SCCC Intro to Ethics - CD

My blog

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 15 May 2007 01:05:00 +0000

This is a link to my personal blog: http://berto-meister.blogspot.com/ in case you guys are interested in learning all kinds of random new things and/or sporadically amusing yourselves.

The blog is made up primarily of video files that I find online, especially some very good documentaries and presentations by world-leading intellectuals on everything ranging from philosophy, to science, to economics, to religion, to history, etc. In between the more sophisticated entries I do make it a point to regularly include humorous stuff because life just isn't quite the same without some good laughter.

Not much on politics, I'm afraid, since I'm more interested in educating and communicating ideas than with debating and fighting. My hope is that the material I post on this blog can matter today just as much as it could in ten years or twenty, and although political controversies are certainly important, I don't want to clog the historical archives with stuff to which future visitors could not relate.

If you find it worth your while, you can always subscribe to receive daily e-mails whenever new entries are posted. Feel free to share with others as well.

I don't know why I forgot to mention it, but it's been a great pleasure introducing you to some of the ideas that make moral philosophy such an interesting and important discipline. Although we were a rather small group, I really enjoyed the diversity of backgrounds and beliefs that could amiably be discussed and analyzed. I hope you guys keep in touch; you know how to find me, and if you ever come across something you think I might find interesting, I'd be very grateful if you could share that with me.

Bye!
Berto

Abortion

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 14 May 2007 15:29:00 +0000

Since our heated debate about abortion last week, I thought I'd show you guys how professional philosophers debate ethical and philosophical issues. In the audio below, Don Marquis presents his objections against Peter Singer's views on abortion and infanticide (the latter favors these two under certain conditions), and argues that abortion is morally wrong.

Notice, first of all, that both philosophers explain what positions they have in common, and how they acknowledge the correct points their opponents make. This is critical: you have to assume some sort of common ground if you are to convince someone your point is correct, and you have to understand exactly what it is that you are arguing against.

Notice also how once they have correctly stated their opponent's arguments, they either find fault with that logic (which doesn't happen very often, since these guys are pretty smart), or they show how those arguments actually entail some logical consequences that presumably no one (including its proponent) would accept as true.

You can decide for yourself who makes the best arguments...
.

noreply@blogger.com (Maureen L) — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:21:00 +0000

I loved the clip on gay marriage - the guy is wonderfully sarcastic - but he is saying what all people for gay marriage are thinking, 2 people who just want to commit themselves to each other should be allowed to get married no matter what their sexual preference is!

Gay Marriage

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 12 May 2007 14:49:00 +0000

I stumbled upon this online, and thought you guys might enjoy this, especially Maureen:

Social Contract

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 09 May 2007 16:35:00 +0000

This paper might help you understand Rawls a little bit better.

Howard Roark

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 09 May 2007 13:49:00 +0000

This scene is from the film The Fountainhead, written by Ayn Rand. The reason I'm posting it here is that most of this speech reflects some Nietzschean ideals (except for the last minute), and it presents a very interesting contrast between traditional systems of morality with the morality of individuality and creative powers.

noreply@blogger.com (Mo Cleary) — Sun, 06 May 2007 15:56:00 +0000

I like Peter Singer. I can agree with his views and openness about the topics of decision in this interview. I think that he was saying that although were are not perfect and have different views that we can and should do more to help in ending all the suffering that occurs in the world and if we have to end a life (by choice) let it be done peacefully and humanely. In doing this the consequences of our action would be a benefit. I had a hard time about the sex with animals and a child, I can't see a benefit to any child who is sexually used by an adult for me that is just abuse.

Peter Singer

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 02 May 2007 18:14:00 +0000

Here is an interview of Australian utilitarianist philosopher Peter Singer to give you a better idea as to who he is, what his views are, and how he defends them.

Nietzsche documentary

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 02 May 2007 18:06:00 +0000

This might help you understand Nietzsche's background a bit better. It's not exactly the best interpretation of his life and philosophy (and the relationship between the two), but it should give you some ideas that might clarify the reading.

noreply@blogger.com (Mo Cleary) — Wed, 02 May 2007 03:09:00 +0000

I have watch the West Wing, it's a good show. I'm sorry I missed that one esp. taking this course, I would have like to see the whole show to see what lead up to that scene, quotes with questions like that do leave a person speechless.

noreply@blogger.com (Maureen L) — Tue, 01 May 2007 12:15:00 +0000

He had some very interesting questions and I would like to know what the philosophers would have to say about them. I know it was just a TV show, but the so called Dr. had no answers for him.

