Ch. 6, Drugs, in McGinn - writing assignment

For next Monday: CH. 8, Virtue - writing assignment

Then we'll move on to the Regan book! - writing assignment

2009-09-02T08:55:00.001-07:00

For Friday:

Re-read Rachels readings; read the 3 page handout from Rawls (I left it in my box if you didn't get it). Review the argument sheets, links on blog.

Monday:
No class due to Labor Day.

For Wednesday:
Read McGinn Chapter 1. Writing assignment: what's his main conclusion(s)? What are his premises, i.e., how does he justify his conclusion(s)? Due at the beginning of class.

For Monday

2009-08-29T11:00:00.000-07:00

For Monday:
From Moral Literacy: Or How to Do the Right Thing by Colin McGinn
Please read the Preface & Introduction
FOR WEDNESDAY:

o James Rachels, “Some Basic Points About Arguments”: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/rachels-on-arguments.pdf

o James Rachels, “A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy,” available here if you don’t yet have the books:http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-intro-to-ethics.pdf Writing assignment: which of the three final ethicaltheories – social contract theory, utilitarianism and/or Kantianism – are best and why? (Maybe they are all best in combination somehow?) You must describe and explain the theories.

Syllabus

2009-08-29T10:57:00.000-07:00

The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. - Martin Luther King Jr. ,‘48

Bioethics - 43488 - HPHI 475A - 01

Class 10:00 am - 10:50 am MWF Sale Hall 110 Aug 26, 2009 - Dec 12, 2009

Students are responsible for understanding all the information and policies presented in this syllabus here and online.

Students will be referred to these documents when their questions are answered on them.

TO DO:

Purchase books (McGinn at bookstore; others online if cheaper?).
Sign up for email list at Google groups through the blog: http://groups.google.com/group/morehouse-bioethics Link available through the course blog: http://morehousebioethics.blogspot.com/ .
The syllabus is also available at http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/2009Bioethics.pdf
Begin reading and writing assignments at the end of the back page on this short syllabus (over).

Instructor: Dr. Nathan Nobis (nathan.nobis@gmail.com) Office: Philosophy & Religion Department, Sale Hall 113

Office Hours: 2-3 MWF and by appointment (but please let him know if you want to meet)

Catalogue Description: An introduction to bioethics or bio-medical ethics, the attempt to answer ethical questions that arise especially out of practices in the (life) sciences, healthcare and related fields.

Extended Description: This course provides students with the opportunity to improve their skills at reasoning critically about moral issues. Students will learn some basic logic and critical thinking skills and apply them to theoretical and practical questions about morality. We will practice identifying precise and unambiguous moral conclusions (i.e., exact perspectives taken on moral issues) and the reasons given for and against these conclusions. We will then practice evaluating these reasons to see if they provide rational support for these conclusions or not. We will think about what helps people think more carefully and critically about moral issues and what factors and influences discourage this. We will discuss influential ethical theories and moral principles – answers to the questions ‘What’s the basic difference between a right and wrong action?’ and ‘What makes right actions right and wrong actions wrong?’ – and apply our critical thinking skills to moral issues that arise in bioethics; for a list of these issues, see the Tables of Contents for the books below.

Books:

The first book, by McGinn, which we will need immediately, is very cheap (>$10?) and available in the bookstore; the others you might want to get cheaper used on Amazon or another online bookstore:

1. Moral Literacy: Or How to Do the Right Thing by Colin McGinn

This book provides a nice, brief introduction to ethics.

2. Animal Rights, Human Wrongs: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy by Tom Regan

This book provides a nice overview and critical introduction to moral theories, paired with discussion of an important set of issues in bioethics, namely the treatment of animals.

3. The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty by Peter Singer

A discussion of an important set of issues in bioethics, namely those related to absolute poverty and the absence of health care (and basic health) on a global scale.

4. The Elements of Bioethics by Gregory Pence

An overview of a range of bioethical issues.

Written Requirements / Assignments:

Four formal papers; details forthcoming on all these.

One on one of the chapters / moral issues in McGinn. 20% of grade
One on Regan’s critique of an ethical theory and/or his argument in favor of ‘the rights view’. 20% of grade.
A book review of the Singer book. 20% of grade
Final paper: find a primary source article(s) discussed in Pence, Singer or Regan and write a critique of it. 20% of grade

Late papers, drafts, topic selections, and findings of source materials will be severely penalized, affecting your final grade.

Periodic daily writing assignments, to help encourage you to do the reading more carefully and be prepared for class. Announced in class and via the blog and email list. 20% of grade
Participation, including leading discussion (and being seriously prepared to lead discussion and teach the material. 20% of grade
and present the controversies for the day. 20% of grade

Extra Credit Opportunities:

There will likely be events addressing ethical and/or philosophical issues that I’ll encourage you to attend and write up a 3 page detailed summary and reaction to for variable bonus points. These are due, in class, within one week of the event. These events will only be announced by the email group.

