Some thoughts on teaching in the time of COVID, in The Philosophers' Magazine

Some thoughts on teaching in the time of COVID, in The Philosophers' Magazine:

J-mester class

JMS:Ethics, Justice, & Soc Jus - 48162 - HEDU 499 - 10

Ethics, Justice and Social Justice-Dr. Nathan Nobis - 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 an 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 (online) 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 2021
Registration Dates: Nov 02, 2020 to Jan 15, 2021
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 Building 354	Jan 11, 2021 - Jan 29, 2021	Lecture	Nathan M. Nobis (P)

Abortion Ethics Blog Post Archive

Here is an archive of the blog posts written after the publication of Thinking Critically About Abortion. Many of these posts are inspired by observations about how people often engage the issues, other posts discuss further arguments, and other posts recommend other readings and resources. 

Please click on the link for the current version of this document!

Moral Nihilism, Intellectual Nihilism & Practical Ethics

I completed my PhD dissertation (in epistemology and ethics) 15 years ago. At that time, some philosophical magazine asked me to write a super-short summary of it, so I did that, but then the magazine didn't take it and I didn't really do anything with the paper after that.

But an opportunity recently came up with Academia.edu to publish it as a 1600 word (reviewed) "Letter" (I'm not really sure what this is) and so here it is, 15 years after it was written!

"Moral Nihilism, Intellectual Nihilism & Practical Ethics"

Also here, without login required.

Engaged Philosophy Interview

I was interviewed for the "Engaged Philosophy" project! The interview is here and pasted below the fold also.

Georgia Philosophical Society: Online Workshop on Ethical Issues in Today’s Turbulent World

Georgia Philosophical Society: Online Workshop on Ethical Issues in Today’s Turbulent World

In recent years, the Georgia Philosophical Society has met only once a year for a full-day conference. In light of current events, we thought that philosophers might like a chance to share some ideas and reflections this fall. So, in association with Global Ethics Day, we decided to try something new: an online workshop to take place on the afternoons of Thursday 10/22 and Friday 10/23. (Global Ethics Day is actually Wednesday, 10/21, but it is observed all week.) Each speaker will present for ten minutes, followed by ten minutes of questions and discussion.

See below the fold for the schedule.

College Ethics: A Reader on Moral Issues that Affect You, Second Edition

College Ethics: A Reader on Moral Issues that Affect You, Second Edition, edited by Bob Fischer, is out and contains our chapter "Defining 'Abortion' and Critiquing Common Arguments about Abortion." This chapter is very similar to what's in Thinking Critically About Abortion.

PART II. Abortion

* 9. Kristina Grob and Nathan Nobis, Defining "Abortion" and Critiquing Common Arguments about Abortion

* 10. Judith Jarvis Thomson, A Defense of Abortion

* 11. Don Marquis, Why Abortion Is Immoral

12. Rosalind Hursthouse, Virtue Theory and Abortion

I was on the "I think, therefore I fan" podcast talking about the philosophical topic of personal identity:

Invasion of the Body Swappers

 ADMIN  SEPTEMBER 24, 2020  PODCASTS

 

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | Google Podcasts | Spotify | RSS | More

In this episode we talk with philosopher Nathan Nobis about personal identity thought experiments. Along the way we split a few brains, swap a few minds, and transport a few bodies to Mars. You can find some of the resources we discuss in this week’s episode here:
https://www.nathannobis.com/2020/09/personal-identity.html
and here:
https://1000wordphilosophy.com/

Devon Belcher (1967-2020)

I wrote a brief memorial notice about my friend Devon Belcher who recently passed away. I miss him very much. This memorial was posted on the Daily Nous. 

Dr. Devon Belcher passed away on Monday, September 14, 2020. Until recently, he taught at Oglethorpe University, in Atlanta, Georgia. He taught in philosophy and in their core humanities program since 2008, beginning as an Assistant Professor and then as a tenured Associate Professor.

Dr. Belcher earned a B.A. in Philosophy from Reed College and his Ph.D. from the University of Colorado in 2005 with a dissertation “On Words: An Essay on Beliefs, Belief Attributions, and the Ontology of Words.”

