Good luck!

I wanted to wish you all good luck in your future endeavors. It's been an interesting semester, and I hope you've learned some important things like critical thinking and thinking outside the box.

You all know how to find me if you ever need help with anything (letters of recommendation, references, intellectual help, etc.): e-mail me at berto.meister@gmail.com

By the way, I have a personal blog where I post interesting/thought provoking/educational/funny stuff almost on a daily basis. You can view it here: http://berto-meister.blogspot.com . You can always subscribe to it to get daily e-mails like with the class blog, or not, it's up to you.

Good luck!

final

i hope everyone did well on the final.......or at least all those that checked the blog after the final.

Final Exam

I am just wondering if anyone has received the final exam? It is 8:04 and I still have not received it...............

OCCC Intro to Ethics

OCCC Intro to Ethics

FYI:
I just want to let everyone know that there will be a job fair at the Orange County Fair Grounds from 10 to 5. So if you need a job bring your resumes.
I'll never forget this class!!!!!!!! Good luck everyone

Nietzsche documentary

This might help you understand Nietzsche's background a bit better. It's not exactly the best interpretation of his life and philosophy (and the relationship between the two), but it should give you some ideas that might clarify the reading.

.

Social Contract Theory

Class, read the chapter on the Social Contract in the Rachels book for this week. It's pretty short.

Student-run review sessions

Gina asked me to post this entry suggesting any students interested in reviewing the material together should make plans to do so soon. So, respond to this entry in the comments and organize something if you so wish.

I have questions for anyone who cares to answer regarding the Death Penalty

1) Does the death penalty prevents future murders? Agree or Disagree
2) A just society requires the death penalty for the taking of a life ? Agree or Disagree
3) The risk of executing the innocent precludes the use of the death penalty? Agree or Disagree
4) The death penalty is applied unfairly and should not be used? Agree or Disagree


Any feedback from this will help me and also it will show who is for it or against it.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fred Phelps and the psychos at Westboro Baptist Church are planning to protest at EVERY FUNERAL and MEMORIAL SERVICE that they learn of regarding the students murdered on April 16th!

The Westboro Baptist "Church" is an organization that teaches a message of hate. They do not believe that Christ died for everyone in the world, only the elite chosen. They are saying that because higher education teaches rebeliousness against God that these students deserved to die.

I would encourage you NOT to visit their website since they make money on the hits they get, but if you feel that you must I cannot stop you.

http://www.godhatesamerica.com/

http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html

This man and his followers should be shot on site if they show up. I'm sick of these stupid c**k suckers trying to make the news by protesting at funerals of dead soldiers and now the VT dead. These people should be round up, weights attached to there feet, and thrown into the ocean.

Notes on Hume

I posted this last week, apparently in the blog for the wrong class... so here it is for everyone's benefit...

Class, I didn't feel we had enough time to cover Hume's arguments thoroughly last time, and his philosophy is actually very important, so I've put together some notes based on the reading to help everyone understand him better.

Also, for those of you interested, I'm going to start holding review sessions on Tuesdays before class (5pm) on the material from the previous class, so this week we'll be reviewing Hume. The way these sessions will run is this: I'll ask questions based on the reading/lecture, and randomly pick one of those present to answer the question. This should help everyone prepare for the last test.

Anyway, here are the notes:



OF THE INFLUENCING MOTIVES OF THE WILL

· Most ethical systems work under the presupposition that morality is based on reason, and that reason ought to triumph over the passions.

· In order to refute this belief, Hume is going to prove that:

1. Reason alone can never be a motive of any action of the will.

2. Reason can never oppose passion in the direction of the will.

· There are two kinds of judgments: from demonstration and from probability.

· Demonstrative judgments deal with relations of ideas (mathematics, for instance), and these do not lead to any kind of action.

· When the prospect of pain or pleasure arises, reason provides the means to attain our end; it discovers this relation of means and ends, and guides our actions accordingly, but the impulse arises not from reason: it originates in our passions and feelings.

· Notice that unlike Kant, who sees reason as the ultimate end of our actions, Hume sees reason as merely instrumental in the attainment of our desires, which are contingent.

· Since reason is incapable of producing volition, it is also unable to prevent volition.

· "Nothing can oppose or retard the impulse of volition, but a contrary impulse."

· The principle that opposes our passion, cannot be the same with reason:


"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."


· "A passion is an original existence… and contains not any representative quality, which renders it a copy or any other existence or modification… It is impossible, therefore, that this passion can be opposed by, or be contradictory to truth and reason; since this contradiction consists in the disagreement between ideas, considered as copies, with those objects, which they represent."

o In other words, feelings are internal impressions without any kind of reference to the external world (the way that the senses refer to the world, for instance).

o If feelings are not representations of the external world, and there is no point of reference for them (nothing to which you can point and say "there!"), then feelings have nothing to do with truth and falsehood.

o Since reason deals with the relationship between true and false judgments, and feelings have nothing to do with truth, you guessed it, reason has nothing to do with the origin of feelings.