Following scripture

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 05:11:00 +0000

Here is something interesting I came across tonight:

Change in schedule

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:26:00 +0000

Since class was canceled yesterday, I have been forced to change our schedule for the rest of the semester.

Tomorrow we'll finish up Kant and hear oral presentations by Ista and Angela, which should catch us up on that regard.

Next week we'll concentrate on Utilitarianism. Instead of reading the entire reading in the Solomon book, you will now only be responsible for reading chapters 1, 2 and 4 (all for Monday). Then on Tuesday we'll finish up loose ends and go over this reading on animal rights by Australian utilitarianist philosopher Peter Singer, who currently teaches at Princeton.

Then we'll be caught up with the schedule and can go on as previously stated in the class calendar.

By the way, Theresa says she's willing to trade with anyone interested in going later than they are scheduled, so find her if you are interested in this opportunity.

Oral Presentations

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 03:36:00 +0000

Here is the random order in which the oral presentations will be given (except for Ista, who volunteered to go first):

Ista - Monday, April 16
Angela - Wednesday, April 18
Cindy - Monday, April 23
Mo - Wednesday, April 25
Kristin - Monday, April 30
Lori - Wednesday, May 2
Theresa - Monday, May 7
Maureen - Wednesday, May 9
Nikki - Wednesday, May 9

noreply@blogger.com (Mo Cleary) — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:10:00 +0000

Brains and Bodies was also very interesting stuff. I know that when I'm in a situation the hairs on my arms stand up, my hearts beating alittle faster and my stomach is tight, while my brain is telling me that everything will be ok, theres nothing to be afriad of. Phantom limbs - my uncle didn't have a phantom limb but had a fake leg form the knee down and he used to scratch it when it itched.

noreply@blogger.com (Mo Cleary) — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:23:00 +0000

The chimp within was very interesting. I think there are many simularites between chimps and humans. I believe that morality comes from within based on feelings, reason and experience, as well as from your religion( if you have one). I think that I would pull the lever, then push the person, by pulling the lever the train is doing the actual killing. My baby I would just try to keep the baby from making noise without harming or killing.

Morality and Evolution

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:12:00 +0000

Here is another audio of a Radio Lab episode dealing with the nature of morality. This is based on literally the latest, state-of-the-art work being done in philosophy and neuro-science. The interesting thing about it is that it seems to provide empirical confirmation that Hume was right: our moral feelings are based on the kind of biological creatures we are.

The more radical claim this scientific evidence confirms is that we don't get our sense of morality from up high (from God or reason), but from down below: from "the chimp within" (as a result of evolution).

Interesting stuff, huh? Again, I'd love to see comments.

Brains and Bodies

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:06:00 +0000

Since we were talking a little bit about free will and the relationship between our brain and our bodies yesterday, I figured you guys/gals might enjoy listening to this section of a Radio Lab episode.

The first part of the episode is the one directly related to the relationship between our brain and our body, and how it's not exactly the case that only our brain controls our body, but that it also works the other way around.

Then there's some stuff about phantom limbs that I think is simply truly fascinating. We study this phenomenon in much more detail in philosophy classes.

I'd love to see some comments on this audio.

Term Paper

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 14:08:00 +0000

Due date: Wednesday, May 2^nd (earlier papers will be accepted, and appreciated)

Font: Verdana
Size: 10 (this is the same as Times New Roman 12, but easier for me to read)
Double Spaced
Margins: One inch top, bottom, left and right
Header: Your name
Footer: Page Number

Write a 10-12 page paper on any ethical issue of your choice. The assignment is for you to take a position on the ethical issue you choose and attempt to convince your readers that your point of view on the matter is the one they should adopt themselves. This is an exercise in rational persuasion, which means that you must provide well thought out arguments that reasonable people would be willing to entertain, and possibly even adopt, considering your arguments are good. In other words, you must attempt to explain why your position is correct by providing reasons and well constructed logical arguments.

This assignment requires, as one of its purposes, that you think hard about some idea and provide some sort of principle (or set of principles) that justifies your position. Does using the principle you propose deductively entail some logical consequence that you would not be willing to accept? If so, then that is probably not a very good principle, and may require modification or rejection.

This paper requires no outside sources. In fact, I am discouraging them. I am not interested in what other people think about this issue, but in how you can support your claims through well reasoned and clearly articulated arguments.