In 2013, he won his University’s Award for Meritorious Teaching. He taught and inspired students to love logic, the more technical aspects of philosophy of language and metaphysics, as well as the classics of literature and the history of science. He saw students as equals in terms of their being honest, sincere, and dedicated truth-seekers, earning their admiration and respect and, with many, their friendship and love.

Devon was a unique person, with a larger than life personality. He described learning philosophy as “learning to piss people off,” loved heavy metal music, and had a unique fascination with squirrels, pirates, and Norse mythology and Vikings. These traits endeared him to many and, like Socrates, repelled him from others.

“What's Culture Got to Do with It? Excising the Harmful Tradition of Female Circumcision.”

There's a well-known article “What's Culture Got to Do with It? Excising the Harmful Tradition of Female Circumcision.” Harvard Law Review, vol. 106, no. 8, 1993, pp. 1944–1961. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1341791.  

The article is now old and is potentially problematic in a number of ways: e.g., it might suggest that most female genital cutting (now what is or should be the preferred term, given Brian Earp's research on the issues) is the "extreme" form that it focuses on when most of it is, in fact, far less "extreme." And it ignores that these less extreme versions are also usually done to boys.

And, of course, the article doesn't think about the broader implications of the issues: e.g., it doesn't think about whether an argument like this is sound:

1. Any female genital cutting (if not for medically justified reasons or done on consenting adults) is wrong.
2. If any female genital cutting (if not for medically justified reasons or done on consenting adults) is wrong, then any male genital cutting (if not for medically justified reasons or done on consenting adults) is wrong.
3. Therefore, any male genital cutting (if not for medically justified reasons or done on consenting adults) is wrong.
4. Therefore, routine male circumcision (on infants, not for medically-justified reasons) is wrong. 

But the article is still useful, at least in that it discusses some (but not all) reasons given in favor of female genital cutting. First, it's interesting to know that reasons are given for this practice, and we can see why these reasons are bad reasons and that's this isn't just our "opinion" or "feelings" or whatever. These reasons are good ones for us to practice formulating as logically valid arguments, as syllogisms, that we can then evaluate as sound or not.

Here are the arguments from that section, stated more in a conversational manner, not in valid form:

1. FGM (female genital mutilation) is a tradition. [This argument appeals to relativism, which is false moral theory or principle].

C. Therefore, FGM is MP (morally permissible). 

3. FGM reduces promiscuity. 

C. Therefore, FGM is MP. 

5. FGM increases fertility and eases childbirth. 

C. Therefore, FGM is MP. 

7. FGM is required by their religion. 

C. Therefore, FGM is MP. 

9. FGM makes the women look nice to the men in these cultures.

C: FGM is MP. 

Now, let's state these in valid form:

1. FGM (female genital mutilation) is a tradition. 

2. All traditions are MP. 

C. Therefore, FGM is MP (morally permissible). 

 

3. FGM reduces promiscuity. 

4. All actions that reduce promiscuity are MP.  

C. Therefore, FGM is MP. 

 

5. FGM increases fertility and eases childbirth. 

6. All actions that increase fertility and ease childbirth are MP.  

C. Therefore, FGM is MP. 

 

7. FGM is required by their religion. 

8. All actions required by religions (or a persons's religion) are MP.  

C. Therefore, FGM is MP. 

 

9. FGM makes the women look nice and attractive to the men in these cultures.

10. All actions that make someone look nice to someone else are MP.

C: FGM is MP. 

The next question involves figuring out whether the premises above are true or false; the even premises we'd want to evaluate with potential counterexamples. For each argument, if there's at least one false premise, then the argument is unsound. If all the premises are true, then the argument is sound, since the argument is valid. 

Are these are arguments sound or not? Why or why not? If not, which premises are false or unjustified and why?

* "Answers" forthcoming!

Moral Arguments from the Bible

Some people appeal to the Bible in giving reasons to support their views on ethical issues.

So, they might say things like this:

• "The Bible says doing this is wrong, so it's wrong."
• "The Bible says doing this is not wrong, so it's not wrong."
• "The Bible says we must do this, so we are must do this: it's an obligation."

Sometimes there are disagreement about what the Bible says or "really says": e.g., some might say that Bible clearly says this or that about slavery, or homosexuality, or eating meat, or abortion, or euthanasia, or the role of women, or polygamy, or capitalism, or being rich, or being poor, or capital punishment, or war, or violence, or anything else, and you can find other people who deny that, arguing that "the Bible clearly says" the opposite. 