Rules: Always come to class: after three absences your overall grade will be reduced by 1/3 of a letter grade for each additional not officially excused absence. Students with perfect attendance will have their grade raised by 1/3 of a letter grade. Be on time: if you are late, you might not be admitted to class. Be prepared. Do the reading, carefully: you must read and re-read, take notes, outline, highlight and underline: you should be prepared to answer basic questions about the readings (e.g., what’s the author’s main conclusion(s) and where does he state them in the reading, what are his premises?). Take the time to do a very good job on everything we do. Bring your materials, always: if not, you may be asked to leave. Do not text message, surf the net or abuse technology: if you do, you maybe be asked to leave class. Contribute positively to class discussion. Ask questions. Do not plagiarize or cheat in any way: if you do, you will fail the course immediately: do your own work and do not ever look at any other students’ work “as an example” of what to do. Have fun, learn a lot, and grow to become a more ethically and intellectually engaged person!

Assignments: Readings should be done in advance for the day assigned. Exact readings and assignments will be announced in class, sent through the email group and posted on the course blog at http://morehousebioethics.blogspot.com/. If you come to class, you should know exactly what the current assignments are.

First reading assignments:

After reading the Preface and Introduction to McGinn, we will read these:

o James Rachels, “Some Basic Points About Arguments”: http://sites.google.com/site/nobisphilosophy/rachels-on-arguments.pdf

o James Rachels, “A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy,” available here if you don’t yet have the books: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-intro-to-ethics.pdf Writing assignment: which of the three final ethical theories – social contract theory, utilitarianism and/or Kantianism – are best and why? (Maybe they are all best in combination somehow?) You must describe and explain the theories.

Further reading and writing assignments will be announced in class, on blog, and email group!

Note: A syllabus is not a contract, but rather a guide to course procedures. The instructor reserves the right to alter the course requirements and/or assignments based on new materials, class discussions, or other legitimate pedagogical objectives.

Main order of readings:

1. Moral Literacy: Or How to Do the Right Thing by Colin McGinn

This book provides a nice, brief introduction to ethics.

Preface

Introduction
Animals
Abortion
Violence
Sex
Drugs
Censorship
Virtue

2. Animal Rights, Human Wrongs: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy by Tom Regan

This book provides a nice overview and critical introduction to moral theories, paired with discussion of an important set of issues in bioethics, namely the treatment of animals.

From Indifference to Advocacy

How Animals Are Treated: Some Examples

The Nature and Importance of Rights

Indirect Duty Views

Direct Duty Views

Human Rights

Animal Rights

Objections and Replies

Moral Philosophy and Change

3. The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty by Peter Singer

A discussion of an important set of issues in bioethics, namely those related to absolute poverty and the absence of health care (and basic health) on a global scale.

THE ARGUMENT

1. Saving a Child

2. Is it Wrong to Not Help?

3. Common Objections to Giving

HUMAN NATURE

4. Why Don’t We Give More?

5. Creating A Culture of Giving

THE FACTS ABOUT AID

6. How Much Does it Cost to Save a Life, and How Can You Tell Which Charities Do It Best?

7. Improving Aid

A NEW STANDARD FOR GIVING

8. Your Child and the Children of Others

9. Asking Too Much?

10. A Realistic Approach

5. The Elements of Bioethics by Gregory Pence

An overview of a range of bioethical issues.

This book is designed for the biomedical ethics course as a core introduction to biomedical issues in the context of ethical theory. Each chapter unfolds timely, paradigm case examples--many of which have never before been explored in a bioethics text--and presents these topics amidst discussion of their key ethical issues. This short volume complements Pence’s popular Classic Cases in Medical Ethics: Accounts of the Cases that have Shaped Medical Ethics, Fourth Edition (ISBN 0-07-282935-4), and Classic Works in Medical Ethics: Core Philosophical Readings (ISBN 0-07-038115-1).

Preface
1. LYING TO PATIENTS AND ETHICAL RELATIVISM
1.1 Ethical Relativism & Ethical Subjectivism
1.2 Impartiality and Moral Reasoning
1.3 Kant On Lying
1.4 Utilitarian Ethics
1.5 Omitting the Truth vs. Lying
1.6 Apologizing for Mistakes & Taking Responsibility for Mistakes
1.7 Virtue Ethics: Truthfulness, Complicity, and Responsibility
1.8 Conceptual Issues: What is a Mistake?

2. KANT ON WHETHER ALCOHOLISM IS A DISEASE
2.1 The God Committee: Who Shall Live When Not All Can?
2.2 Free Will
2.3 Kant on Human Dignity
2.4 Is Alcoholism a Disease?
2.5 Sociologists and Geneticists on Alcoholism
2.6 Kant’s Critique of the Disease Model
2.7 Fingarette’s Research
2.8 Harm Reduction vs. Moralism in Medicine
2.9 Liver Transplants for Alcoholics?
3. KANT’S CRITIQUE OF ADULT ORGAN DONATION
3.1 Kant: Some Things Must Not Be Done
3.2 Background: Crossing the Ethical Bright Line in Organ Procurement
3.3 The Utilitarian Defense of Live Organ Donation
3.4 Act versus Rule Utilitarianism
3.5 The Utilitarian Rebuttal
3.6 Autonomous Live Organ Donation for Kantians?
3.7 Utilitarians and Payment for Organs
3.8 Virtue Ethics and Live Organ Donors
3.9 Organ Transplantation and Race

