THIS COURSE WILL MEET FACE TO FACE ON CAMPUS. Associated Term: Spring 2021 Registration Dates: Nov 02, 2020 to Feb 08, 2021 Levels: Undergraduate Syllabus
THIS COURSE WILLMEET FACE TO FACE ON CAMPUS. Associated Term: Spring 2021 Registration Dates: Nov 02, 2020 to Feb 08, 2021 Levels: Undergraduate Syllabus
THIS COURSE WILL MEET FACE TO FACE ON CAMPUS. Associated Term: Spring 2021 Registration Dates: Nov 02, 2020 to Feb 08, 2021 Levels: Undergraduate Syllabus
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 12, 2021 Levels: Undergraduate
Non-violent offenders serving time for drug use or possession should be freed immediately and their convictions erased, according to research published in the peer-reviewed The American Journal of Bioethics.
More than 60 international experts including world-leading bioethicists, psychologists and drug experts have joined forces to call for an end to the war on drugs which they argue feeds racism.
All drugs currently deemed illicit – even crack cocaine and heroin – should be decriminalized as a matter of urgency, according to this new alliance. Legalisation and regulation should then follow with restrictions on age, advertising and licensing, they say.
They have analysed evidence from over 150 studies and reports, concluding that prohibition unfairly affects Black and Hispanic people, damages communities, and violates the right to life as illustrated by the killing of medical worker Breonna Taylor in March last year.
“The ‘war on drugs’ has explicitly racist roots and continues to disproportionately target certain communities of color,” say lead study authors Brian D. Earp from Yale University and the University of Oxford and Jonathan Lewis from Dublin City University.
“Drug prohibition and criminalization have been costly and ineffective since their inception. It’s time for these failed policies to end.
“The first step is to decriminalize the personal use and possession of small amounts of all drugs currently deemed to be illicit, and to legalize and regulate cannabis. Policymakers should pursue these changes without further delay.”
Their research adds to growing calls for drug policy reform at a time of renewed focus on injustices faced by Black people, and cannabis legalisation for recreational use by a growing list of US states.
The study is based on evidence from existing research into how drug prohibition affects users, communities and human rights, and the impact of decriminalisation by governments.
The authors found that prohibition creates conditions for individuals to commit offences such as burglaries to fund their habit. This lowers life expectancy because people end up in prison, and triggers a ‘multitude’ of health-related costs from unsafe drug use.
Communities are damaged by illicit markets which undermine drug purity, with Black and Hispanic men more likely to end up in the criminal justice system. The war on drugs makes people more vulnerable to violations of their rights including what they choose to put in their bodies.
In contrast, the study highlights the liberal approach of countries such as Portugal where drug-related deaths have fallen and where users are encouraged to seek treatment.
An estimated £43.5bn ($58bn) could be generated in federal, state and local tax revenues through the legalization of drugs, according to the findings. This compares with an annual federal, state and local spend of more than £35bn ($47bn) on prohibition.
The authors stress that non-violent prisoners found with a small amount of illegal substances should be released.
Further Information
The study’s senior author Carl L. Hart was Columbia University’s first tenured African American professor of sciences. He is open about the fact he uses recreational drugs and his book Drug Use for Grown Ups is set for publication in January 2021.
For a copy of the journal article, please contact: Simon Wesson, Press & Media Relations Executive Email: newsroom@taylorandfrancis.com Tel.: +44 (0)20 701 74468 Follow us on Twitter: @tandfnewsroom
The article will be freely available once the embargo has lifted via the following link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2020.1861364
Some animal research is arguably morally wrong, and some animal research is morally bad but could be improved. Who is most likely to be able to identify wrong or bad animal research and advocate for improvements? I argue that philosophical ethicists have the expertise that makes them the likely best candidates for these tasks. I review the skills, knowledge, and perspectives that philosophical ethicists tend to have that makes them ethical experts. I argue that, insofar as Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees are expected to ensure that research is ethical, they must have philosophical ethicists as members.
The book succeeds at least in making it clear that there are many poor pro-choice arguments. Many pro-choice people, unfortunately, rely on slogans and attempts at "gotcha" moments to support and defend their views and critical thinking shows that these responses are often ineffective. These slogans do not provide rational support for pro-choice views and should not be persuasive to anyone who wants to think seriously about the issues. Readers should scan Untangling's table of contents to see many of these common but bad arguments and ways of engaging the issues.
Untangling would be far better though if van der Breggen "untangled" many of the common arguments and responses from abortion critics who also too often rely on slogans, false assumptions, and simplistic bad arguments. A more "fair and balanced" discussion of the many bad arguments given on the issues from all sides would have improved the book since informing abortion critics that they often have bad arguments, with the goal that they adopt better arguments, is a valuable task.
Untangling's weaknesses concern how it engages deeper, more challenging philosophical issues. It often assumes things that need to be argued for and the quickly-developed arguments given on more controversial issues are weak. Here I'll briefly review some of these weaknesses, as they present themselves in the book.
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
Here is an archive of the blog posts written after the publication ofThinking 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!
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!
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.
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/
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.
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:
Any female genital cutting (if not for medically justified reasons or done on consenting adults) is wrong.
If anyfemale 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.
Therefore, any male genital cutting (if not for medically justified reasons or done on consenting adults) is wrong.
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?
.jpg)