But beyond that, these arguments, however, are all always missing essential premises: some logical "filling in" is necessary to make them logically valid, or make such that the premises lead to the conclusion. These premises are these:

• If the Bible says that doing something - X - is wrong, then doing X is wrong.
• If the Bible says that doing something - Y - is not wrong, then doing Y is not wrong.
• If the Bible says that we must something - Z, then doing Z is an obligation: we must do Z.

The problem, however, is that these premises appear to be false, and that nobody really believes these premises are literally true anyway. This is because it seems that there are counterexamples from the Bible to show that they are false. 

There are many lists of Bible verses that make this point: various wrong actions are called not wrong; various permissible actions are called wrong, and we are said to be obligated to do things that we are not obligated to do. (What are good verses that illustrate this point?)

What's the upshot? It's that just because the Bible says an action is wrong, that doesn't mean it is. And just because the Bible says an action is permissible, that doesn't mean it is. And just because the Bible says we must do something, that might not be so. 

Sometimes, however, the Bible does give very good, indeed excellent, moral advice: e.g., to love your neighbor as yourself. 

This is good advice, but the second upshot of the discussion above is that this is good advice not just because the Bible says so. 

Like everything else, there must be good reasons why something is the case. 

Given that, what are the good reasons why we should love our neighbors as ourselves?

And what are other moral guidelines - particular verses and general themes - from the Bible, and anywhere else, that we have good reasons to accept, and which do we have good reasons to reject? Why?

Personal Identity

Here are some cases to help us begin thinking about the topic of personal identity, which is how we retain our identity or remain the same individual over time, despite the many physical and mental changes that happen to us. We tend to think that we do retain that identity and that, for example, you were once 5 years old: that 5 year old was you. (That assumption can be challenged, however). These cases below can be helpful in beginning to think about these issues.

Note: one concern here is whether these cases are possible but in the sense of logically possible or metaphysically possible or even physically possible. We aren't concerned about whether these cases are realistic or are likely to happen, just that they are possible in some of these senses. 

[This page is discussed on the "I think, therefore I fan" podcast]

1. Brain swap: your brain, originally in "body 1" is put into another body, "body 2," which then "wakes up" and all is fine. Where are you?

2. Mind swap: your mind (what's that?), originally in Body 1, is now in Body 2. (And the mind in Body 1 is now in body 2). which then "wakes up" and all is fine. Where are you? 

Particular versions of this case: 

2.1. John Locke's "prince and the cobbler." The prince did something really bad, deserving of punishment. He "wakes up" - with his memories and knowledge - in the cobbler's body (and the cobbler wakes up in the prince's body, happy to now get to live the life of a prince). Which body should be punished?

2.2. Films like "Freaky Friday" (also, there are many films and shows about personal identity, e.g., Star Trek .. what else?):

3. Partial brain swap: your cerebrum (or "higher brain," responsible for consciousness, awareness, thoughts, perceptions, etc.) is transplanted to another body (and then you "wake up" fine and go about your life), but your brain stem remains in that body, and so that body continues to breath, the heart keeps pumping blood, and so that body remains biologically alive. Where are you? 

4. Brain or mind swaps with a race and/or sex twist: 

• your brain, originally in "body 1" is put into another body, "body 2," and body 2 is of a different race or sex than body 1. Where are you? (If you think this isn't possible, then you would seem to think that your race or sex is essential to who you are, so if that changes, you wouldn't exist anymore. However, things might be more complicated because perhaps there's a way that your brain or mind can be racialized or sexed [or gendered] in ways that you could retain that even on this type of body swap). 
• your mind, originally in "body 1" is put into another body, "body 2," and body 2 is of a different race or sex than body 1. Where are you? (If you think this isn't possible, then you would seem to think that your race or sex is essential to who you are, so if that changes, you wouldn't exist anymore. However, things might be more complicated because perhaps there's a way that your brain or mind can be racialized or sexed [or gendered] in ways that you could retain that even on this type of body swap). 
• Disney's / Pixar's "Out" even has a human-dog mind swap!

