Green River College

Phil 102, Section A, Item 7231                                     Winter, 2016             Credits: 5

Classroom: ZWC-104                                                  Noon-12:50pm, daily                                                 

Dr. Andrew V. Jeffery, Instructor                                     

Office Location: SH120-10 Cubical J

Voice mail: x4626[1]

Hours: Th-Fri, 1-2pm                                                  e-mail: ajeffery@greenriver.edu

 

 

Texts/Learning Materials:   

• Mark Timmons, Disputed Moral Issues, 3^rd ISBN :  9780199946792
• OUP’s Companion Website--Student Resources. (http://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780199946792/stud/)
• OUP PPTs created by Mark Timmons (on Canvas)
• Supplementary PPTs created by the Instructor (on Canvas)
• Various Internet Sources and Articles linked in Canvas
• Canvas Pages created by the Instructor

 

Course Description

From the Catalog: An introductory survey of the moral problems confronting contemporary society and civilization.  Helps students better understand and deal with the moral problems confronting them in everyday life.  Includes discussion of such topics as abortion, sexual morality, war, biochemical technology, paternalism, discrimination, and capital punishment.  Satisfies humanities/fine arts/English requirement for AA degree.

Instructor’s Addendum: After a fairly general introduction to moral theories and critical reasoning (Chs. 1-2), the present version of this course will emphasize four topics:
 

Chs.3-4, 6: Sex, Marriage, and Social Justice

Chs. 7, 14: World Hunger, Poverty, and Immigration

Ch. 15: Environment, Climate, and Future Generations

Other topics to be brought up in class discussions or student presentations. 

 

Instructional Methods and Grading Procedures

Traditional lectures will be complimented with class dialogue in which participation and informed contributions will be expected from everyone.  Grades will be based on four topical, non-comprehensive exams, three one-page position papers, two graded online discussions,  attendance/participation, and an optional student presentation on a topic of the student’s choosing.  The lowest of the four exam grades will be thrown out (deleted from the Canvas record at the end of the quarter).  Presentations can begin any time after the 3rd week.

This is a Canvas-augmented course, not a hybrid.  Day to day classroom attendance is still expected and recorded.  Canvas will be used to post some additional resources.  Scores will be recorded on Canvas.  Students should also check their Canvas accounts for announcements, especially if the campus is closed due to inclement weather or the class is cancelled for the day due to instructor illness.  

 

Course-Specific Learning Outcomes

By the end of this course students will be able to: 

1. Correctly employ basic philosophical vocabulary
2. Recognize and name various informal fallacies in ordinary-language arguments
3. Correctly identify, name, and describe at least seven different moral theories and their major proponents.
4. Apply at least two of the above moral theories to each of three or four contemporary moral issues.
5. Recognize which theories are being appealed to in various arguments concerning moral issues revolving around such An improved ability to apply critical reasoning to some of the vital issues in contemporary moral and political discourse.  

 

 

Will the study of ethics make us more ethical?

“ . . . for we are inquiring not in order to know what virtue is, but in order to become good, since otherwise our inquiry would have been of no use.”   
                                                            Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, Bk. 2, Ch. 2

 

A student once caught me by surprise at the opening of senior seminar in ethical theory, “Will this study of ethics make me more ethical?”  My prudent-but-otherwise-not-so-virtuous response was evasive: I had no such course objective stated on my syllabus.  I was only laying out the contemporary state of the discipline, not “discipling.”  Knowledge of the good alone will not make a person good;  whether you become more ethical depends on what you do, not merely on what you know; to be told about the path is not to walk the path—etc.  Subsequently, I have come to hold a what actually a more “classical” view of the matter. The student must, in ethics as in all fields of learning, both practical and theoretical, take responsibility for her own education.  Learning about the nature of the good person will not make you a good person any more than being instructed about auto mechanics will make you a good auto mechanic—you have to learn by doing, you learn to be by learning to do; but education can help. 