If you do end up having to reference something (like the material we have covered during the semester), be sure to acknowledge that in citations. Plagiarism, defined as the use of sources other than your own ideas, whether in verbatum copying or in paraphrasing, is a very serious academic offence, which will not be tolerated. I am very good at catching instances of plagiarism, and will fail papers that are plagiarized, so just be honest with your work. Apart from that, this is an ethics course, so don’t cheat.

Before you start writing your papers, run your topics by me for approval. I’d like to have an idea of what you’re working on, and how you’re approaching your papers, so that you don’t waste your time doing something that will not help your paper.

Hume Questions

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 03:38:00 +0000

Here are a few questions on Hume, like I promised.

What are some of the arguments Hume employs in order to show that reason does not motivate the will?
What are some of the arguments Hume employs in order to show that moral judgments are not based on reason?
What are relations of ideas and what are matters of fact? How are they different? How do we come to know them? What principle distinguishes them?
If, as Hume argues, morality is not based on reason, can it be objective somehow, or do the arguments we've seen so far point toward a radical relativism?
Why can't morality be found through reason in the relationship between objects?
Why can't morality be found through reason in matters of fact?
What is the is/ought (or naturalistic) fallacy?

Morality and the emotions

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 15:11:00 +0000

Here are links to a few very short articles on the existence of moral feelings in monkeys. The first is from the Freakonomics column in the New York Times; the second is from Scientific American. We'll discuss their significance in class, but see if you can come up with some ideas on your own in the meantime.

Also, for those of you interested in the scientific explanation of why we "feel" that incest is wrong, here is a link to the article that explains it. This research has recently been referenced in various reputable scientific journals.

Test Sample Questions

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 04:12:00 +0000

Here are a few sample questions to help you study. I'll try to post some about Hume on Tuesday.

