#PublicPhilosophy

I'm now an Associate Editor at 1000 Word Philosophy!

The page is currently being redone, but once it's done, I may be asking YOU to write some very concise and tightly argued essays for it!

A Review of The Moral Rights of Animals

Mylan Engel Jr. and Gary Lynn Comstock (eds.), The Moral Rights of Animals, Lexington, 2016, 296pp., $100.00 (hbk), ISBN 9781498531900.

Reviewed byDan Hooley, University of Toronto

http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/68768-the-moral-rights-of-animals/ 

This book contains my essay, "Tom Regan on 'Kind' Arguments Against Animal Rights and For Human Rights."

Thanks, Dan!

Writing Tips

There are many excellent guidelines on writing philosophy: James Pryor's, Michael Huemer's, and more (see this Daily Nous roundup of resources). I thought I'd offer a few suggestions also, as they come to mind:

• Make an outline, with section headings. We've all been told to do this for a long time, but it is really helpful. And keep those numbered section headings in the paper so the overall structure is clear. A well organized paper almost writes itself: you just have to fill in the details of the various sections. These sections are the parts that form the whole, and if you've got all those parts in mind, your presentation (or paper), again, is really organized and easy to write, and read. 
• Learn to use Microsoft Word's "Headings" feature, which will allow you to make a table of contents using Word's feature to do that. This too helps keep the organization clear. Google Docs has this "make a table of contents from headings" feature also. 
• Make your introduction short, no more than half a page. Tell your reader your topic (which should be narrow), what you are going to say or argue about it (that is, your main point, your thesis, which should be brief, e.g., "This argument is unsound," "This premise is false," "This isn't a good reason to believe that," etc., and what the structure of your paper will be: tell the audience what you are going to do (give them a "roadmap" of the presentation) and what the parts of your discussion are going to be (and how they build on each other). That's it and not much more. 
• Arguments: your arguments is just your main point(s), you conclusions(s) and the reason(s) you give in favor of those conclusion(s). Lay that all out in a step-by-step process. Stating the argument in numbered premises and conclusions is often very helpful for that, and that makes explaining the argument and objecting to the argument easier and clearer. 
• Break up longer sentences. If a sentence can be broken up into shorter sentences, do it: that always improves readability. 
• Make each sentence as short as it can be. Rigorously edit to cut words and be maximally concise.
• Each paragraph should have one, and only one, main topic. You should be able to say, "This paragraph is about that." Short paragraphs are fine. 
• Use ordinary words, unless you absolutely must use some special word. This helps you be concise and clear. Write so as many people as possible can understand you: do not alienate people with big words. 
• Use "I": talk to the reader. This helps you be concise and clear. 
• Generally, don't ask rhetorical questions. Make statements and support them. Don't ask questions and hope that the reader will respond how you hope they will: they might not.
• Revise, rewrite, rethink. After your write, reflect and revise. What can you say more concisely? What can you cut? Cut what distracts and isn't necessary to your overall purpose.

See also these rules on op-ed writing.

Here's a more recent post by me "Organization and Clarity in Writing: Seeing the Forest Through the Trees"

Here is an earlier post with some essay evaluation standards:

Philosophy Essay Evaluation Sheet

Here are some concerns for argumentative essays. How well does your essay address them?

1.      Introduction: do you have an introduction that explains the topic(s) you will address, or the question(s) you will answer?

2.      Thesis: does your paper have a thesis, that is, a conclusion that you try to support?

3.      Arguments: does your paper give an explicit argument or arguments in support of your conclusion?

a.      Do you explicitly state your premises, and why they should be accepted?

b.      Do you explicitly explain how your premises lead to your conclusions?

4.      Do you respond to any objections or counterarguments? Do you respond to questions that readers might have about your arguments?

5.      Does your paper have a conclusion that reviews what you discussed and what you argued for?

6.      Organization: could your paper be outlined to show its structure? Is it well organized?

7.      Paragraphs: does each paragraph focus on one, and only one, topic?

8.      Writing: is your paper written in plain, ordinary English? Do you use ‘fancy’ words – words that people wouldn’t use in ordinary conversation – only if it is absolutely necessary?

9.      Are there any grammatical and spelling errors?

10.  Are your sentences short and clear? Did you look closely at each sentence to ensure it makes sense?

11.  Did you proofread?

12.  Did you get someone else to read your paper and give you helpful feedback for revision?

13.  Did you revise your paper?

14.  Would someone who is unfamiliar with the paper’s issues, the relevant readings, and your course be able to understand and learn from your paper?

Tips for Civil Discourse, by Jon Camp

Reasonable Humans and Animals: An Argument for Vegetarianism

"Reasonable Humans and Animals: An Argument for Vegetarianism"

BETWEEN THE SPECIES. Issue VIII. August 2008

In 3 page PDF.