5. Death: you are hit by a bus and killed. Assume there is no afterlife, heaven or hell. Where are you?

6. Permanent coma: You are hit by a bus and your brain (or higher brain) totally destroyed, and so there is no consciousness or potential for consciousness, but your body keeps breathing for 50+ years and then it dies. Assume there is no afterlife, heaven or hell. Where are you? When did you end?

6.5. When do you begin? When your body begins (or the body you will "inhabit" begins)? Or when your mind begins? When is that? (What are you? Are you your biology, or your biography [or both, or neither!]?)

7. "Day person" and "night person" or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde-like case (with the story modified a bit): there's one body, and during the day we might say that kind Dr. Jekyll is "in" that body, whereas at night evil "Mr. Hyde" is "in" that body, and they don't know about each other at all. How many people are "in" in that body? If Mr. Hyde does something bad, should Dr. Jekyll be blamed for it?

8. Brain split: your brain is removed and split in two. Assume it will still function just as well (!!!) and the two halves of the brain are put in new bodies (or one old body and one new body). Where are you? What has happened here?

9. Teletransporter: on Earth, the transporter machine scans your body for all its physical information, destroys that body, beams that information to Mars, the machine rebuilds an exact physical duplicate of that body, and that body is conscious with all the memories and knowledge that you had. That body gets out of the transporter, remembering what had been happening on Earth moments ago and goes about their business. Where are you?

10. Teletransporter variants: 

1. the transporter machine on Earth scans your body for all its physical information, does not destroy that body, beams that information to Mars, the machine rebuilds an exact physical duplicate of that body, and that body is conscious with all the memories and knowledge that you had. That body gets out of the transporter, remembering what had been happening on Earth moments ago and goes about their business. Also, that body on Earth steps out of the transporter, unharmed. Where are you? What's happened here?
2. the transporter machine on Earth scans your body for all its physical information, destroys your body, beams that information to Mars, the moon and Jupiter, the machine rebuilds exact physical duplicates of that body, and that body is conscious with all the memories and knowledge that you had. Those bodies get out of the transporter, remembering what had been happening on Earth moments ago and goes about their business. Also, that body on Earth steps out of the transporter, unharmed. Where are you? What's happened here? ("The Prestige" is a film that has a scenario like this). 
3. the transporter machine on Earth scans your body for all its physical information, does not destroy that body, beams that information to Mars, the moon and Jupiter, the machine rebuilds exact physical duplicates of that body, and that body is conscious with all the memories and knowledge that you had. Those bodies gets out of the transporter, remembering what had been happening on Earth moments ago and goes about their business. Also, that body on Earth steps out of the transporter, unharmed. Where are you? What's happened here?

In these splitting cases, it seems like the (separate) individuals involved have a shared, overlapping past: at least that's how they experience it. What does that mean for personal identity?

Discussion questions:

1. Sometimes people do bad things and then they later (perhaps after going to prison) declare that they are a "new person," and sometimes they seem to mean that literally. Given your understanding of the topic of personal identity, do you think this could be true, that this individual is a literal new person, which suggests they aren't the same person who did that bad thing? Explain and discuss.

2. Could *you* have had different parents? Given your understanding of the topic of personal identity, explain why this is a complex issue, and explain and defend your answer. 

3. You are a person, right? What makes you a person? Why are you a person? (We know you are human or a human being, but why are humans or human beings persons?). Explain and defend your answer in light of the readings and discussions.

4. If people can make it to heaven or hell, how could that be? Given your understanding of personal identity, explain what position on that issue would be best to take in order to think that we can continue to exist after death. Defend your perspective.

5. What are you, in your essence? What, if you lost it, would you literally cease to exist? What makes you *you*? Explain and defend your views. 

Online Course Communication Tips

Online courses have many requirements, some of which the instructors (and students) realize along the way. 

Some concerns are technical: for example, about how to operate Blackboard or the LMS (Learning Management System).

Other concerns are more profound and relate to thinking about your audience or readers and what can improve their reading experience with your posts. These concerns are based on empathy: seeing things from others' points of view, understanding their perspectives, and acting in ways that benefit these other people, given their perspectives and concerns. 

Here's an in-progress list of what's needed; check back for more tips.

