Transcript Contemporary Moral Problems

CONTEMPORARY
MORAL PROBLEMS
M-F12:00-1:00SAV 264
INSTRUCTOR: BENJAMIN HOLE
EMAIL: [email protected]
OFFICE HOURS: EVERYDAY AFTER CLASS
AGENDA
• ADMIN QUESTIONS
• NO CLICKER QUIZ
• SYLLABUS/GRADE QUESTIONS?
• PAPER QUESTIONS
• CONFERENCE THIS WEEK
• FINISH MARQUIS; MODEL CONFERENCE DISCUSSION
• BEGIN THE FIRST PRESENTATION?
WEEK
REQUIRED READING
Course Mechanics, Theory Primer, and 
Philosophical Argumentation

6/23-6/27

ASSIGNMENT
Benjamin Hole, Phil 102 Syllabus
Lewis Vaughn, “How to Read an Argument”
Mark Timmons, “Moral Theory Primer”
WA1, due 6/27
Philosophical Writing and Ethical
Theory
6/30-7/3
(Holiday, 7/4)




Mark B. Woodhouse, “How to Write Philosophy”
James Rachels, “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism”
Jeremy Bentham, “The Principle of Utility”
Robert Nozick, “The Experience Machine”
None
Ethical Theory
7/7-7/11


J.S. Mill, 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


Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”
Garrett Hardin, “Lifeboat Ethics”
WA3, due 7/22
Introduction to Social and Political
Ethics: Censorship and Pornography
7/28-8/1



Ronald Dworkin, “Liberty and Pornography”
Judith M. Hill, “Pornography and Degradation”
Catharine MacKinnon, “Pornography, Civil Rights, and Speech”
None
Abortion
8/4-8/8
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
FINAL EXAMINATION
IT WILL COVER ALL OF THE COURSE MATERIAL. THIS
INCLUDES LECTURES, HANDOUTS, DISCUSSIONS, AND
ASSIGNED READINGS. THE POINT OF THE EXAM IS FOR
YOU TO DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH A
BROAD RANGE OF CONCEPTS, SKILLS, AND VIEWS IN
ETHICAL THEORY.
FORMAT
• SHORT RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWER QUESTIONS (SUCH AS
THE MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS FROM THE DAILY CLICKER
QUIZZES)
• ESSAY QUESTIONS (SUCH AS THE QUESTIONS FROM THE
WEEKLY READING STUDY GUIDES)
FINAL PAPER QUESTIONS?
Your paper must include all of the following elements:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
Introduction
a. Give your thesis statement.
b. Lay out your argumentative structure.
c. Is your thesis a strong and simple statement of your core argument’s conclusion?
Exegetical argument
a. Explain the philosopher’s argument.
b. Are you being as charitable as possible?
Your Core Argument
a. Explain your argument.
b. Does the argument engage with a premise in the argument from the previous section?
Possible Objection
a. Explain the objection argument.
b. Does the argument engage with a premise in the argument from the previous section?