On page one of her textbook Analyzing Moral Issues, Judith Boss talks about the infamous Milgram experiments:

. . . subjects were led to believe that they were delivering a series of increasingly painful electric shocks as part of an experiment on the effect of punishment on learning.  In fact, the person who was playing the role of the learner was an accomplice of the experimenter and was not actually receiving the shocks.  When the subjects balked upon hearing the screams of pain from the learner, they were urged to continue t by an experimenter wearing a white lab coat.  Despite the feigned protests of the learner, about two-thirds obeyed the experimenter and continued delivering what they believed were potentially fatal electric shocks.[2] 

The real experiment then, was about how far ordinary people will go against their professed moral beliefs when an authority figure claims to absolve them of responsibility for the consequences and tells them to go ahead and cross a moral line.  Boss gives this further analysis:

. . . those who were most likely to give in to the urging of the authority figure knew that what they were doing was wrong, but were unable to articulate why it was wrong.  Those who were able to resist the authority figure, on the other hand, were able to say why continuing the shocks was wrong.[3]

Boss later concludes that, “ethics education is not about telling people what is right and wrong.  Most people ‘know’ right from wrong. . . . Ethics education helps us articulate moral values and apply moral theory and moral reasoning to a particular issue or real-life moral decision.”[4]  And being ethically reflective and articulate, in and of itself, the Milgram Experiment seems to indicate, gives people important resources for achieving moral autonomy and personal integrity

 

Course Policies

Participation and Conduct: 
Philosophy as a dynamic conversational activity requires partners and practice.  Refusal to participate in opportunities for philosophical dialogue deprives both yourself and your classmates of a vital resource for succeeding in this class.  Participation and Attendance therefore counts for 100 points towards your overall course grade.   Rude or disruptive conduct will not be tolerated.  Carrying on a conversation (or texting, sexting, gaming, etc.) while the instructor is lecturing (or while one of your classmates is giving a presentation) is disrespectful of both the instructor and one’s classmates.  Some people make considerable sacrifices to be here, so respect everyone’s learning experience, please. While discussion on the subject-matter of the course is encouraged, abusive language will not be tolerated and can result in expulsion from the classroom. 

Attendance and Lateness: 
A prerequisite to participation is attendance.  Good participation with sporadic attendance cannot be treated as better than regular but mediocre attendance and participation.  All unexcused absences from class will count against the student’s Participation grade, and excuses will not be automatically granted.

Missed Exams, Presentations, and/or Paper Deadlines:

There are five topical exams scheduled for this class, each worth about a sixth of the course grade.  Every student is expected to either submit a paper or do an oral presentation for another 17%.  Missed exams or presentations can be made up or turned in only with the instructor’s permission, based on the legitimacy of the excuse and availability of a time-slot.  If you know in advance that you will miss a test or deadline due to unavoidable schedule conflicts notify me as soon as possible. 

Plagiarism and Cheating: 
Plagiarism occurs when you knowingly submit someone else’s ideas or words as your own.  You are obliged to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, by always attributing any ideas or arguments that you have borrowed to their proximate sources.  For instance, if an argument was suggested by a fellow student and you chose to use it in your work, even if you modified it, include that information in a footnote.  A finding of plagiarism or other cheating will result in an automatic failure of the assignment or test in question with no opportunity for a make-up.  The incident will also be reported to the Division Chair and possibly also to the Dean of Students.  Repeat offenses are grounds for failing the course.

ADA Statement
If you believe you qualify for course adaptations or special accommodations under the Americans With Disabilities Act, it is your responsibility to contact the Disability Support Services Coordinator in the LSC and provide the appropriate documentation.  If you have already documented a disability or other condition through the GRC Disability Support Services Office, which would qualify you for special accommodations, or if you have emergency medical information or special needs I should know about, please notify me during the first week of class.  The best way to reach me is by Canvas private messaging. You can also reach me by phone at 253-833-9111, extension 4626.  Or, you can schedule an office appointment to meet me in the SH Humanities & English Office area during my posted office hours or at another mutually determined time.  If you use an alternative medium for communicating, let me know well in advance of the meeting (at least one week) so that appropriate accommodations can be arranged.

 

 

Course Outline   (Tentative)

Module 1
Weeks 1-3 :Moral Theories and Critical Reasoning                                Timmons, Chs. 1-2

First Exam

 

Weeks 3-5 :Sex, Marriage, and Social Justice                                         Timmons, Chs 3-4, 6

Second Exam

 

Weeks 5-7 :World Hunger and Poverty                                                  Timmons Ch. 14

Third Exam

 

Weeks 7-10 : Environment, Climate, and Future Generations                  Timmons, Ch. 15                 

Student Presentations

Fourth (Final) Exam :

 

 

 

Presentation Guidelines

Topic Selection

1. Choose a topic you actually care about.  This will help with your motivation in the writing/preparation process. (The topic must have to do with a contemporary moral issue.)
2. In your initial list of choices, designate specific articles found in Timmons, not just general topics. 
3. Select a topic from one of the article-excerpts that appear in Disputed Moral Issues, and--
4. Select one of the questions found at the end of the Syllabus, or one of the Discussion Questions provided by Timmons at the end of the article, OR draft a research question of your own and get it approved by the instructor.

