Fluent Essays

The Interspecies Marriage Discussion (Discussion 9) Purpose: The purpose of this discussion is for you to think critically about ethical questions in everyday contexts. This is not a context which we will likely encounter in our life-times, but in thinking about it, you will get answers to questions which we do encounter in our lives today. The purpose for this discussion also is to see why you hold the stance which you do. It is easy to say what you think, but it is hard to back it up in a debate. This is an extreme case, but working with it makes every-day cases easier. A phrase which I commonly say to my lecture students is you are not entitled to your opinion, you are entitled to ones you can back-up with facts or good arguments. The Case: Far in the future, a few hundred years after we have mastered interstellar travel, we encountered a species of equally advanced alien peoples, we can call them the Rlyehians (Links to an external site.). In reality, it is very unlikely that they will be able to learn and speak our languages, but suppose either that they can speak at least one of our languages or that we can learn theirs. Despite these seeming difficulties, we foster trade relations and cultural exchanges, information flows back and forth. Eventually, a human and a Rlyehian grow to have feelings for each other and fall in love. We know their customs regarding this, and they know ours. It just so happens that for both the next step is a form of marriage. But remember, Rlyehians are not a part of our species, they are not human. Tasks: 1. For your initial post, you need to: 1. Think carefully about the above case and then explain whether you think marriage between people of different species is morally permissible. To help you get your answer, think about these questions: What is this analogous to? Are there any contemporary debates (particularly those about marriage) which are similar to this? 2. Say why you think that. As always with these cases, you should not say merely that this is how you feel, but rather explain why you have that feeling.  3. Say how you think another student may reply to your stance. 2. Reply to 2 other students in this class who have opposing views to you or take on the role as the devils advocate and object to them. And, if possible, avoid replying in the way that they thought someone might reply. To Succeed: 1. Make sure you are clear about your stance, that you do not devolve into name-calling and uncivil behavior. 2. Debate and replies to replies are encouraged as this is practice for real-world debates. 3. Make sure that you have all of the above points in your posts. 4. I will comment replies if the post is very off-the-mark in the interpretation of the case, if it is unduly inflammatory, or otherwise not appropriate. The Global Warming Discussion (Discussion 10) . Purpose: The purpose of this discussion is for you to think critically about ethical and semi-metaphysical questions and why you think the way that you do and for you to argue for them. It is easy to say what you think, but it is hard to back it up in a debate. This is an extreme case, but working with it makes every-day cases easier. The Case: Here is an incomplete argument, with two possible ways it could go: 1. The effects of global warming will not affect me or any living person today in our lifetime. 2. The cost of preventing it will cause some suffering in my lifetime (call it growing pains). 3. If global warming happens, it will cause suffering generations down the road, far greater than those today to prevent it. Suppose that these three are in fact true (this is totally made up by me, so dont worry about the facts for them). Now, for these are two possible sentences we could have for the fourth line: · (4A) Future people do not exist so they don’t count in our moral figuring. (We only have duties to existing things) · (4B) Though future people do not exist, they will and so count into our moral figuring. (We have duties to some non-existent things) If you think (4A) is true, this leads you, naturally, to the following conclusion: · (5A) Therefore, it is morally wrong for us to prevent global warning as the results of preventing it will harm existing people.  But, there is another option, if you think (4B) is true, then we have this conclusion to the argument: · (5B) Therefore, it is morally right to prevent global warming as the results of not preventing it will harm future people far more than the results of preventing it will current people. Tasks: 1. For your initial post, you need to: 1. Think carefully about the above argument and then explain whether you think (4A) is true or (4B) is true. You can only choose one (as they are opposites). The point of thinking this way is to see whether we have certain obligations to people who dont exist yet and we have no guarantee will exist. Do the interests of the existing people today matter more than the interests of future people? Should they be aligned? 2. Say why you think that. As always with these cases, you should not say merely that this is how you feel, but rather explain why you have that feeling.  3. Say how you think another student may reply to your stance. 2. Reply to 2 other students in this class who have opposing views to you or take on the role as the devils advocate and object to them. And, if possible, avoid replying in the way that they thought someone might reply. To Succeed: 1. Make sure you are clear about your stance, that you do not devolve into name-calling and uncivil behavior. 2. Debate and replies to replies are encouraged as this is practice for real-world debates. 3. Make sure that you have all of the above points in your posts. 4. I will comment replies if the post is very off-the-mark in the interpretation of the case, if it is unduly inflammatory, or otherwise not appropriate. Here are the two arguments put clearly: Argument A: 1. The effects of global warming will not affect me or any living person today in our lifetime. 2. The cost of preventing it will cause some suffering in my lifetime (call it growing pains). 3. If global warming happens, it will cause suffering generations down the road, far greater than those today to prevent it. 4. Future people do not exist so they don’t count in our moral figuring. (We only have duties to existing things) 5. Therefore, it is morally wrong for us to prevent global warning as the results of preventing it will harm existing people.  Argument B: 1. The effects of global warming will not affect me or any living person today in our lifetime. 2. The cost of preventing it will cause some suffering in my lifetime (call it growing pains). 