
Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) 1: For
all
courses, how can I most easily use this website?
For all classes, the keys to most easily using our website are to have
a positive attitude toward our website and to use Control + F -- and
the table of contents below -- to search for key words or phrases in
our website. I have tried to put the most important questions and
answers toward the top of the website, to minimize the scrolling you
have to do. Using Control + F minimizes scrolling, too. Avoid printing
out the website, for these reasons: 1) the website is over 225 pages
long in Font size 12; 2) much or even most of the website will be
irrelevant to your work in the course, since most of the website
consists of quotations you can use in your paper; but there is only one
paper due and there are about 7 topics with up to 147 quotes on each
topic; 3) importantly, relying on one printout means you miss all
updates after you print out the website; 4) printing out the website,
especially more than once to get updates, is environmentally wasteful
of paper; 5) most importantly, a printout can't give you the crucial
Control + F window to search the website with pushbutton ease; and 6)
the pages of your printout might not be numbered (since the website
lacks page numbers) and so the printout may be hard to organize. Avoid
being intimidated by the size of our website, since every part of our
website is designed to help students. So having a large website is like
having a large friend or a large library. Besides, you don't let the
large size of the library on campus intimidate you; you see that as a
great resource due to its large size. The same applies here. Anyway,
whatever your attitude, you can read the table of contents below (29
FAQs) to find what you want in fewer than 5 minutes and you can search
this website with pushbutton ease for key words or phrases by holding
down the Control key and then hitting the F key. A window will then
appear and then you should type in the word or phrase for which you
wish to search. If that fails, simply use the table of contents below
to find your way around this website. Scroll to the FAQ that gives you
the answer you seek or simply use Control + F to search for the FAQ.
It's pushbutton easy and as easy as reading the TV Guide or a comic
book. Indeed, in some ways it is easier to read than a comic book,
since you won't be distracted by pictures and since the font is typed
and thus easier to read than a comic book's handwritten font.
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR THIS WEBSITE
Here is the absolutely crucially important table of contents for the
website:
FAQ1: For all courses, how can I most easily use this website?
FAQ2: For all courses, what is Dr. Harwood's contact info and when did
Dr. Harwood last revise this website, and what were his latest
revisions?
FAQ3: What's the syllabus for PHIL 10 Summer 2010 @ San Jose City College?
FAQ4: For PHIL 60 Spring 2010 @ EVC, what's the
test bank (list of questions eligible for quizzes, tests and exams) so
far?
FAQ5: For all courses, what are Dr. Harwood's
CRUCIALLY important
Guidelines A-Z for Creating & Grading Papers & Presentations?
FAQ6: For all courses, what is a good sample paper for us to read to
help us write our term paper in ABC format?
FAQ7: For all courses, what is the required ABC format for organizing
papers (unless otherwise stated on the greensheet or syllabus)?
FAQ8: For all courses, what are the 5 moral
principles we should use AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE if we write on any moral
or political topic such as affirmative action, gun control, capital
punishment, gay marriage, gays in the military, abortion,
euthanasia, prostitution, or surrogate motherhood, legalizing drugs, legalizing homosexuality?
FAQ9: For all courses, what are the 7 truth tips we should try to use
to discover truth generally and try to use in section C of our ABC sets
in our term papers?
FAQ10: For all courses, what are 33 fallacies to avoid committing and
to expose and disagree with when others commit them?
FAQ11: For all courses, what is Dr. Harwood's introductory lecture in
philosophy?
FAQ12: For all courses, what are some arguments on euthanasia (mercy
killing) that students have the option of evaluating in a paper?
FAQ13: coming soon to a computer screen near you
FAQ14: For all classes, what are 184 quotations on human
nature that students may choose from to use in the A sections of their
papers to evaluate (and in the C sections of their papers to help them
evaluate quotations in their A sections)?
FAQ15: For all courses, what are some arguments on gun control that
students may use in a paper on gun control?
FAQ16: For all courses, what are some affirmative action quotes
students may use in a paper on affirmative action?
FAQ17: For all courses, what are some quotations on prostitution
students may use in a paper about whether or not to legalize
prostitution?
FAQ18: For all courses, what are some quotes on the Baby M/Surrogate
Motherhood case which students can use in a paper about surrogate
motherhood?