· "When I am angry, I am actually possesst with the passion…"

o The point Hume is trying to establish here is that we are not in control of our feelings, our feelings control us.

o This should not surprise you. Do you have a choice in whether you like chocolate ice cream? Or do you simply find yourself liking it (or not liking it)?

o You don't believe Hume? No problem, you can test this hypothesis (after all, he was the first philosopher to really provide a philosophical formulation for the scientific method):

§ All you'd have to do is provide a rational reason why your aesthetic preferences are better than whatever it is you don't provide.

§ You might be able to do this for some things (I do this all the time myself), and might believe that you've been able to refute Hume, but you'll soon also realize, if you allow yourself to be honest enough, that what's really taking place is that you are looking for excuses or ways of rationalizing your judgments.

§ How could this last claim be true?

§ Very simple, it's betrayed by the fact that before you were presented with this challenge, you probably never thought of reasons why you should prefer chocolate ice cream over, say, vanilla.

§ If you never thought about this, that implies that you never invoked rational reasons for your preference.

· "Passions can only be contrary to reason only so far as they are accompanied with some judgment or opinion. According to this principle, which is so obvious and natural, it is only in two senses that any affection can be called unreasonable:"

1. When a passion is based on the supposition of the existence of something non-existent.

2. When, in acting on a passion, we confuse ourselves in our causal judgments and use the improper means in order to attain our desired end.

"Where a passion is neither founded on false suppositions, nor chooses means insufficient for the end, the understanding can neither justify nor condemn it. It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger."

· "The consequences are evident. Since a passion can never, in any sense, be called unreasonable, but when founded on a false supposition. or when it chuses means insufficient for the designed end, it is impossible, that reason and passion can ever oppose each other, or dispute for the government of the will and actions."


MORAL DISTINCTIONS NOT DERIVED FROM REASON

· Do we distinguish between virtue and vice by means of our ideas or our impressions?

· Ideas are mental representations, and the intensity with which we feel them is dull.

o How strongly do you feel about Fermat's last theorem? Or the square root of 9?

· Impressions are sense perceptions and feelings, the intensity of which is always much more intense than mere ideas.

o How strong is the feeling of catching your boyfriend/girlfriend cheating on you?


· "Those who affirm that virtue is nothing but a conformity to reason… concur in the opinion that morality, like truth, is discerned merely by ideas, and by their juxtaposition and comparison."

· Two kinds of philosophy: speculative and practical, and morality is supposed to influence our passions and actions, and to go beyond the calm and indolent judgments of the understanding.

· From what Hume has already shown, he simply manipulates his earlier claims to show that:

o "Since morals, therefore, have an influence on the actions and the affections, it follows, that they cannot be derived from reason… Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason, of itself, is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason."

· And for the grand conclusion of this little section:

o "As long as it is allowed, that reason has no influence on our passions and action, it is in vain to pretend, that morality is discovered only by a deduction of reason."


· Reason is the discovery of truth and falsehood between ideas. Since passions are original and imply no reference to other passions, volitions and actions, it is, therefore, impossible that they can be pronounced either true or false, or be contrary or conformable to reason.


· "Actions may be laudable or blamable, but they cannot be reasonable: laudable or blamable, therefore, are not the same with reasonable or unreasonable."

· "But perhaps it may be said, that though no will or action can be immediately contradictory to reason, yet we may find such a contradiction in some of the attendants [or relations] of the action, that is, in its causes or effects."

o "I am more to be lamented than blamed, if I am mistaken with regard to the influence of objects in producing pain or pleasure, or if I know not the proper means of satisfying my desires. No one can ever regard such errors as a defect in my moral character."

o "Should it be pretended, that though a mistake of fact be not criminal, yet a mistake of right often is; and that this may be the source of immorality[?]"


· Two possibilities: virtue and vice are discoverable either by relations between objects or in matters of fact discoverable by reason.

· Relations would be something that exist between entities. Cause and effect are relations, for instance.

o "If you assert that vice and virtue consist in relations susceptible of certainty and demonstration, you must confine yourself to those…relations, which alone admit of that degree of evidence; and in that case you run into absurdities, from which you will never be able to extricate yourself. For as you make the very essence of morality to lie in the relations, and as there is no one of these relations but what is applicable, not only to an irrational, but also to an inanimate object; it follows, that even such objects [inanimate] must be susceptible of merit or demerit."

o In other words, if it were the relations that produce the moral character of actions, then just like people can cause some effect, inanimate objects can also cause the same effect.

o Yet, we don't think that inanimate objects have anything to do with morality.

o Therefore morality does not lie in these relations.

