Transcript Assignment 4, conference, final papers

CONTEMPORARY
MORAL PROBLEMS
M-F12:00-1:00SAV 264
Instructor: Benjamin Hole
Email: [email protected]
Office Hours: everyday after class
AGENDA
1.
Last thoughts about pornography and
censorship?
2.
Admin notes and where we are …
• Assignment 4, conference, final papers
3.
Clicker Quiz: Pope John Paul II, “The
Unspeakable Crime of Abortion”
4. Discuss the argument...
WEEK
REQUIRED READING
ASSIGNMENT
Course Mechanics, Theory
Primer, and Philosophical
Argumentation
6/23-6/27
Philosophical Writing and
Ethical Theory
6/30-7/3
(Holiday, 7/4)



Benjamin Hole, Phil 102 Syllabus
Lewis Vaughn (posted on website), “How to Read an Argument”
Mark Timmons, “Moral Theory Primer”
WA1, due 6/27




Mark B. Woodhouse (posted on website), “How to Write Philosophy”
James Rachels (posted on website), “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism”
Jeremy Bentham (posted on website), “The Principle of Utility”
Robert Nozick, “The Experience Machine” (posted on website)
None
Ethical Theory
7/7-7/11


J.S. Mill (electronic), On Liberty, Chapters 1-2
Immanuel Kant (posted on website), “The Moral Law”
WA2, due 7/8
Introduction to Sexual Ethics
7/14-7/18



Thomas Mappes, “A Liberal View of Sexual Morality and the concept of Using Another Person”
The Catholic Church, “Vatican Declaration on Some Questions in Sexual Ethics”
John Corvino, “A Defense of Homosexuality”
None
Introduction to International
Ethics
7/21-7/25
Introduction to Social and
Political Ethics: Censorship
and Pornography
7/28-8/1
Abortion
8/4-8/8


Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” (posted on website)
Garrett Hardin, “Lifeboat Ethics” (posted on website)
WA3, due 7/22



Ronald Dworkin, “Liberty and Pornography”
Judith M. Hill, “Pornography and Degradation”
Catharine MacKinnon, “Pornography, Civil Rights, and Speech”
None
Pope John Paul II, “The Unspeakable Crime of Abortion”
Mary Anne Warren, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”
Don Marquis, “Why Abortion Is Immoral”
Catch-up / review.
Conference for Final Papers: presentations and discussion
WA4, due 8/5
Conference for Final Papers
8/11-8/15





Abortion
8/18-8/22


Judith Jarvis Thomson, “A Defense of Abortion”
Rosalind Hursthouse, “Virtue Ethics and Abortion”
WA5, due 8/19
Final Paper, due 8/21
None
WRITING ASSIGNMENT FOUR
1.
Paper Presentations
2.
Develop Critical Arguments
3.
Self-Assessment of Learning
• Are you self-regulating your learning?
• Self-assess your participation.
COMMON PROBLEMS
• Unclear argumentative structure
• Failure to understand the text or assignment
• Proof-reading errors
• Superfluous language
• Excessive verbiage
• Excessive adjectives/adverbs
• 2-line/2-clause limit
•
•
•
•
Paragraph structure
Sentence structure
Vague thesis statements
Passive voice / awkward locutions
http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/
CITATIONS & PLAGIARISM
Citations. Every descriptive claim about course material must be cited. Failure to cite
such claims is a kind of plagiarism.
“Plagiarism is defined as the use of creations, ideas or words of publicly available work
without formally acknowledging the author or source through appropriate use of
quotation marks, references, and the like. Plagiarizing is presenting someone else’s work
as one’s own original work or thought. This constitutes plagiarism whether it is intentional
or unintentional. The University of Washington takes plagiarism very seriously. Plagiarism
may lead to disciplinary action by the University against the student who submitted the
work. Any student who is uncertain whether his or her use of the work of others constitutes
plagiarism should consult the course instructor for guidance before formally submitting
the course work involved.”
(Sources: UW Graduate School Style Manual; UW Bothell Catalog; UW Student Conduct Code)
FINAL PAPER (OUTLINE)
QUESTIONS?
ARGUMENTATIVE STRUCTURE
For each argument
 Is each argument valid in form?
 Does each argument include all the
premises necessary for conclusion?
 Are the premises sufficient for the
conclusion?
 Are there any premises you might have
trouble explaining? (Try to identify the
confusion.)
For the overall paper:
 Is your thesis a strong and simple statement of your core
argument’s conclusion?
 Are you being as charitable as possible in the exegesis?
 Does your core argument engage with a premise in the
argument from the exegesis?
 Does your objection engage with a premise from your core
argument?
 Is the objection strong (or a straw man)?
 Does your response to the objection engage with a specific
premise?
 Does your response treat the objection charitably?
 Does your paper have broader implications in ethical theory?
CONFERENCE AND JOURNAL
CALLS FOR PAPERS
• https://canvas.uw.e
du/courses/884483/d
iscussion_topics/1913
311
• http://uwphilosophy
undergrads.wordpres
s.com
WRITING RESOURCES
1. Jim Pryor’s Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy
Paper
2. Mark Woodhouse’s Writing Philosophy
3. The Odegaard Writing and Research Center
WEEK
REQUIRED READING
ASSIGNMENT
Course Mechanics, Theory
Primer, and Philosophical
Argumentation
6/23-6/27
Philosophical Writing and
Ethical Theory
6/30-7/3
(Holiday, 7/4)