FAQ19: For all courses, what are up to 100 (or more)
miscellaneous, assorted
quotes we may choose from to use in any approved paper topic for which
they are relevant (ask Dr. Harwood if there is any doubt about their
relevance for an approved paper topic and note that your paper must be
on only one of the approved paper topics; avoid combining paper topics)?
FAQ20: For all courses, what are some arguments on capital punishment
that students may use in a paper on capital punishment?
FAQ 21: For PHIL 65 Spring 2010 @ EVC, what's the test bank (list of
questions eligible for quizzes, tests and exams) so far?
FAQ22: For all courses (except those excluded below), how may we view
videos and earn extra credit on our exams, quizzes & tests (40% of
your course grade at EVC & SJCC)?
FAQ23: For PHIL 10 and PHIL 60 students only, what are some quotes on
rationalism versus empiricism that students may use in a paper on
rationalism versus empiricism?
FAQ24: For all courses, what quotes show that the Golden Rule is
accepted in at least 7 different cultures or religions?
FAQ25: For all courses, what guidelines should I follow to make email
communication with Dr. Harwood most helpful to all concerned?
FAQ26: For all courses, how can I rewrite my paper to try to get a
higher grade?
FAQ27: What are the 8 requirements for earning 3 extra credit points
for every American War (note that one student seems to have found 48
American wars I list at the end of FAQ27 and thus seems to have earned
144 extra credit points)?
FAQ28: For all courses, how can we get our work back after the course
is over?
FAQ29: For all courses, what is Dr. Harwood's essay published as "Is
Inheritance Immoral?" chapter 44 in Louis P. Pojman's book Political
Philosophy (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002)?
FAQ30: For all classes, how can students earn up to 15 extra credit
points on an approximately 30-foot bronze and white marble statue of
Confucius?
FAQ31: For all classes, what videos have we seen in class so far?
FAQ32: For all classes, what are some pros and cons of capital
punishment?
FAQ33: For all classes, what are some pros and cons of moral relativism?
FAQ34: For all classes, what are some pros and cons of affirmative
action?
FAQ35: For all classes, what is Dr. Harwood's overview of Philosophy of
Religion?
FAQ36: COMING SOON TO A COMPUTER SCREEN NEAR YOU
FAQ37: For all classes, what are 10 top
quotes from Plato that students can use in the A-sections of a term
paper they write on Plato?
FAQ38: FOR PHIL 10 INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY @
EVC M&W 915-1040AM IN ROOM P106B, WHAT IS THE SYLLABUS?
FAQ39: What are 7 possible contradictions in
Buddhism?
FAQ40: For all courses, what are more than 20 quotations by or about
Confucius (551-479 BC) that
students may use in the A-sections (and the C sections) of a term paper?
FAQ41: For all courses, what are some quotations on the paper topic of
legalizing
currently illegal drugs that students may use in the A-sections (and
C-sections) of their papers?
FAQ42: For all courses, what is Chief Seattle's emotionally
gut-wrenching letter on environmentalism?
FAQ43: COMING SOON TO A COMPUTER SCREEN NEAR YOU
FAQ44: For all courses, what's the weirdest thing
that Dr. Harwood thinks just might
surprise us by being true, and/or what's the most unlikely conspiracy
theory that
Dr.
Harwood thinks still rewards investigation, and/or what are 23 reasons
to start questioning President Richard
Nixon's claim that all 6 landings of humans on the moon in history
occurred 1969-1972 during the first term of Nixon's shortened
presidency?
FAQ45: For all courses, what are 57 abortion quotes students may use in the A-sections of their term papers (and in the C-sections of their term papers, where any quote properly cited may be used) if they choose the option of writing on abortion?
FAQ46: What is the roster of the students in Dr. Harwood's PHIL 60 course at Evergreen Valley College for Spring 2010?FAQ47: What is the roster of students in Dr. Harwood's PHIL 65 course at Evergreen Valley College for Spring 2010?
FAQ48: For Lincoln Law School's "Law & Logic" Summer 2010, what are the paper topics approved?
FAQ49: What is the T/F Practice Final Exam in Torts, Lincoln Law School, Spring 2010?