o Example of ingratitude (in the form of patricide) in order to show that relations cannot be what distinguishes morality from immorality (page 6).

o In his own words: "Of all crimes that human creatures are capable of committing, the most horrid and unnatural is ingratitude, especially when it is committed against parents, and appears in the more flagrant instances of wounds and death. This is acknowledged by all mankind, philosophers as well as the people; the question only arises among philosophers, whether the guilt or moral deformity of this action be discovered by demonstrative reasoning, or be felt by an internal sense, and by means of some sentiment, which the reflecting on such an action naturally occasions. This question will soon be decided against the former opinion, if we can shew the same relations in other objects, without the notion of any guilt or iniquity attending them. Reason or science is nothing but the comparing of ideas, and the discovery of their relations; and if the same relations have different characters, it must evidently follow, that those characters are not discovered merely by reason. To put the affair, therefore, to this trial, let us chuse any inanimate object, such as an oak or elm; and let us suppose, that by the dropping of its seed, it produces a sapling below it, which springing up by degrees, at last overtops and destroys the parent tree: I ask, if in this instance there be wanting any relation, which is discoverable in parricide or ingratitude? Is not the one tree the cause of the other's existence; and the latter the cause of the destruction of the former, in the same manner as when a child murders his parent? It is not sufficient to reply, that a choice or will is wanting. For in the case of parricide, a will does not give rise to any DIFFERENT relations, but is only the cause from which the action is derived; and consequently produces the same relations, that in the oak or elm arise from some other principles. It is a will or choice, that determines a man to kill his parent; and they are the laws of matter and motion, that determine a sapling to destroy the oak, from which it sprung. Here then the same relations have different causes; but still the relations are the same: And as their discovery is not in both cases attended with a notion of immorality, it follows, that that notion does not arise from such a discovery."

o Example of incest (showing that arguing that reason separates morality from immorality begs the question (page 6):

o "But to chuse an instance, still more resembling; I would fain ask any one, why incest in the human species is criminal, and why the very same action, and the same relations in animals have not the smallest moral turpitude and deformity? If it be answered, that this action is innocent in animals, because they have not reason sufficient to discover its turpitude; but that man, being endowed with that faculty which ought to restrain him to his duty, the same action instantly becomes criminal to him; should this be said, I would reply, that this is evidently arguing in a circle. For before reason can perceive this turpitude, the turpitude must exist; and consequently is independent of the decisions of our reason, and is their object more properly than their effect. According to this system, then, every animal, that has sense, and appetite, and will; that is, every animal must be susceptible of all the same virtues and vices, for which we ascribe praise and blame to human creatures [just like they can infer, same as us, the relationship between cause and effect]. All the difference is, that our superior reason may serve to discover the vice or virtue, and by that means may augment the blame or praise: But still this discovery supposes a separate being in these moral distinctions, and a being, which depends only on the will and appetite, and which, both in thought and reality, may be distinguished from the reason. Animals are susceptible of the same relations, with respect to each other, as the human species, and therefore would also be susceptible of the same morality, if the essence of morality consisted in these relations."

· The argument that morality is discovered in matters of fact discoverable by reason won't work either:

o Example of murder to show that the matter of fact discoverable by reason won't work either (page 7).

o "Nor does this reasoning only prove, that morality consists not in any relations, that are the objects of science; but if examined, will prove with equal certainty, that it consists not in any matter of fact, which can be discovered by the understanding. This is the second part of our argument; and if it can be made evident, we may conclude, that morality is not an object of reason. But can there be any difficulty in proving, that vice and virtue are not matters of fact, whose existence we can infer by reason? Take any action allowed to be vicious: Willful murder, for instance. Examine it in all lights, and see if you can find that matter of fact, or real existence, which you call vice. In which-ever way you take it, you find only certain passions, motives, volitions and thoughts. There is no other matter of fact in the case. The vice entirely escapes you, as long as you consider the object. You never can find it, till you turn your reflection into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards this action. Here is a matter of fact; but it is the object of feeling, not of reason. It lies in yourself, not in the object. So that when you pronounce any action or character to be vicious, you mean nothing, but that from the constitution of your nature you have a feeling or sentiment of blame from the contemplation of it."

o In other words, what you find is not a moral fact but a fact about yourself.

o You find yourself overcome by a feeling, and this feeling is so strong that you mistakenly believe that it refers to something real.

o This would explain, for instance, why everyone is so quick to think that there is something objectively wrong with incest. We have a gut feeling about it that's so strong that we actually believe it's true.

o Hume believes this is perfectly normal because nature has made us creatures endowed with certain feelings.

o More than 200 years later, evolutionary psychologists, such as Debra Lieberman, are now providing empirical support for Hume's claims: There are certain adaptive mechanisms in our brains, which are usually triggered by environmental cues, that have evolved because they proved themselves to be useful against alternative competing traits.

o Notice also how an evolutionary explanation does not argue in teleological terms, so it does not violate our intuitions concerning the temporal direction of cause and effect.