3. If global warming happens, it will cause suffering generations down the road, far greater than those today to prevent it. 4. Though future people do not exist, they will and so count into our moral figuring. (We have duties to some non-existent things) 5. Therefore, it is morally right to prevent global warming as the results of not preventing it will harm future people far more than the results of preventing it will current people. Purpose: The purpose of this assignment is to have you practice the skills necessary in completion of Student Outcomes 4-6, these are: 4. Understand and apply the criteria of correct philosophical reasoning 5. Understand the difference between a rhetorically good argument and a rationally good argument 6. Identify, reconstruct and evaluation arguments posed by philosophers In doing this also, you will be practicing the skills necessary for Student Outcome 7, which is to present a solution to a philosophical problem. But, in a round-about way, each of the outcomes are present. Task: In her paper On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, Mary Anne Warren argues for the moral permissibility of abortion. She handles this by going two routes: 1. The permissibility of abortion even if we classify fetuses as people. 2. Showing that fetuses are not in fact people. As was explained in the lecture, the main question behind whether abortions are permissible concerns whether fetuses are people. Your task is to chose one of these two routes that she takes and then answer the following (depending on which you go with): 1. This is the first route which you could take. If you go this way you need to: A. present and explain, in your own words, the Violinist Thought-Experiment B. present and explain what it shows C. present and explain what its short-comings are (that is, what cases does it not prove are permissible)  D. say whether you think this thought-experiment applies well in showing the permissibility of abortion in the relevant cases and why. 2. This is the second route which you could take. If you go this way you need to: A. present and explain, in your own words, the traditional argument against abortions (this is found in paragraph 23 of the reading) B. explain, in your own words, why, according to Warren, this argument is bad C. present and explain, in your own words, what it takes to be a person rather than just a human (according to Warren) (this is also the part where you say whether Warren thinks fetuses count as people) D. say whether you think Warrens argument is good and why you think that. Each of these should take you around a paragraph to answer. Each of them are worth 5pts. Labeling your paragraphs with (A) through (D) according to what part you are talking about in them will make grading very fast and easy for me. Since this is worth 20pts, this is worth 5\% of your total grade. Purpose: The purpose of this assignment is to have you practice the skills necessary in completion of Student Outcomes 2, 3, 4, and 7, these are: 2. Identify and apply a variety of epistemological, metaphysical and ethical theory 3. Evaluate and differentiate between an epistemological, a metaphysical and an ethical question 4. Understand and apply the criteria of correct philosophical reasoning 7. Present a solution to a philosophical problem But, in a round-about way, each of the outcomes are present. And with this, we will have hit on all of the outcomes for this class, in one way or another. Task: In the text, there is an argument against the morality of eating meat (as in, arguments for you being vegetarian/vegan). This argument, I called in the lecture, the Animal Suffering Argument. Your task is to: 1. A. Explain the Animal Suffering Argument (in your own words) (5pts) 2. After this, you can either (10pts): · B1. Explain Descartes reply to the argument · C1. Explain one problem with this reply Or: · B2. Explain the Speciesism reply to the argument · C2. Explain one problem with this reply 3. D. Explain what you think about the reply (is is good or bad) and why Each of these should take you around a paragraph to answer. Each of them are worth 5pts. Labeling your paragraphs with (A) through (D) according to what part you are talking about in them will make grading very fast and easy for me. Since this is worth 20pts, this is worth >5\% of your total grade. Submission: To submit this assignment, I only accept .pdf, .doc, .odt, and .docx. I do not accept .pages. You can find where to submit in the upper right of this screen. As for all assignments in this class, the standard is Times New Roman, 12pt font, double spaced, 2-3 pages (that is, at least a few words onto the second page to the bottom of the third). Here is an example:   The Animal Suffering Argument is one which is found in several forms in the contemporary debate over the permissibility of meat consumption, fur clothing, or the use of animal products in general. It is even applied to the idea that we should not perform animal testing for medicines. Put in my own words, it goes like this: First, it seems obvious that animals of certain complexities feel pain and have interests. Second, we have that Utilitarianism is correct, meaning that the right action is the one which causes the best outcome (the greatest amount of pleasure once the pain is subtracted). As it turns out, the pain an suffering caused by the process of raising animals for slaughter outweighs the pleasure to us in eating them.  Therefore, killing animals for food is morally wrong. Although there are several replies to this argument, including, but not limited to, Speciesism, human excellence, and almost any non-consequentialist theory, the one which I will focus on originates from Rene Descartes. Descartes, as we covered in this class, held that the world was made of two substances, the mental and the physical (substance dualism). Experiencing pain and having interests requires that the being have this mental substance beyond merely having a physical form. Descartes held that only humans can have these souls or mental substances. Only people feel pain or have interests. As a result, non-human animals, like a cat, cant feel pain. An injured animal, for Descartes, is nothing more than a broken machine. This means that the pain animals are supposed to feel doesnt exist and doesnt feature in the ethics of eating meat.  There are several things wrong with this reply, though I can understand why people of certain beliefs would think it is correct. The one which stood out to me was physicalism. Physicalism is directly opposed to dualism. It holds that there is only one substance in the world, physical, rather than there being two. Whatever explanation which the physicalism can give to the experience of pain can easily be applied to non-human animals and does not require that they have some manner of oogy-boogy substance over and above the physical. This reply takes the wind out of Descartes sails, his stance cant get off the ground if it is correct. I find this reply to Descartes to be very powerful. It cuts through to the very assumption made in getting the stance off of the ground and shows that it is not so obvious. At the end of the day. I find the Animal Suffering Argument to make various assumptions which can be questioned (such as whether all cases of meat consumption are wrong, which could be argued against, saying that this only applies to some), but dualism and Descartes can’t say with certainty that the argument is flawed. 4