TO MAKE YOUR POSTS AND WORK EASIER TO READ:

• DO NOT HAVE LONG PARAGRAPHS: follow the rule of "one main topic per paragraph." You NEVER want to have an assignment of any kind that is a single long paragraph if there are multiple topics per paragraph. That is true for all writing, but it's especially true for online writing. (Additional writing tips are here). 
• PROOFREAD and REVIEW YOUR SUBMITTED WORK: when you submit your work, e.g., post a blog post or a discussion post, look at it. Does it look nice? Does it look professional? Here are some concerns:
• Is there space (a "return") between paragraphs? Is that space the same between all paragraphs?
• Are there any indents? If so, are there indents on all paragraphs, so it's consistent?
• Is the font, font size and font color the same? Is some text highlighted and other text not highlighted? If so, you need to develop the technical skills to fix that: one thing that's helpful is the "remove formatting" button on the Blackboard text editor.
• GRAMMAR and SPELLING: simple grammatical and spelling errors are distracting, and you don't want anyone distracted from your main message. And these are errors that are just so easy to avoid these days that's there is really no excuse for them. So, use spell and grammar-check on your computer for everything educational or professional that you write: there is a great free program called Grammarly.com that works especially well that you should get, use and even learn from.
• GIVE CONTEXT: when responding to discussion boards, include the prompt you are responding to (and bold it or bold and underline it: that way, no readers have to think, "OK, what is this in response to?" because you will have made that obvious.
• "QUOTE" OTHER STUDENTS WHEN RESPONDING TO THEM: when you respond to others' posts, include what you are responding to: there is a "quote" button that allows that. If you do not do that, then it is hard to know what you are responding to, so please include that. Not including their initial post is like responding to an email but deleting the message that you are responding to: nobody knows what you are responding to that way, and that's not helpful. 
• DON'T UPLOAD PDFs: to make your posts immediately accessible, they should be created (or cut and pasted) as text on the discussion board: don't upload files, expecting that other students or the instructor is doing to download them, open them, read them, and then somehow comment on them, even though the text isn't really there to comment on. In short, always make things easy on readers. (A related rule: don't send information by email attachment when you could have just as easily put that information in the body of an email). 

OTHER GUIDANCE:

• WRITE POSTS THAT OTHER STUDENTS WANT TO RESPOND TO: instructors should try to develop discussion prompts and assignments that encourage or require students to respond to in ways that invite and encourage other students to respond to. Even if students are not asked to do so, they can think about how they can write their responses in ways that encourage other students to do respond. It's at least worth thinking about how to effectively do this. 
• WE WANT RESPONSES TO BE SUBSTANTIAL, SERIOUS, AND ENGAGING: the point of a discussion board is, really, to discuss. So we don't want to just affirm each others' posts, but we want to see where they can take us, in terms of extending or applying what was said to other topics, raising questions about the topic, raising objections ("have you considered this?") and more. See this post on better discussion responses: 

"Here are some prompts that might help you create more effective replies to your peers (you learn more) and earn you more points. For each reply, please comment on your peer's post, perhaps what you learned or found interesting, and then add new information to the conversation. Here are some prompts that might be helpful in directing your replies. 

First, summarize your peer’s post

I appreciated how you explained … because I learned…

What I found really interesting about what you said ...

Then, transition to what you will add to the conversation:

And, I think that we also need to consider…
Another important question we need to think about is…
What this means is …
That makes me think of …
I am confused about …, what I know is … and I would like help …
While you said…, I disagree because…"

• SET THINGS UP TO AUTO-RECEIVE RESPONSES TO YOUR POSTS: you can usually set up discussion boards so that you are notified when people respond to your posts. Figure out how to set that up in your system since "discussions" are real discussions only when there's that type of interaction and back and forth, and that happens only when you know that someone has responded to you.
• READ AND RESPOND TO RESPONSES: check to see if and when other students and your instructor responds to your responses. See what they have to say and respond to them about their response!
• KNOW THE REQUIREMENTS: there are usually length and "depth" requirements for discussion posts and other assignments. Make sure you know what these are.
• SAVE YOUR POSTS: save your posts, either by cutting and pasting them into the course system from somewhere else (making sure you address the formatting) or cutting and pasting them from the system into a word processor document. That way if your posts get lost or deleted, you've got backup.
• ANNOUNCEMENTS: often there are many announcements about online classes, so make sure you frequently check wherever those are sent out and/or posted. 