The "is/ought" problem
· The basic problem Hume brings up here is that the attempt to ground moral values on descriptive facts is ultimately logically fallacious.

· The fact that something "is" does not logically entail what "ought" to be the case.

· As a purely logical point, this is enough to refute any version of natural law theory, as well as Ayn Rand's foundation for her ethical egoism, since an "is" cannot logically entail an "ought."

· So, to say that something is immoral because it's unnatural commits one to this logical fallacy that Hume was the first to recognize.

· The Palmer book has a nice discussion of this topic too.


MORAL DISTINCTIONS DERIVED FROM A MORAL SENSE

· Given all of the above, it may be concluded that "morality, therefore, is more properly felt than judged of."

o This conclusion is also supported by the monkey article: capuchin monkeys are not exactly rational in the same way we are, and yet they seem to experience certain feelings (such as anger and resentment) with respect to injustice, which we normally assume, perhaps mistakenly, to be a rational moral concept.

· Of what nature are these impressions [or feelings]? Agreeableness and disagreeableness:

o "An action, or sentiment, or character is virtuous or vicious; why? because its view causes a pleasure or uneasiness of a particular kind. In giving a reason, therefore, for the pleasure or uneasiness, we sufficiently explain the vice or virtue. To have the sense of virtue, is nothing but to feel a satisfaction of a particular kind from the contemplation of a character [this would explain why we feel a certain satisfaction when we perform a good action]. The very feeling constitutes our praise or admiration. We go no farther; nor do we enquire into the cause of the satisfaction. We do not infer a character to be virtuous, because it pleases: But in feeling that it pleases after such a particular manner, we in effect feel that it is virtuous."

o Notice the subtlety, and philosophical importance, of this last point (the underlined green section):

§ Hume is making a metaphysical and a phenomenological distinction.

· A metaphysical claim is a claim about ultimate reality, about how things really are.

· A phenomenological claim is a claim about our experiences, independently of any reality (about our perceptions and feelings, for instance, but also about things like our dreams).

· In other words, you might say a metaphysical claim is an objective claim, while a phenomenological claim is a subjective claim (a claim about a subject).

§ The distinction is the following:

§ There is no such thing as the objectivity of morality: morality is simply an illusion that we all have, it's not real, not even when it produces pleasure.

§ What happens is that when something produces pleasure our mind makes the automatic assumption that what produced the pleasure really is good.

§ So, from the subjectivity of our experience, and the constitution of our own nature, we assume the objectivity about something external to us.

§ In other words, it's because of the intensity of our dislike for the idea of incest/rape/murder/whatever, that we assume there really is some truth about these moral ideas independent of how we feel about them.

§ But, Hume argues, this is all an illusion caused by how our mind works.


OF THE ORIGIN OF THE NATURAL VIRTUES AND VICES
· In order to figure out the true origin of our moral feelings, Hume analyzes many different virtues and identifies sympathy for our fellow people to be the basis for most of our moral feelings:

o "Now as the means to an end can only be agreeable, where the end is agreeable; and as the good of society, where our own interest is not concerned, or that of our friends, pleases only by sympathy: It follows, that sympathy is the source of the esteem, which we pay to all the artificial virtues."

· And it is because of our natural sympathy for those around us that we derive pleasure from actions or events that ultimately result in the good of humanity.

o "Thus it appears, that sympathy is a very powerful principle in human nature, that it has a great influence on our taste of beauty, and that it produces our sentiment of morals in all the artificial virtues. From thence we may presume, that it also gives rise to many of the other virtues; and that qualities acquire our approbation, because of their tendency to the good of mankind. This presumption must become a certainty, when we find that most of those qualities, which we naturally approve of, have actually that tendency, and render a man a proper member of society: While the qualities, which we naturally disapprove of, have a contrary tendency, and render any intercourse with the person dangerous or disagreeable."

o Notice how close this last part ends up being to Ruth Benedicts's defense of cultural relativism (as a descriptive theory, not a normative one).

o As we'll soon see, this Humean idea of what results in the usefulness, or utility, to society, "the good of mankind," is going to be the seed from which utilitarianism is going to grow (even though Hume would probably not have believed in it as much as actual utilitarians do, precisely because utilitarians are moral realists, while Hume is a moral skeptic).

