Georgia Philosophical Society Annual Meeting

Georgia Philosophical Society Annual Meeting

Saturday, February 22, 2020

Location: Mercer University McEachern Art Center, 322 2nd Street, Macon, GA

10:00 AM Coffee and Snacks

10:30-11:20 AM: “Why Meritocratic Democracy is Better than Democracy”, Dr. John Park, California State University, Sacramento

Commenter: Dr. Micah Lewin, GSU Perimeter College

11:30 AM-12:20 PM: “Distributing Carts Before Horses: Or the Presumptions of Distributive Justice”, Chris Byron, University of Georgia

Commenter: Dr. Yi Deng, University of North Georgia

12:30-1:50 PM: Lunch: The GPS business meeting will take place from 12:30-1:00. All present are invited to vote on the new officers for 2020-2021 and/or new motions.

2:00-2:50 PM: “Early Intersectional Approaches of Black Feminism: New Archival Evidence”, William A. B. Parkhurst, University of South Florida

Commenter: Dr. Sabrina Hom, Georgia College

3:00-3:50 PM: “Exercising One’s Voice: Merleau-Ponty and the Grounds of Conversation”, Dr. Susan Bredlau, Emory University

Commenter: Dr. Eric Dickman, Young Harris College

4:00-4:50 PM: “Abortion, the Pro-Life Argument, and the Relevance of Gender Issues”, Dr. Rosalind Simson, Mercer University

Commenter: Dr. Nathan Nobis, Morehouse College

5:30-7:00 Post-conference reception: Macon Beer Company, 458 2^nd Street, Macon, GA

An Animal Research Ethics lecture for a class

Ethical Egoism

New: Ethical Egoism at 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology.

"Thinking About Ethics"

New: "Thinking About Ethics" on the Morehouse Faculty Blog.

Classes

JMS:Ethics,Justice, &Social - 48145 - HEDU 499 - 05

Intro to Philosophical Ethics - 43875 - HPHI 302G - 01
Associated Term: Spring 2020 SYLLABUS AND NOTES Scheduled Meeting Times Type Time Days Where Date Range Schedule Type Instructors Class 10:00 am - 10:50 am MWF Sale Hall 105 Jan 15, 2020 - May 08, 2020 Lecture Nathan M. Nobis (P)
Intro to Philosophical Eth - 43876 - HPHI 302G - 02
Associated Term: Spring 2020 SYLLABUS AND NOTES Scheduled Meeting Times Type Time Days Where Date Range Schedule Type Instructors Class 11:00 am - 11:50 am MWF Sale Hall 105 Jan 15, 2020 - May 08, 2020 Lecture Nathan M. Nobis (P)

Intro to Phil. Ethics ONLINE - 48562 - HPHI 302G - 07
Syllabus draft.  Scheduled Meeting Times Type Time Days Where Date Range Schedule Type Instructors Class TBA ONLINE Jan 15, 2020 - May 08, 2020 Lecture Nathan M. Nobis (P)

Modern Political Theory - 48401 - HPHI 462 - 1
Syllabus draft Scheduled Meeting Times Type Time Days Where Date Range Schedule Type Instructors Class 1:00 pm - 1:50 pm MWF Sale Hall 110 Jan 15, 2020 - May 08, 2020 Lecture Nathan M. Nobis (P)

Writing Resources

Here are some of my posts and writings on better writing:

• "Why Writing Better Will Make You a Better Person" June 4, 2019, Chronicle of Higher Education by Bob Fischer and Nathan Nobis.
• Organization and Clarity in Writing: Seeing the Forest Through the Trees
• Writing Tips
• Essay Evaluation Sheet

Here is a new, imperfect video on writing philosophy with an emphasis on organization and structure; I'm new to making videos and this is really a first attempt:

Ethics and Extra Credit

"Impossible Conversations"

Here is another attempt for the "Impossible Conversations" project or competition; click on the title for the link to the letters:

On 

Abortion & Ethics

Luke Krell and Nathan Nobis

STARTED 28 DEC '19

Ethics, Justice and Social Justice

JMS:Ethics,Justice, &Social - 48145 - HEDU 499 - 05

Ethics, Justice and Social Justice – Dr. Nathan Nobis – SYLLABUS AND NOTES HERE This course introduces students to the logical and philosophical skills used to evaluate arguments concerning matters of ethics, justice and social justice: what should we believe, and what should we do, about these sorts of issues? When there is a complex and controversial question of ethics or justice, how do decide which position(s) are more likely to be correct? Our initial concerns are abstract: first, how do we define our area of concern, so what makes something an ethical issue, an issue of justice, or an issue of social justice? Next, what are some of the better ways to determine whether an action or policy is ethical or not, whether some practice is just or Ian injustice, and when is something done a social injustice, and what are we seeking when we are seeking (social) justice? In general, how do we think critically about answers to ethical and justice-related questions? Our focus, however, will involve applying general insights from theories and principles of ethics and justice, and critical thinking, to contemporary issues of social justice, such as the criminalization of drug use, punishment and the death penalty, reparations for historical injustice, police violence, gun violence, abortion, immigration, racism, discrimination against people who are not heterosexual or cis-gendered, health inequality, wealth inequality, many forms of racial discrimination and prejudice, climate change and more. Topics will be chosen, in part by students’ interests. Guest speakers from some local organizations that address some of these ethical challenges will come to class to share how and why they seek justice through their efforts. Note that J-Mester courses are free elective courses. It is advised that students engage Advisors prior to enrolling to determine if credit from these courses can be applied to their specific major or can fulfill general education requirements. Associated Term: Spring 2020 Registration Dates: Nov 03, 2019 to Jan 03, 2020 Levels: Undergraduate Morehouse College Campus Lecture Schedule Type 3.000 Credits View Catalog Entry Bookstore(change me) Scheduled Meeting Times Type Time Days Where Date Range Schedule Type Instructors Class 9:00 am - 5:00 pm MTWRF Leadership 244 Jan 03, 2020 - Jan 13, 2020 Lecture Nathan M. Nobis (P)

How to Spot an Injustice: A Brief Introduction to Theories of Justice

I'm looking for any collaborators on this short paper, How to Spot an Injustice: A Brief Introduction to Theories of Justice

"When does life begin?" and "Are fetuses human?": Two bad questions to ask about abortion

I was inspired to write up some reactions to something I recently read. I posted them here:

"'When does life begin?' and 'Are fetuses human?': Two bad questions to ask about abortion

Critical Thinking concepts

I did a quick informal survey of philosophy instructors to see what "critical thinking" concepts they thought were most important or "fallacies" (in short, bad ways of thinking!) they thought are most common or most important that people be familiar with. Here's that list, with some vague ranking, and a quick explanation of what this error in thinking is:

• "begging the question" - this is to assume what you are trying to argue for: your reason for your conclusion is a claim that someone would accept only if they already accept your conclusion. This is a type of circular reasoning. (Here are some question-begging arguments on abortion, for examples). 
• "straw person" AKA "straw man" - to "straw person" a position is to present it in a weak form; it's to not present the strongest, most plausible version of the position or view in question.
• "principle of charity" or "failing to employ the principle of charity" - this is to not attempt to interpret someone's claim(s) in the most plausible ways they can be understood, to not try to help someone clarify their ideas (when they can be clarified), to not help someone state the strongest version of their position that they can: this is all being uncharitable. 
• NEW: "Badlighting." (New, a term developed by Molly Gardner). Badlighting is what you do when you attribute bad motives to someone who actually has good motives. It's a bad and/or abusive behavior, just like "grandstanding" and "gaslighting." Badlighters tend to interpret the words and actions of their targets through the lense of "the principle of hostility," which is the opposite of what's known in philosophy as "the principle of charity." Some, but not all, badlighters are engaging in projection: They have bad motives, themselves, and so they wrongly assume that their interlocutors also have bad motives.
• "ad hominem" - this is to respond to some argument or reasoning with an irrelevant personal attack on the person making the argument, instead of engaging with the argument. 
• "genetic fallacy" - this is to respond to some argument or reasoning with something irrelevant about the source of the argument (its genesis), instead of engaging with the argument itself.
• A related popular version of the genetic fallacy is something of a combination of it and maybe an ad hominem, where someone's position is rejected or objected to not on the basis of the position or the arguments given but the identity of the person who gives it: so, instead of discussing the argument, it's observed that someone of this race and/or sex and/or class and/or political background is advocating the argument. This is usually irrelevant because that all has nothing to do with whether the premises are true or not and different people are often able to empathize with other people, even if they can't fully or perfectly understand someone else's experience or perspective. 
•  the "Tu quoque" fallacy, or an objection from hypocrisy - this is to respond to someone's argument with the claim that they are somehow a hypocrite in making the argument: whether they are or not is irrelevant to whether the reasons they give are true claims that support their conclusion or not, or whether the argument is good or not.  
• "slippery slope" - this is to claim that one thing will lead to something else that is problematic and that that's a reason to not accept the initial thing. This objection is problematic when it's doubtful that A will lead to B and/or it's doubtful that B is indeed bad, at least. (E.g., "Thinking that it's wrong to make fur coats puts us on a slippery slope to thinking that it's wrong to eat meat!" Yes, it should!)
• "Red herring" - this is to make some distracting and irrelevant claims to throw people off from focusing on whatever issue they should be focusing on.
• "Confirmation bias" - this is to only seek out and notice evidence that confirms your previously held point of view and ignore or reject anything contrary, for no good reason. A new related idea is that of an "epistemic bubble." 
• "false dichotomy" - this is to see only two (or some limited number) of options, when there really are many. "We can do A or B, and that's it" when we really could do C, or D, or E, or F... 
• "anecdotal fallacy" - "I saw this one time, or a few times, so it's probably always that way." Sometimes - often - limited experiences, anecdotes, don't justify believing any generalizations.
• "Is/ought & the naturalistic fallacy" - "Things are this way, or have been this way, so they ought to be this way." "This is natural - it is this way - so it ought to be this way."
• "legality and morality" - Assuming "this is legal, so it must be moral." No: morality and law are different. 
• "fallacy of equivocation" - using a word one way, with one meaning, and then switching to a different meaning, resulting in reasoning where the premises don't really lead to the conclusion. 