4. UTILITARIANS VS. KANTIANS ON STOPPING AIDS
4.1 History of Utilitarian Ethics
4.2 Virtue Ethics, Medical Saints, and Paul Farmer
4.3 Utilitarians and Numbers: Applying Triage
4.4 Stopping AIDS: The Challenge to Ethical Theories
4.5 Kantian and Utilitarian Ideas about Patient Care
4.6 Mill’s Critique of Kantian Ethics
4.7 Farmer and Rawls on Just Medical Care
4.8 Placebos with AIDS Drugs on Vulnerable Africans
4.9 Costs of AIDS Drugs

5. EMOTIVISM AND BANNING SOME CONCEPTIONS
5.1 History of Assisted Reproduction
5.2 Emotivism
5.3 Paradoxes about Conception
5.4 Multiple Embryo Implantation
5.5 Sex Selection
5.6 Age of Parents and the Good of the Child
5.7 Hume, Kant, and Aristotle on the Emotions
5.8 Surrogate Mothers & Compensating Gametic Donors
5.9 Reproductive Cloning

6. TERRI SCHIAVO: WHEN DOES PERSONHOOD END?
6.1 Cessation of Personhood
6.2 Background: Brain Death and the Quinlan and Cruzan Cases
6.3 Families, Criteria of Personhood, and Character Issues
6.4 A New Category of Consciousness?
6.5 Religious Issues
6.6 Disability Issues
6.7 Virtue Ethics: The Many Faces of Compassion
6.8 The Politicization of the Schiavo Case
6.9 What the Autopsy Showed

7. ARE GENETIC ABORTIONS EUGENIC?
7.1 Down Syndrome
7.2 Roe vs. Wade and the Legalization of Abortion
7.3 Choosing Against Pregnancy vs. Choosing Against Abnormality
7.4 Abortion and Personhood
7.5 New Genetic Tests, Disability Advocates, and Eugenics
7.6 Eugenics
7.7 Genetic Testing, and Malpractice and Insurance Companies
7.8 Newborn Genetic Screening
7.9 Sending the Wrong Message?

8. CAN RESEARCH BE JUST ON PEOPLE WITH SCHIZOPHRENIA?
8.1 Research to Cure Schizophrenia, Money, and Care for the Mentally Ill
8.2 Nazi and American Research, and the Tuskegee Study
8.3 Schizophrenia
8.4 Informed Consent and Schizophrenia Studies
8.5 Virtue Ethics, Integrity, and Conflicts of Interest
8.6 Harm to Subjects and the Kantian Ideal of Patient Care
8.7 Vulnerable Subjects and Social Justice
8.8 Structural Critiques of Modern Psychiatric Research
8.9 NBAC’s Report on Psychiatric Research

9. IS THERE A DUTY TO DIE?
9.1 Gov. Lamm’s Famous Remarks and His Historical Predecessors
9.2 John Hardwig: Defending a Duty to Die
9.3 Alzheimer’s and Dementia
9.4 Rawls and Callahan on Justice and Natural Limits
9.5 Global Reallocation? Dying Simply so Others Can Simply Live
9.6 Mary Warnock vs. Felicia Ackerman on a Duty to Die
9.7 Within the Family: Our Parents’ Keepers
9.8 Dworkin’s Defense of Advance Directives and Autonomy
9.9 Medical Professionals and Medical Futility

10. TREATING JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES PROFESSIONALLY
10.1 Jehovah Witnesses and Medicine
10.2 Professionalism, Religious Minorities, and Tolerance
10.3 Parental Owners vs. Parental Stewards of Children
10.4 Virtue Ethics, Treatment Refusal, amd Religious Minorities
10.5 Legal Issues
10.6 Medicine and Good of the Child/Adolescent
10.7 Bloodless Surgery and Jehovah Witnesses
10.8 Consistency in Handling Cases of Minority Views in Medicine

Morehouse College Bioethics

New Email Group

Contents

For Friday

Syllabus, Fall 2011

Exploring Ethics: An Introductory Anthology, any (1^st or 2^nd) edition, Edited by Steven M. Cahn

THE ANIMALS ISSUE: MORAL THEORY IN PRACTICE

CONTENTS

PREFACE

For Monday

Syllabus

3. The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty by Peter Singer

4. The Elements of Bioethics by Gregory Pence

3. The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty by Peter Singer

5. The Elements of Bioethics by Gregory Pence

Table of contents

Morehouse College Bioethics

New Email Group

Contents

For Friday

Syllabus, Fall 2011

Exploring Ethics: An Introductory Anthology, any (1st or 2nd) edition, Edited by Steven M. Cahn

THE ANIMALS ISSUE: MORAL THEORY IN PRACTICE

CONTENTS

PREFACE

For Monday

Syllabus

3. The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty by Peter Singer

4. The Elements of Bioethics by Gregory Pence

3. The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty by Peter Singer

5. The Elements of Bioethics by Gregory Pence

Table of contents

Exploring Ethics: An Introductory Anthology, any (1^st or 2^nd) edition, Edited by Steven M. Cahn