Abortion.....right or wrong

Okay... I have answered and tried to help some of you out on your presentations....now I am asking for help. My question to you would be...If you had to choose to abort because only one of you could live...baby or mother......how would you choose? I have an argument but I am not feeling that strong about it. My first argument was "who says that the mother's life is more important than the baby's and vice versa? Please do not try to use the arguments about it not being a baby etc.....My feeling is that I would not have to choose. I am not a doctor, I did not take an oath to save lives, the mother has already lived through experiences, everything happens for a reason,the women has the right to make choices about her own body (her free will) (what about the baby's right to life since it can not choose its own free will)...my argument might be that if the woman became pregnant due to want or carelessness, the baby's life should come first. When a woman becomes pregnant through no violation of her body (such as rape or incest), then it is morally right for her to accept the consequences of her actions and give the baby the right to develop and experience life.

questions for my paper

what do you all think about lobbying for licenses to have children? although it would be hard to enforce, it could definitely cut down on welfare costs and orphanages.

quick question

is it right for people to have to give their presentation after their paper is due. how can we make changes to counter people's arguments in our paper??

Texas Law is Smart

I think that the government should allow LAWFUL handgun permit carrying citizens to carry their firearms everywhere. This shooting could have been ended very quickly by a lawful gun carrier. A gun in the hand of evil is evil, a gun in the hand of good is good. Or in the immortal words of Larry the Cable Guy, "If guns kill people, I can blame misspelled words on my pencil."

God Bless Everyone in Hokie Country.

Foreign Aid Needs To Go

Today, one-forth of America's national debt is traceable to foreign aid, yet we continue to dig deeper into debt to fund "friends", three-quarters of whom usually vote against the U.S. in the U.N. America needs a policy that phases out foreign aid and focuses instead on forgotten Americans here at home. We have millions of homeless here, and tons of other problems, medicare and social security, that we can be fix if we use that money on domestic problems. The time has come for nations to quit presuming upon American benevolence and begin paying the full cost of their own development and defense.

Nietzsche reading

Class, here is the Nietzsche reading for this week. I should warn you in advance, some (or many) of the things Nietzsche says might sound offensive to you and/or your beliefs. Although his style is very shocking, however, concentrate on the arguments he makes and how he supports them.

When you click on the link, click on the "click here to start download" link on the yellow box on the right hand side of the screen.

legalizing marijuana

Ok..ok, I'm sorry for asking so many questions. I do have my own opinions on all the topics I asked about and I am aware of the arguments against my opinions as well. The only reason I asked questions instead of giving my arguments is because I did not want to give my presentation online. I wanted to leave out my my arguments so that I would still have something to present to the class. Also, I did this because my paper is due the night I am presenting, which is the case with a few of us. So I wanted to get some feedback for the paper, and maybe get some opinions that otherwise I might not have come up with. I thought that was the idea behind the presentations, to get the classes opinions and incorporate them into the paper. If I am wrong then I apologize, and I will give my arguments on here. These arguments will then be presented in class, again.

legalizing marijuana

Ok..ok, I'm sorry for asking so many questions. I do have my own opinions on all the topics I asked about and I am aware of the arguments against my opinions as well. The only reason I asked questions instead of giving my arguments is because I did not want to give my presentation online. I wanted to leave out my my arguments so that I would still have something to present to the class. Also, I did this because my paper is due the night I am presenting, which is the case with a few of us. So I wanted to get some feedback for the paper, and maybe get some opinions that otherwise I might not have come up with. I thought that was the idea behind the presentations, to get the classes opinions and incorporate them into the paper. If I am wrong then I apologize, and I will give my arguments on here.

Legalizing Marijuana

Should marijuana be made legal for recreational use?

How about for medicinal purposes in ALL 50 States?

The marijuana plant can be used for clothing and a lot of other goods that are now made out of cotton, and it would be cheaper than cotton. What are your opinions on this?

Marijuana can be made a taxable good.
1) Do you think it is better to have the profits from this plant circulate from drug dealer to drug dealer or circulate through the American cash flow and help the economy?

2)Do you think it is better to have the plant smuggled in from other countries and let those other countries profit from it, or have it grown in America and let the American economy profit?

If we grew marijuana in America, we would not only be creating many new goods but we would also be creating more jobs. We could employ people to work on the marijuana farms much like we do with tobacco and cotton farms. As long as the workers don't start smoking the stuff, this would be very profitable. What are your opinions?

Do you think it is morally right for a drug to be illegal if it can benefit both the people and the economy of America?

Do you think it is morally right to allow people to drink alcohol, which is a major cause of fatal automobile accidents, but not allow them to smoke marijuana, which is a major cause of obesity from all the junk food?

"OUTSOURCING"

Do you know what it means?

Should it be call "US citizens jobs going overseas?

Do you know what the tag on your clothe says?

Do you know where you are calling when you dial the 888 or 800?

Have you or anyone you know been affected by it?

How secured is your job?

"PLEASE, JUST THINK ABOUT ALL OF THE ABOVE AND PROVIDE FEED BACK"

Times Herald Record article

This is from Pat:

This was in the letters to the editor on page 18 of Monday's Times Herald Record. I think it would be interesting to get the classes view on this and why they would argue for or against it. Stop the childishness

Does it really matter that much to apologize to another person or another country even if you believe they are wrong and you are right?