FAQ50: For PHIL 10 Summer 2010 at San Jose City College, what's my grade?
FAQ51: WHAT IS THE TEST BANK (LIST OF ALL QUESTIONS ELIGIBLE FOR ALL REGULAR TESTS, EXAMS AND QUIZZES) FOR PHIL 10 SJCC SUMMER 2010?
********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
FAQ2: For all courses, what is Dr.
Harwood's contact info, when did Dr.
Harwood this website, and what were his revisions?
Here's Dr. Harwood's contact info:
Dr. Harwood's email = svharwood1@aol.com
phones = 408-259-7777, cell 687-8199
fax = 408-538-9894
mailing address =
Dr. Sterling Harwood, Esq.
Law Office of Sterling Harwood
5445 Alum Rock Ave.
San Jose, CA 95127-2613
USA
Dr. Harwood (Dr. H, for short) last revised this website on 7/8/2010
when he did the
following:
A) For PHIL 10 SJCC Summer 2010, in the answer to FAQ51 he added 'Hume' to fix a typo in question 135 and he corrected the numbering in the answer to FAQ51 by moving the second question listed as question 344 to question 62, which had been missing; the rest of the numbers stay the same;
B) For PHIL 10 SJCC Summer 2010, started to add grades by code in the answer to FAQ50;
C) For PHIL 10 SJCC Summer 2010, added the rest of the reading assignments to the answer for FAQ3;
D) For all courses, added 57 quotes on abortion as FAQ47;
E) For all courses, added 184 quotes on human nature to FAQ14
F) For PHIL 10 SJCC Summer 2010, added the syllabus for PHIL 10 Summer 2010 @ San Jose City College as the answer to FAQ3, and move the previous FAQ3 (and its previous answer) to the end of the site as the new FAQ50;
G) For Lincoln Law School "Law & Logic" students, summer 2010, reminded students that he added FAQ48: "What are the Paper topics Prof. Harwood has Approved So far for Lincoln Law School’s 'Law & Logic'?" near the end of this site;
********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
FAQ3: What's the Syllabus for PHIL
10 Summer 2010 @ San Jose City College?
FAQ3:
What's the Syllabus for PHIL 10 Summer 2010 @ San Jose City College?
Syllabus
Summer 2010 PHIL 10 Introduction to Philosophy @ San Jose City College,
M-TH
9-1105am, Start 6/21/10 & last class & final exam on 7/29/10;
Classroom B209; Section
101; Reg ID 58027
1.
FACULTY MEMBER: Sterling Harwood, J.D., Ph.D., Attorney at Law
2.
PHONES: 408-259-7777 (home office & 24-hour voicemail);
408-687-8199
(cell). Feel free to call me anytime, since I simply turn off my phone
when I
can't take any more calls. So you won't disturb my beauty sleep
3.
FAX: to be announced
4.
WEBSITE THAT IS CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT (Homepage):
www.sterlingharwood.com. This
will fill in for our required textbooks if they are unavailable at the
campus
bookstore. Our site has hundreds of pages of material to help you
answer
frequently asked questions, help you write your term paper, and generally
help you excel. So remember to use Control + F to search it for key
words and
remember to use
the table of contents, too. Guidelines A-Z on this website are crucial
to
writing and your term paper. I plan to put them on reserve @ the
request of any
student. Students who see me to establish a code can have their grades
regularly posted on this website. I plan to post the answers to all
previous
tests on the site so you can unofficially grade yourself by keeping
track of
your answers.
5.
EMAIL: svharwood1@aol.com. It is urgently important that you
avoid
emailing me any attachments, since viruses are too often
unintentionally spread
that way, especially while we are at war with terrorists, including
cyberterrorists. Thanks for helping me help you by avoiding delays in
my
service to you due to viruses. For faster response, call me after
emailing me
to let me know there's an email from you waiting for me to
answer. In
every email to me put in the subject line: 1) your first name; 2) your
last name;
3) “PHIL 10”; and 4) “Summer 10”.
6.
OFFICE HOURS & OTHER TIMES AVAILABLE: Office hours are by
appointment only.