c. Is the argument strong or a straw-man?
Your Response
a. Explain the response argument.
b. Does the argument engage with a premise in the argument from the previous section?
c. Does the argument avoid foot-stomping?
Conclusion
a. Recapitulate your thesis.
b. Recapitulate your argumentative structure.
c. Consider possible implications of your argument.
The italicized are questions to consider when planning your paper, not questions to be responded to directly.
COMMON WRITING PROBLEMS
• UNCLEAR ARGUMENTATIVE STRUCTURE
•
ARGUMENTATIVE ENGAGEMENT
•
VAGUE THESIS STATEMENTS
•
STRAW-MEN
•
FOOT-STOMPING
• PHILOSOPHICAL CONFUSION
WRITING PROBLEMS
• PROOF-READING ERRORS
• SUPERFLUOUS LANGUAGE
•
EXCESSIVE VERBIAGE
•
EXCESSIVE ADJECTIVES/ADVERBS
•
2-LINE/2-CLAUSE LIMIT
• PARAGRAPH STRUCTURE
• SENTENCE STRUCTURE
• PASSIVE VOICE / AWKWARD LOCUTIONS
• UNDER-EXPLAINING
http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/
CONFERENCE AND JOURNAL CALLS FOR PAPERS
• HTTPS://CANVAS.UW.EDU/
COURSES/884483/DISCUS
SION_TOPICS/1913311
• HTTP://UWPHILOSOPHYU
NDERGRADS.WORDPRESS.
COM
PAPER CONFERENCE
• CONDENSED PROFESSIONAL PHILOSOPHY CONFERENCE FORMAT
• ~10 MINUTE PRESENTATION EACH
• FOLLOWED BY Q&A, CRITICAL DISCUSSION
• THE PRESENTER MAY POINT TO AN AREA OF CONCERN AND ASK FOR TARGETED FEEDBACK
• THE CLASS MAY CRITICALLY EVALUATE THE PAPER’S ARGUMENTATIVE STRUCTURE.
PEER COLLABORATION
•
OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS ARE NOT “YES OR NO” QUESTIONS; INSTEAD, THEY INVITE YOUR PEERS TO TALK ABOUT THEIR GOALS,
FEELINGS, OR CONCERNS.
• REVIEWERS CAN ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FROM THE VANTAGE POINT OF THE
ENGAGED READER ASKING THE WRITER TO CLEAR UP CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF HER
ARGUMENT/ORGANIZATION.
• REVIEWERS CAN ASK QUESTIONS TO ENCOURAGE DEPTH OF THOUGHT AND/OR
POINT OUT FAULTY LOGIC IN A PEER’S PAPER.
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?
PLAN TO REVISE
FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS ARE QUESTIONS THAT ALLOW YOU TO “CHECK IN”
WITH YOUR PEERS AT THE END OF THE REVIEW SESSION, AND MAKE SURE
MUTUAL GOALS WERE ACCOMPLISHED. THIS IS ALSO WHERE THE WRITER
MAKES PLANS FOR REVISION.
1.
WHAT FEEDBACK HAS BEEN MOST USEFUL?
2.
HOW WILL YOU USE THIS FEEDBACK WHEN WRITING YOUR PAPER?
3.
WHICH ELEMENT(S) OF YOUR PAPER NEED THE MOST WORK?
ASSIGNMENT FIVE
• CRITICAL ARGUMENTS (THOMSON OR HURSTHOUSE)
• SELF-ASSESS FINAL PAPER (FILL OUT THE RUBRIC)
• SELF-ASSESS LEARNING IN THIS COURSE
• REVIEW FOR THE FINAL EXAMINATION
WEEK
REQUIRED READING
Course Mechanics, Theory Primer, and 
Philosophical Argumentation