To argue about who is right or wrong, whether it be in a marriage or in foreign relations, will just exasperate the problem. In a marriage, the problem could develop into a divorce, and with countries, it could develop into war. Let's stop being so childish and swallow our pride. Read what the Bible says about pride.

Tom Losee

Term Paper

Due date: Wednesday, April 25th (earlier papers will be accepted, and appreciated)

Font: Verdana
Size: 10 (this is the same as Times New Roman 12, but easier for me to read)
Double Spaced
Margins: One inch top, bottom, left and right
Header: Your name
Footer: Page Number

Write a 10-12 page paper on any ethical issue of your choice. The assignment is for you to take a position on the ethical issue you choose and attempt to convince your readers that your point of view on the matter is the one they should adopt themselves. This is an exercise in rational persuasion, which means that you must provide well thought out arguments that reasonable people would be willing to entertain, and possibly even adopt, considering your arguments are good. In other words, you must attempt to explain why your position is correct by providing reasons and well constructed logical arguments.

This assignment requires, as one of its purposes, that you think hard about some idea and provide some sort of principle (or set of principles) that justifies your position. Does using the principle you propose deductively entail some logical consequence that you would not be willing to accept? If so, then that is probably not a very good principle, and may require modification or rejection.

This paper requires no outside sources. In fact, I am discouraging them. I am not interested in what other people think about this issue, but in how you can support your claims through well reasoned and clearly articulated arguments.

If you do end up having to reference something (like the material we have covered during the semester), be sure to acknowledge that in citations. Plagiarism, defined as the use of sources other than your own ideas, whether in verbatum copying or in paraphrasing, is a very serious academic offence, which will not be tolerated. I am very good at catching instances of plagiarism, and will fail papers that are plagiarized, so just be honest with your work. Apart from that, this is an ethics course, so don’t cheat.

Before you start writing your papers, run your topics by me for approval. I’d like to have an idea of what you’re working on, and how you’re approaching your papers, so that you don’t waste your time doing something that will not help your paper and/or your grade.

Easter

Happy Easter y'all.....................who is "jo" and when is he doing his oral presentation?

Order of Oral Presentations

Here is the order in which we'll do the oral presentations, starting this coming week. If you don't see your name here, let me know asap.

You must present on the day you're scheduled; no exceptions.

Week 1

1. Meredith
2. Carmen
3. Chris
4. Jared

Week 2

1. Gina
2. Pat
3. Pam
4. Josh

Week 3

1. Kristin
2. Thomas
3. Lavetta
4. Angel

Week 4

1. John Ritzel
2. Jaimie
3. John Snellinger
4. Nicole
5. Genevieve

Reading for next week

Here is a pdf file with the reading for next week. It's some selections from David Hume's skeptical philosophy. This is the challenge that Kant attempted to overcome, and a notoriously important philosophical theory.

Glossary of Kant's Technical Terms

In trying to figure out Kant I found a glossary that might help all of us in tomorrows test. I just found and I hope this will help all of us. :)

GOOD LUCK


Glossary of Kant's Technical Terms

Upcoming Test

Hi all........... I was just wandering if anyone would like to get together on Tuesday to go over materials for our upcoming test? I am going out to the college to work on many things and should be there most of the day after 12:00 pm. Anyone interested, reply through the blog or e-mail me at itsjoepat@aol.com I will also be out there on Wed. afternoon from 2:00 pm until class at 6:00. I don't know about you guys but I am having a rough time with Deontology. And the sad part is, I don't know what the trouble is. I will be studying in the LRC building. Talk soon................Pat

Death Penalty Paper

Hi

I am doing my paper on the Death Penalty and would like to post the following on the blog for feed back inregards to this issue. I want to use the answers given by the class in to support the part of paper that relates to the area that there is a lack of understanding knowledge about the death penalty.
I wanted to make sure it was okay first. I downloaded this from deathpenaltyinfo.org

1	True	False	The death penalty saves taxpayers money because it is cheaper to execute someone than to keep them in prison for the rest of their life.
2	True	False	Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, more black people have been executed than white people.
3	True	False	After the Supreme Court allowed the death penalty to resume in 1976, the first person to be executed was Gary Gilmore in Utah by a firing squad.
4	True	False	Since the death penalty was reinstated in the U.S., very few people have been released from death row because they were innocent.
5	True	False	In most states with the death penalty, you can be executed even if you suffer from mental illness.
6	True	False	There are some states in the U.S. where you cannot receive the death penalty for any crime.
7	True	False	Hanging has not been used as a method of execution in the United States for over 30 years.
8	True	False	When the police chiefs of the U.S. were polled on their views about ways to lower the crime rate, only 1% named the death penalty as their top priority in reducing violent crime.
9	True	False	No woman has been executed in the U.S. for over 25 years.
10	True	False	Those who commit a crime when they are under 18 years of age are ineligible for the death penalty in the U.S.