Preparation

1. Write out, in your own words, what you understand the question to be asking and, also in your own words, what the author says in the article that is relevant to the discussion question (try to keep your focus very narrow, as this allows you to go into greater depth and have something more original to say).
2. Consider how different moral theories would approach the question/issue, which theories are appealed to in the source material, and which theories best apply to the question.
3. In considering how to answer the question as you understand it, if needed, go to no more than three outside sources.  Besides the sites linked on Canvas, the library staff or your instructor can advise you on some reliable internet sites. 
4. Write a draft of your own answer to the question as you understand it. Try to keep it as simple as possible, so that you could not possibly be misunderstood. 
5. Research at least two organizations or activist groups involved with this issue.

Presentation (Roughly 10 minutes minimum)

1. State the article or case study you will be discussing, including the page number where it may be found, and the full text of the discussion question you will be discussing, and why you chose this topic.  (2 minutes)
2. In your own words, explain to the class what the issue is, and what the question is asking about it.  (2 minutes)
3. Explain how you would go about answering the question.  You actually need to argue for your thesis, that is, give reasons that are not only sufficient for your own adoption of your answer, but rather reasons such that anyone who carefully considers them would be similarly inclined to adopt that answer. The point is not merely to explain, but to persuade others.(6 minutes)
4. If you relied heavily on outside books, articles, or internet sites, give them credit.
5. Provide information on a way for classmates interested in this issue to become more actively involved, such as contact information for a group that deals with this topic.
6. Open the floor for class discussion. Be prepared to take questions from your instructor and classmates after your presentation. It is a good idea to show that you have anticipated, and have ready answers for, the most serious or obvious objections to your thesis.

 

Other Details

1. Working solo or in teams of two is acceptable. Students who work in teams will receive a joint grade, so if you do elect to do a team presentation, make sure you:
     Do your part well! 
   b.  Team with a partner who will do their part well. 
2. Be gracious and charitable in answering questions. When in doubt about what is being asked, it acceptable to ask for a clarification.
3. The instructor will close off discussion at his discretion. 

 

Sample Questions:

Examples of questions that may be discussed, written about, presented, or which might appear on an exam:

1. 1. Give your own example of something that is plausibly intrinsically valuable and something that is plausibly only extrinsically valuable. Explain your reasoning.
   2. What is the difference between act- consequentialism and rule-consequentialism?
   3. What is value hedonism? Give an example of something that seems intrinsically valuable but, according to the theory, is not. Discuss whether this example proves that value hedonism is false.
   4. What is the doctrine of double effect? Give your own example of an action that the doctrine would apply to, and explain what the doctrine says about the morality of that action.
   5. Explain Kant’s Universal Law formulation of the categorical imperative. Explain how the formulation would apply to either (a) lying promises or (b) helping others in need.
   6. What is the difference between a merely rights-focused approach and a rights-based theory? Why does Timmons make this distinction?
   7. Give your own example of a case in which a virtuous person, acting in character, performs a morally right action. What virtues are exhibited in this case? Explain how the person in your case, in addition to acting rightly, also experienced the appropriate feelings.
   8. What is the difference between a prima facie duty and an all-things-considered duty? Give an example of an action that someone has a prima facie, but not an all-things-considered, duty to perform.
   9. Describe one of Timmons’s arguments for the claim that moral theory can help focus and sharpen our moral thinking about particular issues.
   10. Describe the hypothetical situation in which persons are to decide on basic principles of justice, according to John Rawls’s social contact theory. (HINT: This is the “original position” in which the decisions are made under a “veil of ignorance.”)
   11. Are human beings naturally good, naturally evil, or neither according to Aristotle? Exactly how does Aristotle conceive the relation between human nature and moral virtue?
   12. How independent are we from our biological ancestry?
   13. What is the role of culture in determining our morality?
   14. Cultural relativism is sometimes held to have unacceptable consequences. What are these alleged negative consequences?  Is this whole objection to relativism question-begging?
   15. What role does “universalizability” play in determining what rules we should follow, according to Kant?
   16. Why is it a mistake to suppose that utilitarianism espouses a selfish hedonism?
   17. Is it always prudent to be moral? How would Aristotle answer this question?  How would Kant answer it?  How would Mill answer it?
   18. Are traditional sexual ethics based on pro-natalism? Is there anything wrong with a non-natal ethic?
   19. Should sexual ethics focus on the question of what is the best thing sex can be, or should sexual ethics instead ask only what people have the right to expect of one another? In other words, should we focus on, "What may we do?"  or on "What would be best?"?  
   20. What is the best thing sex can be?
   21. What are the larger society's compelling interests in legislation concerning sex and marriage?
   22. Is there anything morally wrong with masturbation? What about oral or anal sex?
   23. Ideally, should sex always be an expression of love?
   24. Is non-marital sex ever morally permissible? Is it morally preferable?
   25. Should sex be linked to love, or should they be separate?
   26. Describe the (revolutionary?) moral significance of modern birth control.
   27. Is monogamy natural? Is monogamy the best option?  What is wrong with adultery?
   28. If it hasn’t been explicitly discussed with your spouse or partner, does engaging in cybersex without your spouse or primary partner’s knowledge, and with someone whom you never meet in person, still constitute a form of adultery, cheating, or betrayal?
   29. Is anything wrong with polygamy? Is anything wrong with polyamory?
   30. Is “objectification” always morally wrong?
   31. Is prostitution truly a “victimless crime”? Could it be made more “victimless” by legalization and regulation?
   32. Is there anything wrong with prostitution (that we don’t find in other legal lines of work)?
   33. Is pornography harmful? Is there a moral distinction between erotica and porn?
   34. Could the life of a porn star be a good life?
   35. Could it be argued that liberalizing laws on prostitution or pornography should be resisted even if no individuals are harmed, perhaps because there are some things that just should not be commoditized?
   36. Is there a biological basis to homosexuality, or are gender and sexual preference mostly cultural constructs? Does it matter morally?
   37. Is anything wrong with gay marriage? Does marriage need to be "defended"?  What are the strongest arguments for and against extending the legal concept of marriage to include same-sex couples?
   38. Is non-consensual sex always rape?
   39. Does sex under circumstances of deceit constitute non-consensual sex?
   40. Can any traditional sexual mores be supported on secular ethical grounds like Kantianism or utilitarianism? Which ones?  
   41. Are all private consensual arrangements are equal? Are they all morally permissible?
   42. What does it mean to really treat others and ends in themselves in intimate relations?
   43. What makes something count as a ‘perversion’? Is the perverse necessarily morally wrong?
   44. Why might a utilitarian analysis attach prima facie moral rightness to sexual acts solely in virtue of their being sexual acts? Why might a Kantian analysis reach the opposite conclusion?
   45. Cite a number of situations where both (or all) parties are rational, consenting adults such that it is nevertheless the case that it might be argued that the parties in question should refrain from sexual involvement, and explain that reasoning.
   46. Are there dangers in "over-thinking" sex and love? What are they?Is what is natural moral?   Is the unnatural immoral?
   47. Consensual but risky sex carries a number of risks (e.g., AIDS, cervical cancer, herpes, pregnancy, emotional distress, etc.); further, there can also be collateral risks (distressed family members, broken relationships, taxpayer- and insurance-holder funded medical intervention, etc.).   Free-form rock-climbing is also consensual but risky; falls can result in death or permanent debilitation, family members and loved ones will be distressed, taxpayers and insurance holders pay part of the bill for expensive rescues and hospitalizations.   Are risky sex and free-form rock-climbing morally equivalent?  If not, why not?
