Assignment #5: Schedule of upcoming readings/discussions

1. Wednesday, April 2: Ch. 21, Brison, Pornography

2. Monday, April 7: Capital Punishment

3. Wednesday, April 9: (Drafts due: MSCRE): Torture

4. Monday, April 14: Just-War Theory

Assignment #5: AI Ethics

1. Read: "Ethics of AI and Robotics"

Ethics of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Reminder:

MSCRE deadline #3. Initial draft of essay, due: 4/9. Students missing this deadline will have one letter grade subtracted from their final grade for the project.

Assignment #4: Abortion and Animal Rights

Since I thought it might be interesting to combine the first and third sections of our text, 

Read: Kathie Jenni, "Dilemmas in Social Philosophy: Abortion and Animal Rights":

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23560312

Read also: chapters 6 & 7 of our text.

Supplemental: 

1. Silliman and DKBJ, "Multicriterial Value Incrementalism"

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_Ok_EXn3Gk7B3AqmPbFxf7KtV1dpoVv_xUtF9KCSbWU/edit

2. DKBJ, "Confessions of a Sentimental Philosopher":

fshow

Or, for those interested in tracing the ill-effects of anthropocentrism across epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics, see my "The Final Conceit":

fshow

3. (For plant lovers!) Gary Francione, "What about Plants?"

Basic Elements of Animal Ethics

1. The problem of “human exceptionalism.”  Traditional thought (ethics, in this context) is anthropocentric – locating value exclusively in humanity – and rests on some version of what’s often called the “humans-only” view, perhaps confusing “all morality/concepts of moral value comes from humans” with “all morality is for humans.”  Hence, humans are said to have “unique moral status” (but see Darwin, “The moral effluvium of a discredited metaphysics”).

2. Basic notion of ethics: doing what is right involves treating those affected by one’s actions with the sort of respect they deserve.

3. And, whatever they deserve, we are constrained by the basic notion of justice, namely, treating like cases alike (Aristotle; the very nature of impartiality).

4. Like cases identified by morally relevant similarities/differences:

If we think it permissible to treat nonhuman N in fashion T, but not human H, we must ask why the difference in treatment?  The answer will turn on certain capacities, C, of H.  If N and H differ in that N lacks C, this is a morally relevant difference.  But if N and H both share C, then the similarities are morally relevant, and, furthermore, the treatment is unjust (“speciesist”).

5. The (conscious?) capacity to suffer (not simply be harmed, as all things can be), or sentience, typically the main candidate for C. (Characterizable as moral agents (initiating and receiving) and moral patients (receiving)).

“The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but "Can they suffer?” (Jeremy Bentham; 18^th century).

Conclusion: a necessary condition for fulfilling our moral obligations, therefore, is to identify all MA and MP who possess the morally relevant characteristic(s), C, can suffer, or are, perhaps, “SOALs.”

6. Animal ethologists routinely identify the sentience-related capacities of Ns. (Ethics requires scientific observation.)

7. My theory: MVI (problems addressed: conflict in duties/obligations; perfectionism (anti-incrementalism); unicriterialism.

Q&A #3: Euthanasia

1. Read: Chapters 4 & 5.

Questions.  

Tooley:

1. Distinguish voluntary, non-voluntary, and involuntary euthanasia.

2. Why does Tooley claim Callahan's notion of euthanasia is overly narrow?

3. How does Tooley reject the "divine ownership objection"?

4. How does Tooley define the "moral wrongness" of actions?

5. Are the acts of killing and letting die significantly morally different?

6. How does Tooley avoid the "slippery slope" arguments against the direct killing of innocents?

7. Should VAE be legalized?  If so, who should be authorized to commit VAE?

Reminder: Deadlines for MSCRE

 1. One (declarative) sentence thesis statement, due: 2/5. I will not accept for any credit essays composed on unapproved topics. Students missing this deadline will have one letter grade subtracted from their final grade for the project. (Example, a “B” essay received on the final class from a student who fails to meet deadline #1 will receive a “C.”)

2. Outline and tentative bibliography, due: 2/24. Students missing this deadline will have one letter grade subtracted from their final grade for the project.

3. Initial draft of essay, due: 4/9. Students missing this deadline will have one letter grade subtracted from their final grade for the project.

4. Final version of essay: due on the final day of class.

Assignment #2: Abortion

1. Read: Chapters 2 & 3.

Questions for consideration/discussion on Monday:

Lee & George:

1. Are human embryos human beings?

2. What distinguishes the dualistic and evaluative versions of the "no-person" arguments in favor of abortion?

3. What are the implications of the gradualistic (changes in degree) nature of emerging capacities for the treatment of embryos/fetuses?

4. Must full parental responsibilities (and human obligations to others generally) be voluntarily assumed?

5. Is the harm of death (to the fetus) a (much, according to our authors) greater harm than a continued, unwanted pregnancy?

Little:

1. Why does Little suggest that expanding our view of morality beyond rights to value is the key to understanding the moral status of the developing fetus and our attendant obligations?

2. Why does Little see it as dangerously misleading to describe a fetus as a "potential person."

3. On what basis does Little characterize abortions as "letting die" (and, therefore, not a "wrongful killing," or murder).

4. How does Little describe and employ "norms of responsible creation"?

5. How does Little defend the "decency" of abortion while maintaining "respect for burgeoning life and creation"?

Assignment #1: Darwall's introductory chapter; handouts, syllabus

Things to do:

1. Review Handouts CPE, BR, MSCRE, and the syllabus.

2. Purchase a copy of the text.

3. Read: Darwall, Chapter 1.

Questions/topics for discussion:

1. Create a flow chart identifying (Darwall's conception of) the various branches/components of philosophical ethics.

2. What's the difference between the theories of contractarianism and contractualism?

3. How do consequentialism and deontology distinguish the "right" and the "good"?

4. How do virtue theorists differ from consequentialists and deontologists?

5. Research and comment on "care" ethics.