Pamela

Utilitarianism reading

Class, check the online class calendar for the latest updates to our syllabus. I know last week there was some confusion, so this should take care of it.

When we get back from break, we are going to study Utilitarianism, so read the corresponding two chapters on the book, and click here for the original paper by John Stuart Mill, entitled Utilitarianism. You are responsible for chapters 1-4; don't worry about chapter 5.

If you get confused, feel free to post questions on the blog. Enjoy your break in the meantime.

Kant reading

This is the Kant reading for next week. Kant is rather abstract and difficult, so make sure you give yourself enough time to go over it, because you might need to read him two or three times to really understand him.

Whenever you find something confusing, post questions to this blog to get some help. This is most likely going to be the case for Kant, so post away. Don't keep your confusion to yourself.

Islam Vs. Christianity

I found this today, and thought you might find it funny as well.

.

Aristotle and Mirror Neurons

Here is an audio clip summarizing certain key excerpts from Aristotle's views on ethics.

And the following is a video clip on state-of-the-art research on mirror neurons. Aristotle, you will remember, contended that the habitual performance of acts of a certain kind would eventually produce a corresponding state of mind, or character, in the moral agent. This is precisely why he thinks moral education, through role models who teach by example, is extremely important.

New scientific research, as shown in this video, provides empirical support for Aristotle's claim that

1. we are social creatures,
2. we learn through imitation, and
3. the physical performance of certain actions produces certain cognitive responses.

This stuff is extremely interesting, and I'd love to see some discussion related to this.

Another schedule change!

Class, because two nights worth of classes were canceled last week, it seems like a number of schedule conflicts have been developing between Tuesday and Wednesday classes, so all Tuesday night classes will be made up this Friday, and our class will have to be made up on March 2nd (next week).

Sorry if you keep having to make changes to your schedule, but I just got notice of this from the school. Hopefully this will give you all more time to prepare yourselves and clear your schedules.

Religion??

You Tube is a wonderful thing. More from Carlin to make you question everything you have ever learned.

George Carlin on Ten Commandments

I finally got this to work, sorry for it being alittle late.

Schedule Update

It looks like, as per school policy, we will have to make up the class we are missing this week by coming in next Friday. Same time, same place. Check out the updated class schedule on the right side of this blog for the details regarding the reading assignments.

No class this week

Rejoice in the fact that school has been canceled for tomorrow, so we will not be meeting this week. I'll post a new entry later on letting you know how our schedule will change as a result for next week and the rest of the semester.

Enjoy the sledding!

Dicussion on religion, relativism and tolerance

The following videos are of a presentation given by Sam Harris explaining his arguments concerning religious toleration. I thought this presentation would be a fitting transition from our class on the relationship between ethics and religion with our class on ethical relativism and cultural tolerance this week.

Obviously, there are many issues being raised by this talk, so feel free to comment.

Problems for Divine Command Theory

The following is an excerpt from a documentary by Richard Dawkins, entitled The Root of all Evil. It deals with the relationship between religious scripture/authority and morality. It's very short, but provides a good deal of food for thought.

.

A little religious humor

Thanks to Angel for this submission.

Test

Hey good morning everyone. Just following the directions from last night's class to see if I am doing it right.

hey everyone, test

here is us in class blogging right now and losing our confusion

Class assigments

For everyone's reference, whenever you are confused about what the homework assignment is for any class, just check on the class calendar on the right side of the blog. Once you click on the calendar, you'll see the calendar displaying a whole month, with the days we meet highlighted (I think in blue). If you click on any specific day, the details concerning that day will open up, letting you know exactly what the reading is, page numbers, etc.

On an unrelated note, whenever you post something to the blog, please do everyone a favor and check your spelling... and if I ever misspell something, whoever catches me first gets some extra credit... but if you catch something and it's actually spelled correctly, I get to... I'll figure something out later.

The Income Tax

Here is the video I told you about exploring the legality of the income tax. Although I am posting this here, don't assume that I am condoning not paying taxes. This is simply meant to be informative and something interesting to think about.

Although there may be no explicit law stating that income (not for profit) can be taxed, there are three different types of laws you should be aware of: statutory law, case law, and administrative law.

Statutory law is enacted by congress through the regular process of legislation. Case law is law that is decided in court cases (like Roe v. Wade, for instance). Administrative law gives government agencies the power to create rules that can be legally enforced just like statutory and case laws. This last type would be what gives the IRS the power to tax citizens, even though there is no explicit law written by congress supporting it.

What I am not sure about is whether this administrative law (if it exists) would or would not violate the 16th amendment to the constitution. Anyone know?