   48. Construct the strongest case you can FOR or AGAINST the thesis that erotic love is the best thing sex can be and that any sex-act or relationship should be evaluated by whether it promotes or inhibits our capacity for true love. State what moral theory best supports your position, what moral theory best supports, the opposite position, and why your position is better.
   49. The first of the three tests for obscenity set down by the Supreme Court in Miller v. California was that “the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.”  ‘prurient’ is defined as “having or causing to have lascivious or lustful thoughts.”   Does the government have any compelling interest in preventing people from having, or from causing other people to have, lascivious or lustful thoughts, or does this involve either (a) an outmoded or biased demonization of sexuality, or (b) a legally unsupportable infringement on individual privacy of thought?
   50. A Kantian reasoning about whether to confess a past sexual betrayal might think like this: 
       Honesty or complete truthfulness is necessary for ethical, intimate relationships. If I conceal the truth from my partner to produce a desired outcome (or avoid an undesired outcome), because I am afraid of what her reaction will be, I am not treating her an end in herself, but as a means to an end, and thus treating her with less than full respect.  One might even say that consent under false pretenses isn’t even real consent at all, and so continuing to have sex with my wife without informing her of my affair constitutes a subtle form of rape.  
       How would a utilitarian (or other sort of consequentialist) be likely to respond?
   51. Can consensual sadomasochists be good Kantians? Why or why not?  
   52. It seems that the decision to conceive a child in the first place cannot be undertaken for the child’s sake, since if the child is not conceived, no one is made any worse off. If this is so, why isn’t the decision to bring a child into existence always a violation of the Kantian maxim to never use another merely as a means to an end?
   53. In terms of enhancing our children, is genetic intervention essentially different from environmental intervention in a morally relevant way?
   54. If pre-natal genetic enhancements become widely available and medically safe, does it become morally permissible or even obligatory for parents to genetically enhance their offspring? Would it become parentally irresponsible not to enhance your child?
   55. Julian Salvulescu argues that since Nature is already inherently unfair in the its distribution of advantages and disadvantages, “allowing choice to change our biology will, if anything, be more egalitarian—allowing the ungifted to approach the gifted.” Is he right about this?  Why or why not?
   56. Should we, if possible, draw the line at patenting genetically engineered humans? Should genetically enhanced “designer” children need permission from the company that owns the patent on their designer genes before they can legally pass the genes on to children of their own?
   57. How great a deviation from the human genome is required before we can consider a genetically engineered being a nonhuman that could legally, at least, be owned and used a means only? Although it would be very illegal to do this, suppose some laboratory created a transgenic human embryo with a few non-human genes, and then it was carried to term by volunteer from the lab.  Would this child still be, or should this child be considered to be, a human with all the rights of a person?  
   58. Should the laboratory or corporate sponsor be able to claim parental or even property rights over an individual such as the one described in the above question? Would the answer depend more on the percentage of human DNA, the phenotypic attributes of the child, or some other factors?  How should the law regard this creature?
   59. Is the harvesting of frozen embryos left over from fertility treatments for the purpose of saving other people’s lives ethically analogous to parents’ donating their deceased child’s organs for transplantation to other needy children?  Why or why not?  Explain your reasoning and the reasoning for the other side, and why yours is better.
   60. Would harvesting the stem cells of embryos that had been artificially created through SCNT cloning be morally more acceptable than harvesting stem cells from frozen embryos left over from fertility treatments? Would it matter if emptied animal eggs cells had been used to create the cloned zygotes?
   61. Scientists and corporate representatives argue that even unmodified genes should be patentable because such commercial privatization encourages investment in research, which in turn advances medical science, potentially benefitting everyone. Communitarians argue that this privatization erodes what should be a public commons and community resource, restricting the kinds of research that will be pursued and potentially placing restrictions on tissue donation, whereas patients’ rights advocates argue that privatization will erode the individual’s sovereignty over their own body and even their reproductive choices.  Who has the best argument?  How can they best answer the points the other side(s) bring up?
   62. Should a basic human right to health-care be acknowledged?
   63. Does Nature (plants, animals, whole ecosystems, etc.) have intrinsic value apart from its value, instrumental or otherwise, to humans? On what grounds?
   64. Quite apart from any consideration of animal rights or even animal welfare, do Americans have a moral obligation to decrease our meat consumption on purely environmental grounds?
   65. Leopold sums up his land ethic thus: “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”  Do these statements pass the Kantian test of universalizablity?  Could whole ecosystems be properly considered as Kantian “ends in themselves”?
   66. Do future generations of our descendants have a right to a healthy environment that we can violate in the present through ecological negligence and recklessness? If so, what is the basis of such a right and what duties does it impose on us, the present generation.
   67. What is the point of defining "environmental ethics" (the way Mark Timmons and Tom Regan do) , as necessarily according direct moral standing to a larger class of beings than those possessing sentience?   Isn't this simply to beg the question, "In virtue of what does something have direct moral standing?"?

 

[1] I am really BAD about checking voicemail.  The best way to contact me is through private message on Canvas.  The second best way is via campus e-mail.

[2] Boss, Analyzing Moral Issues, 5^th edition; 1. 

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid, 15.