Benjamin Hole, Phil 102 Syllabus
Lewis Vaughn (posted on website), “How to Read an Argument”
Mark Timmons, “Moral Theory Primer”
WA1, due 6/27




Mark B. Woodhouse (posted on website), “How to Write Philosophy”
James Rachels (posted on website), “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism”
Jeremy Bentham (posted on website), “The Principle of Utility”
Robert Nozick, “The Experience Machine” (posted on website)
None
Ethical Theory
7/7-7/11


J.S. Mill (electronic), On Liberty, Chapters 1-2
Immanuel Kant (posted on website), “The Moral Law”
WA2, due 7/8
Introduction to Sexual Ethics
7/14-7/18



Thomas Mappes, “A Liberal View of Sexual Morality and the concept of Using Another Person”
The Catholic Church, “Vatican Declaration on Some Questions in Sexual Ethics”
John Corvino, “A Defense of Homosexuality”
None
Introduction to International
Ethics
7/21-7/25
Introduction to Social and
Political Ethics: Censorship
and Pornography
7/28-8/1
Abortion
8/4-8/8


Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” (posted on website)
Garrett Hardin, “Lifeboat Ethics” (posted on website)
WA3, due 7/22



Ronald Dworkin, “Liberty and Pornography”
Judith M. Hill, “Pornography and Degradation”
Catharine MacKinnon, “Pornography, Civil Rights, and Speech”
None
Pope John Paul II, “The Unspeakable Crime of Abortion”
Mary Anne Warren, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”
Don Marquis, “Why Abortion Is Immoral”
Catch-up / review.
Conference for Final Papers: presentations and discussion
WA4, due 8/5
Conference for Final Papers
8/11-8/15