“It is easy for us to criticize the prejudices of our grandfathers, from which our fathers freed themselves. It is more difficult to distance ourselves from our own views, so that we can dispassionately search for prejudices among the beliefs and values we hold.”

-  Peter Singer

"It's a matter of taking the side of the weak against the strong, something the best people have always done." 

-  Harriet Beecher Stowe

  

In my 15 or so years of experience of teaching philosophy, ethics and logic courses, I have found that no topic brings out the rational and emotional best and worst in people than ethical questions about the treatment of animals. This is not surprising since, unlike questions about social policy and about what other people should do, moral questions about animals are personal. As philosopher Peter Singer has observed, “For most human beings, especially in modern urban and suburban communities, the most direct form of contact with non-human animals is at mealtimes: we eat them.”^[1] For most of us, then, our own behavior is challenged when we reflect on the reasons given to think that change is needed in our treatment of, and attitudes toward, animals. That the issue is personal presents unique challenges, and great opportunities, for intellectual and moral progress.

Here I present some of the reasons given for and against taking animals seriously and reflect on the role of reason in our lives. I examine the common assumption that there is nothing wrong with harming animals -- causing them pain, suffering, and an early death – so they might be eaten. We will see if moral “common sense” in this area can survive critical scrutiny. Our method, useful for better understanding all ethical debates, is to identify unambiguous and precise moral conclusions and make all the reasons in favor of the conclusion explicit, leaving no assumption unstated.  

Table of Contents for out of print "Ethics for Everyday," edited by David Benatar

ETHICS FOR EVERYDAY

David Benatar, ed.

McGraw Hill, 2002

Telling lies, gossiping, practicing adultery, gambling, smoking, using offensive language, corporal punishment of one’s children, copying copyrighted material – these are moral issues that affect, and often deeply affect, our daily lives. Everyday Ethics is a collection of readings devoted to ethical problems like these that confront ordinary people in everyday life. The anthology covers the areas of communication, sex, parents and children, animals, money matters, and body and environment. Nearly all selections are from the late 1980s and the 1990s.

On "Moral Status"

Moral Status’s Status

What is the moral status of animals? What’s the moral status of fetuses? What’s the moral status of the permanently comatose? While questions like these are sometimes asked (also about ‘moral standing’), I have written a few paragraphs where I argue that the term “moral status” shouldn’t be used.

A Review of "Philosophy Comes to Dinner"

Philosophy Comes to Dinner: Arguments About the Ethics of Eating, Andrew Chignell, Terence Cuneo, and Matthew C. Halteman (eds.), Routledge, 2016, 299pp., $33.95 (pbk), ISBN 9780415806831.

Reviewed by Tina Rulli, University of California, Davis

This book contains my and Dan Hooley's "A Moral Argument for Veganism."

Thanks, Tina!

On the "What's Wrong?" Blog: Abortion and Animal Rights - Animal Rights and Abortion

What’s Wrong With Linking Abortion and Animal Rights?

Posted on July 16, 2016 | Leave a comment

Nathan Nobis, an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Morehouse College, kindly contributed the following piece to What’s Wrong?  Professor Nobis is the author of many articles and book chapters on topics concerning ethics and animals (e.g., vegetarianism, experimentation) and the ethics of abortion, an unpublished 2003 essay on the relations between these topics, and a review of a recent book on these topics’ intersections, which inspired this essay.  What’s Wrong? is grateful to Professor Nobis for permission to publish this original piece here.

Summary:

Should your views on abortion influence your views on animal rights? Should your views on the moral status of animals influence your views on the moral status of human fetuses?

Generally, no. Most arguments against abortion have no implications for animal rights and those that might seem to be poor arguments against abortion. And arguments for animal rights only have implications for rare, later abortions of conscious fetuses, not the majority of abortions that affect early, pre-conscious fetuses.

On the other sides, though, a common of objection to animal rights does support a pro-life view and an influential feminist pro-choice argument does suggest positive implications for animals, though.

Overall, the topic of abortion presents with an inherent complexity never analogously present in animal rights issues – the perspective of the pregnant woman whose life and body the fetus depends on – and so the issues are importantly distinct. 

Questions, Answers and Evidence

I just saw that Moore's Principia Ethica is online. It has a great beginning, relevant to all writers and researchers, in many fields:

Preface.

"It appears to me that in Ethics, as in all other philosophical studies, the difficulties and disagreements, of which its history is full, are mainly due to a very simple cause: namely to the attempt to answer questions, without first discovering precisely what question it is which you desire to answer."

Figuring out what exact question(s) about a topic one is trying to answer determines how one will answer those questions and what types of evidence is needed to answer those questions. 

Thanks, G.E.!