Positive tools for better thinking

1. "reductio ad absurdum" : show that someone's position leads somewhere (absurdly) false, which might show that the position is false. (Very much related to the modus tollens argument pattern also). 
2. Concerns about credible sources.
3. evaluating moral explanations; inference to the best (moral) explanation
4. finding counterexamples to general or universal premises and claims. VERY VERY VERY IMPORTANT. 
5. valid patterns: modus ponens and modus tollens and syllogisms
6. invalid argument patterns: affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent
7. the concepts of "validity" and "soundness" regarding arguments. VERY VERY VERY IMPORTANT. 
8. Isolating necessary/sufficient conditions 
9. theoretical virtues (simplicity, coherence, power, etc.): intellectual virtues and vices

"Responding to Morally Flawed Historical Philosophers and Philosophies"

Cédric Eyssette created this graphic that presents my and Victor Fabian Abundez-Guerra's short 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology article "Responding to Morally Flawed Historical Philosophers and Philosophies." The text is in French, so I don't know what it says, but this seems pretty cool to me! Thanks, Cédric!

Spring 2020 classes

Intro to Philosophical Ethics - 43875 - HPHI 302G - 01
Associated Term: Spring 2020 Registration Dates: Nov 04, 2019 to Jan 24, 2020 Levels: Undergraduate Morehouse College Campus Lecture Schedule Type 3.000 Credits View Catalog Entry Bookstore(change me) Scheduled Meeting Times Type Time Days Where Date Range Schedule Type Instructors Class 10:00 am - 10:50 am MWF Sale Hall 105 Jan 15, 2020 - May 08, 2020 Lecture Nathan M. Nobis (P)
Intro to Philosophical Ethics - 43876 - HPHI 302G - 02
Associated Term: Spring 2020 Registration Dates: Nov 04, 2019 to Jan 24, 2020 Levels: Undergraduate Morehouse College Campus Lecture Schedule Type 3.000 Credits View Catalog Entry Bookstore(change me) Scheduled Meeting Times Type Time Days Where Date Range Schedule Type Instructors Class 11:00 am - 11:50 am MWF Sale Hall 105 Jan 15, 2020 - May 08, 2020 Lecture Nathan M. Nobis (P)
Intro to Phil. Ethics ONLINE - 48562 - HPHI 302G - 07
Associated Term: Spring 2020 Registration Dates: Nov 04, 2019 to Jan 24, 2020 Levels: Undergraduate Morehouse College Campus Lecture Schedule Type Online Instructional Method 3.000 Credits View Catalog Entry Bookstore(change me) Scheduled Meeting Times Type Time Days Where Date Range Schedule Type Instructors Class TBA   ONLINE Jan 15, 2020 - May 08, 2020 Lecture Nathan M. Nobis (P)
Modern Political Theory - 48401 - HPHI 462 - 1
Associated Term: Spring 2020 Registration Dates: Nov 04, 2019 to Jan 24, 2020 Levels: Undergraduate Morehouse College Campus Lecture Schedule Type 3.000 Credits View Catalog Entry Bookstore(change me) Scheduled Meeting Times Type Time Days Where Date Range Schedule Type Instructors Class 1:00 pm - 1:50 pm MWF Sale Hall 110 Jan 15, 2020 - May 08, 2020 Lecture Nathan M. Nobis (P)