Plato's Euthyphro

Following this link will take you to a file hosting service from which you can download a pdf version of the reading due January 31st, which is Plato's dialogue entitled Euthyphro. The language used in the dialogue is rather easy to understand, but Socrates' mastery of logic and and a cross-examination method, actually known as the socratic dialectic (in his honor), combined with the fact that he is making a point that was philosophically unprecedented, will probably have you spinning in circles. Don't worry if this is the case. The Rachels book will help you understand Socrates' points, and I'll do the same during class.

For those of you who work more efficiently through auditory perception, you can also follow this link to listen to an mp3 version of the same dialogue from LibriVox.

Confirming subscriptions

This post is simply a way for you guys to check whether your membership in the blog was successful. If it was, then you should either get an e-mail about it, or should be able to see it in whatever rss feeder you use.

If you thought you subscribed successfully, and didn't receive any notification, let me know.

BLOG POST??

Posted by Pamela

Okay, I think this the way to post to the Blog

Here is my question for thought

By changing the scenario, does it change our view?

This was the example in chapter one

Jodi and Mary were conjoined twins, they need to be separated in order for one to live.

If nothing is done both twins will die.

When they are separated Jodi will live Mary will die.

At the time of separation Mary is still alive.

Let's change the original example to the following

Baby Thersea was born an identical twin, we will call her Betty and all she needs to survive is a liver and kidney transplant.

Baby Thersea is her only match

Baby Thersea will die anyways in a matter of days and her organs at that point will be no good for the transplant.

If nothing is done both twins will die.

Would it be ethical to end baby Thersea's life earlier in order to save her twin Betty?

Why is it presumed to alright to end Mary's life earlier in order to save Jodi's?

Pamela Finnerty

Welcome!

Welcome to the exciting world of ethics!

In this class we are going to learn a number of very fascinating philosophical theories concerning ethics. As the course progresses, and we learn and analyze these theories, we will also learn how to think critically about ethics, and how to frame ethical positions based on general principles. Ethics, in its most basic definition, is the study, as Socrates stated, of "how we ought to live."

One of the most important things you will get out of this course, I hope, is the ability to think critically and rationally. Unlike most other classes, which emphasize the memorization of large sets of data, this class will require you instead to apply your brain to a small, but varied typology of conceptual moral problems that have puzzled thinkers for centuries. You will learn how to analyze a seemingly simple and intuitive idea, such as whether some end may justify the means, and understand its logical implications, as well as the conceptual problems it might produce for some other idea, or even for itself. At first you might find this difficult (in some cases, maybe even painful), but as you start to develop your critical thinking skills, you will find that, with practice, it becomes much easier and even fun. You will probably also find yourself applying these skills in other classes, as well as out of the academic world, and that's the idea.

It is important that you understand that you do not have to agree with any of the theories we cover during the semester. The purpose of this class is not to change your mind but to expose you to new ways of looking at social problems, so that you understand that moral issues are often much more complex than you realize. While we do this, you will probably find that there are weaknesses in your previously held beliefs, or that they are in need of some modification and strengthening. Whether you change your mind is ultimately up to you. What is required of you is that you understand how the theories work, why they have been proposed, and how they would apply to different situations. One of the conditions you'll have to meet in order to succeed in this class is simply to keep an open mind, so that you can at least understand different points of view, even if you disagree with them.

As with any given population, some of you are probably not computer literate, some of you are probably trying to hack into this blog as we speak, and most of you are probably somewhere in between. I have chosen this medium for many reasons, perhaps the most important of which are that, unlike with most regular web-sites, updating it does not require anyone to be in a specific physical location, and because it is extremely easy for you to participate.

This means that all of us can access it and interact as frequently as we may find it necessary. Since we only meet once a week, and the reading material might be difficult to understand on occasion, this blog will provide a helpful tool to clarify any ambiguities and roadblocks you might encounter along the way.

The idea behind this blog is that anyone can post entries here (I'll go over the details and limitations of how to do this in class). Occasionally I'll post entries clarifying and expanding on some of the ideas we discuss in class, as well as providing links to primary and secondary material from which you might benefit.

However, I will not be the only person to "blog" here. If you find yourself confused about any given topic, or if you want to throw an interesting idea out there to stimulate some discussion, you can post your own entries and someone will respond in the "comments" section below your post, creating a discussion thread to which everyone can contribute. I urge everyone to participate.

On the right side of the blog, you will also find some relevant links, such as the class syllabus (in the form of an online calendar). You will also find various ways of subscribing to this blog, either through an rss reader or through your e-mail address, whatever you think will be easier and more convenient for you. When you subscribe to a web-page such as this, your subscription system will automatically notify you when changes have been made to the site, keeping you up to date with any new entries that are posted here.

So, play around with the links, and if you have any questions, just go to the "comments" section below and ask away. See you next week!