More guidelines, TBA! Check back!

And here's a song about being online that you might like, or you won't!

 

Descartes Discussion Questions

Here are some discussion questions about Descartes Meditations (1-6). Responses should be informed by the readings and discussions but also your own views.

Please respond to at least three questions; please respond at least three times to your peers here and/or on the BLOG discussion board. 

Please see the syllabus guidelines on what these discussions should be like. 

Questions that correspond to each Meditation:

1. What's Descartes' strategy to avoid false beliefs? Do you think it's a good strategy? If so, how and why, or why not? Do you have any better ideas for him? What (else) would you do to try to avoid false beliefs and find true beliefs, justified beliefs and/or knowledge? What strategies do you think would be effective toward that goal?

2. Your essence is this: take away anything you can that - if you lose it, you can still exist - and then you are left with your essence. (E.g., if you lose your hair, you will still exist, right? So your hair is not part of your essence). What does Descartes think he is, in his essence? How does he come to that view? Do you agree with him on what his essence is? What do you think your essence is? Why?

3a. Descartes' thinks he has the idea of God: what is that idea? He also thinks that since he has the idea of God, God must exist. What this argument? Do you think it's a good one? Why or why not?

3b. Descartes argues that (a) there is a God and (b) that since there is a God, whatever he "clearly and distinctly perceives" is true. Can you explain what he seems to be thinking or reasoning here? And, in general, if someone argues that they know something because of something they claim to know about God, does that seem like a good way to show that they indeed know that thing? In general, how does appealing to religious beliefs to justify any claims to knowledge typically work out? 

4. Descartes wonders why, if God exists, God would allow him to have false beliefs. What's Descartes' answer? Do you think it's a good answer? If you think there's a God, it's interesting to wonder why - not just why God would allow us to do evil - but why God would allow us to have false and unjustified beliefs. Why do you think God might allow that? Is that a good reason?

5. Descartes argues that since the idea of existence is part of the idea of God, God must exist. Can you explain how this argument might work? Do you think it might be a good argument?

6. Descartes thinks that his mind and his body are separate things, and that he could exist without a body. Why does he think that? Do you agree with him, either with his reasoning or with the claim that you could exist without your, or any, body?

Promoting Ethics for and with People Like Us

The world, at present, appears to be in an ethical crisis. There has been some significant moral progress, but it seems like we are witnessing moral decline: actions and views that used to be seen as “beyond the pale” of decency are now common views: what used to be acceptable is now often accepted, with enthusiasm.

Given this, Global Ethics Day might appear to be an absurd event since we are collectively just so far from any widespread concern about ethics. But what can we do? Give up in seeking a more ethical world? That would be unethical.

So, what should we do? My discussion relates to what can be done about this by people interested in ethics and who have some training in getting people to better think about ethics. My suggestions largely relate to (a) acknowledging our own errors, (b) keeping things simple, (c) finding agreements and (d) continuing conversations.

While I am honestly unsure if this can lead to enough ethical goods, individually and collectively, it seems clear that we must try harder to finally figure out the “ethics” of, or what we should about, promoting ethics.

(What to say?)

James Rachels' The Elements of Moral Philosophy Chapter 1 notes

Here some notes on James Rachels' The Elements of Moral Philosophy, chapter 1, "What is morality?"

Here's a video overview (not by me):

I think this chapter would have been better called What is it to ‘Think Morally’ or 'Reason Morally'?

“Morality is …” is kinda abstract. This is less abstract: Someone is “thinking morally” or engaged in “moral thinking” when:

(1) one is guiding one’s thought by reasons – the best reasons – and
(2) one gives equal weight to each individual who is affected by one’s actions.

Re. (1): reasons include (scientific, empirical) facts and moral principles.

FACTS

+ 

MORAL PRINCIPLES

=

WHAT TO DO 

Case 1: Baby Theresa (Google for images and stories) 

• · What’s her situation?
• · What did her parents want to do? What were their reasons?

The parents' argument:

(3) If we can (a) benefit someone without (b) harming anyone else by doing action X, then action X is morally permissible.
(4) By kill Theresa and taking her organs we can (a) benefit others and (b) not harm anyone else.
(5) So, killing Teresa and taking her organs is morally permissible.