"Impossible Conversations"

We have a series of letters here in progress for the "Impossible Conversations" competition:

On

Abortion & Ethics

Nathan Nobis and Lauren Enriquez

4 LETTERS

•

7 SUBSCRIBERS

•

UPDATED 22 OCT '19

Midterm Self-Assessment

Here is a midterm reflection assignment, due by the Friday after the break (to Blackboard, using the template, in a word-processed file; include the questions below so it is obvious to the reader what you are responding to, please):

1. What is your Tigernet/Banner midterm grade?

2. What is your Blackboard midterm grade, your earned points or percentage of total points? (If there are any errors or omissions or misunderstandings in grading, please let the instructor know). 

3. How are you doing in this class? (Optional: how are you doing in other classes?)

4. What are you doing well? *Why* are you doing well at these things?

5. What are you not doing well at? *Why* are you not doing well at these things? What do you want to change? *Why* do you want to change?

6. What, if anything, should you change about what you do before class? What, if anything, should you change about what you do during class? What, if anything, should you change about what you do after class?

7. What can the instructor do to better help you?

8. What other thoughts and/or feelings do you have concerning your performance in this class (and any other classes), or anything else relevant?

Ethics, Left and Right: The Moral Issues That Divide Us

 

Ethics, Left and Right

The Moral Issues That Divide Us

Bob Fischer

• Provides a model of civil dialogue for contentious moral issues--one that students can appreciate and emulate--through a series of commissioned essays on twenty contentious debates, written expressly with undergraduate students in mind
• Engages students in moral philosophy by examining highly relevant issues that students encounter in our current social and political landscape
• Presents two position pieces on each issue--one left-leaning, one right--followed by a reply from each author, giving you and your students the opportunity to engage in in-depth discussions of serious issues
• Prepares students to think philosophically and critically with an introductory chapter on ethical theory, moral reasoning, and arguments
• Includes case studies at the end of every main contribution to encourage students to examine related problems and/or delve deeper into the current issue
• An Ancillary Resource Center (ARC) contains an Instructor's Manual, a Computerized Test Bank, and PowerPoint lecture slides
• A Companion Website offers student resources including self-quizzes and web links

Contact Information

Updated contact information, with an attempt at a new Google voice phone #:

• nathan.nobis@gmail.com
• 404-480-2717
  

Fall Classes

Intro to Philosophical Ethics - 44370 - HPHI 302G - 01

Syllabus!

Type Time Days Where Date Range Schedule Type Instructors Class 10:00 am - 10:50 am MWF Sale Hall 105 Aug 21, 2019 - Dec 13, 2019 Lecture Nathan M. Nobis (P) Intro to Philosophical Ethics - 44371 - HPHI 302G - 02 Syllabus!

Scheduled Meeting Times

Type	Time	Days	Where	Date Range	Schedule Type	Instructors
Class	11:00 am - 11:50 am	MWF	Sale Hall 105	Aug 21, 2019 - Dec 13, 2019	Lecture	Nathan M. Nobis (P)

Modern Philosophy - 46023 - HPHI 311 - 01
Syllabus! Type Time Days Where Date Range Schedule Type Instructors Class 1:00 pm - 1:50 pm MWF Sale Hall 110 Aug 21, 2019 - Dec 13, 2019 Lecture Nathan M. Nobis (P)

Special Top: Bioethics - 46241 - HPHI 475 - 01
Associated Term: Fall 2019 Registration Dates: Apr 01, 2019 to Aug 30, 2019 Levels: Undergraduate Syllabus! Scheduled Meeting Times Type Time Days Where Date Range Schedule Type Instructors Class 9:00 am - 9:50 am MWF Sale Hall 110 Aug 21, 2019 - Dec 13, 2019 Lecture Nathan M. Nobis (P)