What is the strongest argument Socrates presents to Crito against the idea that it would be not only in his best interest, but just and virtuous to escape from prison?
Socrates believes that one ought always to obey the laws of the state, even when they are unjust. Why is this so?
What do you make of the idea of one's "implied contract" with the state?
Despite the seemingly overwhelming evidence that it would be in his best interest to escape from prison, Socrates believes that being moral is more in one's self-interest than being immoral. What reasons does he offer to support this point of view?
In The Republic, Socrates and his friends are trying to figure out what justice is. What definition does Polemarchus offer? How does Socrates refute it?
What definition does Thrasymachus offer? What are some of the arguments he provides to support his definition? Are these good arguments?
Socrates seems to refute the definition of justice Thrasymachus provides. The argument he uses to do this doesn't actually work, however. What is this argument?
After Thrasymachus leaves frustrated, Glaucon presses on the issue and provides some very powerful arguments supporting the idea that it is better to be unjust than to be just. This creates a very challenging standard for Socrates to overcome. What are the two main arguments Glaucon presents?
How does Socrates attempt to overcome these objections? Do his arguments work?
The myth of the cave provides, by way of analogy, the metaphysical support Socrates needs in order to support his contention concerning the primacy of the state (as opposed to the individual). How does Socrates do this?
What is the argument in "the ring of Gyges"?
Why is it important for Socrates that the soul be immortal?
Aristotle presents a teleological ethics; he believes that all actions are done for the sake of something. What is this something for the sake of which all actions are done?
How does Aristotle attempt to figure out what happiness depends on? What do the ideas of function and proper excellence have to do with happiness?
According to Aristotle, what is the function of man?
In what does virtue consist? Why is it not enough that one possess certain faculties?
What is the relationship between virtue and pleasure for Aristotle? Do you agree with his position? Why?
What is the definition of happiness that Aristotle proposes?
What is the definition of virtue for Aristotle? How does he figure out what virtue is?
What are the differences between intellectual virtues and moral virtues?
Aristotle, in a very important passage in his Ethics, says "it is by our conduct in our intercourse with other men that we become just or unjust.... In a word, acts of any kind produce habits or characters of the same kind. Hence we ought to make sure that our acts be of a certain kind; for the resulting character varies as they vary. It makes no small difference, therefore, whether a man be trained from his youth up in this way or in that, but a great difference, or rather all the difference." What is Aristotle talking about, and what is its significance?
What are 5 conditions required for an act to be virtuous, according to Aristotle?
There might be a question where I list some character traits, and you are supposed to arrange them as deficiencies, means and excesses, and then figure out which would be the virtues, according to Aristotle.
Aristotle believes that the right amount of pride, when there is merit behind it, is a virtue, a good thing. This goes in direct contradiction of Judeo-Christian doctrine, which considers pride as one of the seven deadly sins. What are we to make of this character trait? Notice that "the proper amount, and in the right way" makes all the difference for Aristotle.
For Aristotle, morality doesn't consist in following a specific set of rules, as in Christianity, but in being a certain type of person. What do you make of this? Is it more important to do the right thing, independently of how you feel about it, or is it more important to be the kind of person who does certain kinds of things? Why?
What are the three types of friendship Aristotle identifies? Which is the best? Why?
Why is making tons of money not the good life?
Why is the good life a rational life? Why not just indulge in physical pleasures?
Why is someone painfully doing the right thing not considered virtuous by Aristotle?
Plato and Aristotle have a drastically different view from Hobbes regarding the relationship between the state and the individual. On the one hand, Socrates argues, the individual could not be an individual without the precondition of a state in which he/she was born and raised. Not only this, a society could continue to exist even when its individual members ceased to exist (though not all of them at once). On the other hand, Hobbes argues, there could not be a society without individual members that came together and formed the group. In other words, for Plato and Aristotle, the individual is only possible thanks to the state, while for Hobbes, the state is only possible due to individuals. Who is right? How can we solve this problem?
What does it mean to say that psychological egoism is unfalsifiable?
Hobbes creates a very difficult challenge for himself: he denies that morality can be based on any objective realm to which we have no access, that it cannot be based on God, that it cannot be based on any kind of teleological conception of the universe. In what does he base it, then?
What is the state of nature, according to Hobbes?
What are some of the problems of the sate of nature?
As an empiricist, how does Hobbes define what is good and what is evil?
What does Hobbes mean when he says that all people are equal?
The fact that people are basically equal creates a major problem. What is this problem?
What does the condition of war consist in for Hobbes?
Hobbes has a very negative view of humanity, and we may not like it, but he thinks that through our own actions we actually show that we agree with him. What is he talking about?
Why does Hobbes think that there is no such thing as justice or injustice in the state of nature?
How does reason save us from the state of nature?
In matters of morality, what is a law of nature for Hobbes?
What are the first two rules of reason Hobbes identifies?
Why does Hobbes think that some contracts are immediately void?
What kind of rights is it impossible to rationally renounce? Why?
What is the role of the sovereign in the commonwealth?
Why does it make no sense to abide by the terms of a social contract when there is no sovereign?
What does Hobbes think freedom consists in?
How does game theory (prisoner's dilemma) show a different way of arriving at the need to establish a social contract? What is the problem with pursuing one's individual self-interest? What is the moral of the experiments?
What would social contract theory have to say about the following issues: abortion, gay marriage, the death penalty, an official religion, sexual harassment, racial discrimination, recreational drug use, stem cell research, helping old ladies cross the street, wasting one's talents, sexual promiscuity, getting tattoos?

Hope that helps.

Yale Lecture on Plato

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:57:00 +0000

This is a lecture delivered by Anthony Kronman, philosopher and law professor at Yale University, where he provides a nice explanation of part of Plato's Republic. For our purposes, the stuff we are concerned with is that concerning the reality of the Forms vs. that of individual things (beauty itself vs. beautiful things). He explains, and critiques, the metaphysical assumptions which support and explain Plato's views on democracy in a very interesting way, and why Plato could not possibly favor democracy as a good political ideal.

It's a very good lecture, in my opinion, until he starts arguing for creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) as a solution to the problems faced by Plato, which takes place toward the very end, but everything up to that point is rather interesting.

I hope it helps you better understand Plato.

Don't know if this will work

noreply@blogger.com (Lori Cina) — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:21:00 +0000

Hey everyone it's me, Lori, I don't if I'm doing this right or not, but hopefully it will post. I'm very computer illiterate!!! Berto, I kept trying to get in the blog even though it said my invitation expired and I think it finally worked anyway. I don't understand how, but here I am. I can't seem to get the videos to work though. Nothing happens when I click on the play arrow. I know all of you are probably going to laugh at me when you read this, but I have know idea what I'm doing. I HATE computers!!!!!! Could it be because I still have dial up and not high speed internet. I know, I'm behind the times!!!! See you all at class after the break. Lori

Islam Vs. Christianity

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 05:12:00 +0000

I found this today, and thought you might find it funny as well.