The argument is valid, in that the premises lead to the conclusion. Is this argument sound or not? 

What did “the critics” say” (p. 2)

(6) “It’s too horrifying to use people as means to other people’s ends.”
(7) “It’s unethical to kill in order to save, unethical to kill person A to save person B.”
(8) “The parents are saying we should kill the baby to use the organs. That’s horrendous!

These remarks are the basis of arguments. Are these arguments sound or not? If any of them are, then argument (3)-(5) is not sound. Let's present these remarks as logically valid arguments. 

Re. Remark (6):

(A) If someone is used as a mere means to another’s end, then that is wrong.
(B) Taking Teresa’s organs would be to use her as a mere means.
(C) So, it would be wrong to take her organs.

Is the argument valid? Are the premises true? (Are they somehow ambiguous or imprecise? What does it mean, according to Kant, to use someone as a mere means?)

Re. Remark (7):

(D) If person A is killed to save person B, then that’s wrong.
(E) To kill Teresa would be to kill her to save others.
(F) Therefore, it’s wrong to kill Teresa.

Is the argument valid? Are the premises true? (Are they somehow ambiguous or imprecise, e.g., does D claim it's always wrong to do this, or just sometimes?)

Re. Remark (8): is that even an argument?

Case 2: Jodie and Mary (Google for images and stories) 

What’s their situation? What did her parents want to do? What did the hospital want to do? What were their reasons?

Some might throw up their hands and ask “Whose to decide?!” Asking this kind of question is often a way to avoid thinking about which arguments are best. (Also, it’s often unwise to ask rhetorical questions, since there might be good answers to them).

An argument:

(G) If we have a choice between saving one infant and letting both die, we should save one.
(H) We have such a choice.
(I) So we should save one.

Is the argument valid? Are the premises true?

Some critics say:

(J) If someone is an ‘innocent human life’, then they should never be killed.
(K) Mary is an innocent human life.
(L) Therefore, Mary should not be killed.

Is the argument valid? Are the premises true?

3rd Case: Tracy Latimer (Google for images and stories) 

• · What’s her situation? (We need to think about the details..)
• · What did her parents want to do? What were their reasons?
• · What did their critics say?

Conclusions: Overall, we need to take note of:

• · Feelings
• · Require reasons
• · Getting one’s (non-moral) facts straight: checking up on the empirical / scientific evidence
• · Impartiality: differences in treatment are justified only by relevant differences in the person/being and in light of general moral principles; otherwise these are unjustified prejudices.

Fall 2020 classes

Intro to Philosophy (Honors) - 47419 - HPHI 201G - 03H
Associated Term: Fall 2020 Registration Dates: Apr 20, 2020 to Aug 28, 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 9:25 am - 10:40 am TR ONLINE Aug 19, 2020 - Nov 20, 2020 Lecture Nathan M. Nobis (P)
Intro to Philosophical Ethics - 47420 - HPHI 302G - 01
Associated Term: Fall 2020 Registration Dates: Apr 20, 2020 to Aug 28, 2020 Levels: Undergraduate Morehouse College Campus Lecture Schedule Type Online Instructional Method 3.000 Credits Syllabus Available 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 Aug 19, 2020 - Nov 20, 2020 Lecture Nathan M. Nobis (P)
Intro to Philosophical Ethics - 47421 - HPHI 302G - 02
Associated Term: Fall 2020 Registration Dates: Apr 20, 2020 to Aug 28, 2020 Levels: Undergraduate Morehouse College Campus Lecture Schedule Type Online Instructional Method 3.000 Credits Syllabus Available 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 ONLINE Aug 19, 2020 - Nov 20, 2020 Lecture Nathan M. Nobis (P)
SpcTop: Climate Change Ethics - 48822 - HPHI 475 - 02
Associated Term: Fall 2020 Registration Dates: Apr 20, 2020 to Aug 28, 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 1:00 pm - 1:50 pm MWF ONLINE Aug 19, 2020 - Nov 20, 2020 Lecture Nathan M. Nobis (P)

Is This Like That? How to Make a Comparison

 A little educational material on comparisons or analogies that I just whipped up; suggestions for improvement on this and maybe a whole series of material welcome!

#thinking #criticalthinking #philosophy #ethics #reasoning #thinking #teaching #learning