6/23-6/27

ASSIGNMENT
Benjamin Hole, Phil 102 Syllabus
Lewis Vaughn, “How to Read an Argument”
Mark Timmons, “Moral Theory Primer”
WA1, due 6/27
Philosophical Writing and Ethical
Theory
6/30-7/3
(Holiday, 7/4)




Mark B. Woodhouse, “How to Write Philosophy”
James Rachels, “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism”
Jeremy Bentham, “The Principle of Utility”
Robert Nozick, “The Experience Machine”
None
Ethical Theory
7/7-7/11


J.S. Mill, 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


Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”
Garrett Hardin, “Lifeboat Ethics”
WA3, due 7/22
Introduction to Social and Political
Ethics: Censorship and Pornography
7/28-8/1



Ronald Dworkin, “Liberty and Pornography”
Judith M. Hill, “Pornography and Degradation”
Catharine MacKinnon, “Pornography, Civil Rights, and Speech”
None
Abortion
8/4-8/8
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
“WHY ABORTION IS IMMORAL”
MARQUIS
Exegesis
Marquis, Core Argument
Contraception Objection Marquis, Response
P1. If abortion is
(presumptively)
morally permissible,
then the fetus is not a
person with full moral
standing.
P1. If X has a future like ours
of great value and killing X
deprives X of that future,
then killing X is
(presumptively) morally
wrong.
P1. If the “future like
ours” premise is true,
then contraception
would be morally
impermissible.
P2. Abortion is
morally permissible.
P2. A fetus has a future like
ours and killing that fetus
would deprive it of a
valuable future.
P2. But contraception is P2. There is “no non-arbitrarily
not morally
identifiable subject of the loss in
impermissible!
the case of contraception”
Therefore, a fetus is
not a person with full
moral standing.
Therefore, abortion is
(presumptively) morally
impermissible.
Therefore, the “future
like ours” premise is
false.
P1. If there is “no non-arbitrarily
identifiable subject of the loss in
the case of contraception,” then
contraception is morally
permissible (according to the
“future like ours” premise).
Therefore, contraception is
morally permissible (according
to the “future like ours”
premise).
Exegesis
Marquis, Core Argument
Contraception Objection Marquis, Response
P1. If abortion is
(presumptively)
morally permissible,
then the fetus is not a
person with full moral
standing.
P1. If X has a future like ours
of great value and killing X
deprives X of that future,
then killing X is
(presumptively) morally
wrong.
P1. If the “future like
ours” premise is true,
then contraception
would be morally
impermissible.
P2. Abortion is
morally permissible.
P2. A fetus has a future like
ours and killing that fetus
would deprive it of a
valuable future.
P2. But contraception is P2. There is “no non-arbitrarily
not morally
identifiable subject of the loss in
impermissible!
the case of contraception”
Therefore, a fetus is
not a person with full
moral standing.
Therefore, abortion is
(presumptively) morally
impermissible.
Therefore, the “future
like ours” premise is
false.
P1. If there is “no non-arbitrarily
identifiable subject of the loss in
the case of contraception,” then
contraception is morally
permissible (according to the
“future like ours” premise).
Therefore, contraception is
morally permissible (according
to the “future like ours”
premise).
A FUTURE LIKE OURS
–
CONCLUSION: “SINCE THE LOSS OF THE FUTURE TO STANDARD FETUS...AT LEAST AS GREAT A LOSS AS
THE LOSS OF THE FUTURE TO A STANDARD HUMAN BEING WHO IS KILLED, ABORTION, LIKE ORDINARY
KILLING, COULD BE JUSTIFIED ONLY BY THE MOST COMPELLING REASONS.”
–
IN OTHER WORDS, HE CONCLUDES THAT ABORTION IS “SERIOUSLY PRESUMPTIVELY WRONG.”
–
MARQUIS INTENTIONALLY AVOIDS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE FETUS IS A PERSON.
THE CONTRACEPTION OBJECTION
OBJECTION
MARQUIS:
IF MARQUIS' VIEW WERE TRUE, THEN
CONTRACEPTION WOULD BE
WRONG. BUT THAT'S ABSURD.
• “THE IMMORALITY OF CONTRACEPTION IS NOT
ENTAILED BY THE LOSS OF A FUTURE LIKE OURS
SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE IS NO NON-ARBITRARILY
IDENTIFIABLE SUBJECT OF THE LOSS IN THE CASE
OF CONTRACEPTION …”
DOES MARQUIS HAVE A GOOD RESPONSE TO THE CONTRACEPTION OBJECTION?
A. STRONGLY AGREE (YES)
43%
B. AGREE (YES)
C. SOMEWHAT AGREE (YES)
29%
D. NEUTRAL (UNSURE)
14%
E. SOMEWHAT DISAGREE (NO)
F. DISAGREE (NO)
So
m
St
ro
ng
ly
Ag
r
ee
(
G. STRONGLY DISAGREE (NO)
0%
0%
YE
S)
Ag
ew
re
e
ha
(Y
tA
ES
)
gr
ee
Ne
So
(Y
u
m
ES
ew tral
)
(u
ha
n
tD
su
re
isa
)
gr
ee
(N
St
Di
o)
ro
sa
ng
gr
ee
ly
Di
(N
sa
o)
gr
ee
(N
o)
0%
14%
Exegesis
Marquis, Core Argument
Contraception Objection Marquis, Response
P1. If abortion is
(presumptively)
morally permissible,
then the fetus is not a
person with full moral
standing.
P1. If X has a future like ours
of great value and killing X
deprives X of that future,
then killing X is
(presumptively) morally
wrong.
P1. If the “future like
ours” premise is true,
then contraception
would be morally
impermissible.
P2. Abortion is
morally permissible.
P2. A fetus has a future like
ours and killing that fetus
would deprive it of a
valuable future.
P2. But contraception is P2. There is “no non-arbitrarily
not morally
identifiable subject of the loss in
impermissible!
the case of contraception”
Therefore, a fetus is
not a person with full
moral standing.
Therefore, abortion is
(presumptively) morally
impermissible.
Therefore, the “future
like ours” premise is
false.
P1. If there is “no non-arbitrarily
identifiable subject of the loss in
the case of contraception,” then
contraception is morally
permissible (according to the
“future like ours” premise).
Therefore, contraception is
morally permissible (according
to the “future like ours”
premise).