Abortion
8/18-8/22


Judith Jarvis Thomson, “A Defense of Abortion”
Rosalind Hursthouse, “Virtue Ethics and Abortion”
WA5, due 8/19
Final Paper, due 8/21
None
REVIEW CENSORSHIP &
PORNOGRAPHY
Introduction to Social and Political Ethics
BEST ARGUMENT?
“. .
.
0%
on
,
gr
...
ha
r
in
M
.H
ill
eM
ac
,“
Ki
nn
L ib
,“
kin
Ju
di
th
or
Dw
d
na
l
Ro
0%
Po
rn
o
er
ty
...
no
gr
a
“P
or
ol
,
ist
Kr
in
g
Irv
0%
...
0%
Ca
t
A. Irving Kristol, “Pornography,
Obscenity, and the Case
for Censorship”
B. Ronald Dworkin, “Liberty
and Pornography”
C. Judith M. Hill, “Pornography
and Degradation”
D. Catharine MacKinnon,
“Pornography, Civil Rights,
and Speech”
CLICKER QUIZ
Please set your Turning Technology
Clicker to channel 41
Press “Ch”, then “41”, then “Ch”
By definition, if a person or thing needs to
be taken into account in moral decision
making (i.e., if it counts morally), then that
person or thing has:
A. moral
personhood or
standing
B. sentience
C. autonomy
D. viability
E. innocence
F. all of the above
71%
29%
ho
od
pe
rs
on
or
al
m
0%
0%
0%
or
st
...
se
nt
ie
nc
e
au
to
no
m
y
vi
ab
ili
ty
in
no
ce
al
lo
nc
ft
e
he
ab
ov
e
0%
Which of the following theories best
characterizes Pope John Paul II’s account
of moral personhood/standing?
A. Kantian Ethics
B. Feminism
C. Hedonism
D. None of the
above
57%
43%
ab
o
ve
sm
of
th
e
He
do
ni
in
Fe
m
0%
No
ne
Ka
nt
ia
n
Et
hi
cs
ism
0%
Which of the following best characterizes
Pope John Paul II’s argument against
abortion?
100%
0%
0%
i..
.
...
a
di
v
co
n
fe
tu
s
ha
s
fro
m
A
hu
m
an
fe
tu
s
A
hu
m
an
fe
tu
s
an
hu
m
A
co
n
fro
m
a
ha
s
fe
tu
s
an
hu
m
...
fu
tu
r..
.
0%
A
A. A human fetus has a future like
ours, and as such deserves the
same moral protections as
normal adult human beings
B. A human fetus from conception
is an innocent human being,
and thus has the same right to
life as any other person
C. A human fetus from conception
is a sentient creature, and thus
has the same right to life as any
other sentient creature
D. A human fetus has a divinely
immaterial soul seven minutes
after conception, and from then
on has the same right to life as
any other person.
POPE JOHN
PAUL II
“The Unspeakable Crime of
Abortion”
ETHICAL THEORY
NLT:
“An action is right if and only if (and
because) in performing the action one does not
directly violate any of the basic values” (12):
1. Human Life
2. Human Procreation (which includes raising
children)
3. Human Knowledge
4. Human Sociability
POPE JOHN PAUL II
“THE UNSPEAKABLE CRIME OF ABORTION”
Two main components to the
abortion debate:
1.
Whether a fetus has moral
standing.
2.
How to treat people and things
with moral standing.
A FETUS HAS MORAL STANDING
• Biological membership in the human
species
• Continuity argument: given biological
membership, the only place where it
makes sense to draw the line is at
conception.
HOW TO TREAT PEOPLE WITH
MORAL STANDING
NLT:
“An action is right if and only if (and
because) in performing the action one does not
directly violate any of the basic values” (12):
1. Human Life
2. Human Procreation (which includes raising
children)
3. Human Knowledge
4. Human Sociability
POPE JOHN PAUL II
“THE UNSPEAKABLE CRIME OF ABORTION”
1. A fetus is a person with the right to life.
•
•
•
The human fetus from conception is “an innocent
human being.”
Therefore, it “is to be respected as a person.”
Therefore, it has the same right to life (and in the
same degree) as any other person.
2. It is morally wrong to kill a person with the right
to life.
3. Therefore, it is morally wrong to kill a fetus.
(Abortion is immoral.)
A FETUS IS A PERSON
WITH THE RIGHT TO
LIFE.
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
ew
Ag
re
e
ha
tA
gr
ee
So
Ne
m
ew
ut
ra
ha
l
tD
isa
gr
ee
D
St
isa
ro
gr
ng
ee
ly
Di
sa
gr
ee
0%
So
m
ly
Ag
r
ee
0%
St
ro
ng
A. Strongly Agree
B. Agree
C.Somewhat Agree
D. Neutral
E. Somewhat
Disagree
F. Disagree
G.Strongly Disagree
IT IS MORALLY WRONG TO
KILL A PERSON WITH THE
RIGHT TO LIFE.
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
ew
Ag
re
e
ha
tA
gr
ee
So
Ne
m
ew
ut
ra
ha
l
tD
isa
gr
ee
D
St
isa
ro
gr
ng
ee
ly
Di
sa
gr
ee
0%
So
m
ly
Ag
r
ee
0%
St
ro
ng
A. Strongly Agree
B. Agree
C.Somewhat Agree
D. Neutral
E. Somewhat
Disagree
F. Disagree
G.Strongly Disagree
PREVIEW WARREN, IF WE
HAVE TIME
The genetic-code argument
A.Strongly Agree
B.Agree
C.Somewhat Agree
D.Neutral
E.Somewhat
Disagree
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Ag
re
e
ha
tA
gr
ee
So
Ne
m
ew
ut
ra
ha
l
tD
isa
gr
ee
D
St
isa
ro
gr
ng
ee
ly
Di
sa
gr
ee
ew
ee
Ag
r
ly
0%
So
m
Disagree
St
ro
ng
F.Disagree
G.Strongly
0%
Warren's five “basic criteria” for
personhood:
A.Strongly Agree
B.Agree
C.Somewhat Agree
D.Neutral
E.Somewhat
Disagree
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Ag
re
e
ha
tA
gr
ee
So
Ne
m
ew
ut
ra
ha
l
tD
isa
gr
ee
D
St
isa
ro
gr
ng
ee
ly
Di
sa
gr
ee
ew
ee
Ag
r
ly
0%
So
m
Disagree
St
ro
ng
F.Disagree
G.Strongly
0%