I’m also usually after each class for a few minutes and any other
time by
appointment. It is important to call me
promptly
if you have any questions on how to do your assignments
that are not answered by this syllabus,
sample papers on reserve in SJCC library, or
www.sterlingharwood.com . For ease and efficiency
check those 3 other sources first
before calling me, since they usually explain matters in more detail
and with
more clarity than I can on the phone. I answer calls much faster than
emails,
which I
often
check only late at night. I will be
happy to return your call with instructions if leave your number
and
the
question you want me to answer. I am always happy to answer any
remaining
procedural
questions
during breaks and after class, but not during valuable class time
because we
have so much of substance to cover during that time.
7.
BIO: see the Wikipedia entry for Sterling Harwood: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_Harwood
. Dr.
Sterling
Harwood (B.A. in Philosophy, 1980 University of Maryland; J.D. 1983
Cornell Law
School; M.A. in Philosophy, 1986 Cornell University; Ph.D. in
Philosophy, 1992 Cornell
University) is a practicing attorney at law (Licensed, State Bar Number
194746;
see www.calbar.ca.gov) and is the author of Judicial Activism: A
Restrained
Defense (Austin & Winfield 1996). He edited and wrote 24 chapters
of Business
as Ethical & Business as Usual (Jones & Bartlett, now Wadsworth
1995),
co-edited with Michael Gorr Crime & Punishment: Philosophic
Explorations
(Jones & Bartlett, now Wadsworth 1994), and co-edited with Michael
Gorr Controversies
in Criminal Law (Westview Press, 1992). He is working on a revised
edition to Judicial
Activism: A Restrained Defense, for which he has been offered a book
contract
by University Press of America, and on a new textbook on critical
thinking.
For more than 5 months Dr. Harwood worked full-time for President
Obama
in The Commerce Dept. Dr. Harwood became a practicing lawyer in
1998. He
has been teaching since 1981 and still isn't tired! He has taught
philosophy
for more than 14 years in the Evergreen Valley College/San Jose City
College Community
College District and has earned Seniority Rehire Preference here. He
has taught
courses in philosophy and some other departments for more than 7 years
(more
than 45 courses since 1989) at San Jose State University. He has taught
more
than 65 courses, mainly in philosophy and sociology, at University of
Phoenix
since 1998 (including online and onground) and has also taught at the
following: Cornell University; Cornell Law School; Foothill College,
San Jose
City College; Evergreen Valley College; West Valley Community College;
Chabot
College; Hobart & William Smith Colleges; Illinois State
University; and
Masters Institute of Technology. Dr. Harwood is married to a vivacious
Vietnamese-American lady named Tina Le Harwood, who is a Commercial
Loan Officer
at Wells Fargo Bank. They have two delightful daughters ages 9 and 7,
Heather
Harwood and Holly Harwood, respectively. The Harwood family is also
proud to
include a beagle named Toby and a chihuahua named Yoda (aka Mr.
Biggles).
The Harwood family lives in San Jose, CA. Dr. Harwood’s
hobbies include
being a fan of major league baseball, the NFL, and the NBA, buying low
and
selling high on ebay, viewing films of almost all kinds, and hiking to
try to
find aircraft known to be missing in remote areas (for example,
billionaire
Steve Fossett’s formerly missing plane; see generally, www.wreckchaser.com,
Indiana Jones and
CSI).
8.
TWO REQUIRED TEXTBOOKS
1)
REQUIRED: Sterling Harwood, ed., Business as Ethical and Business as
Usual:
Text, Readings, and Cases (originally Jones and Bartlett Publishing,
now
Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996), 582 pages. Ask Dr. H in class
for the
contact info of some former students who wish to sell their copies.
Check
the campus bookstore, amazon.com, bn.com and elsewhere for availability
and
prices.
2)
REQUIRED: T. Z. Lavine, From Socrates to Sartre: The Philosophic Quest
(Bantom,
1985), 448 pages. Check the campus bookstore, amazon.com,
bn.com and
elsewhere for availability and prices.
9.
COURSE ASSIGNMENTS:
1.
Class Participation; attendance & speaking; every class = 15%
2.
Term Paper; ABC format described on www.sterlingharwood.com&
in class;
approved topic; due by email without attachment (copy and paste into an
email
to me) by 1159pm PT on August 2, 2010 (if you fail to have an email
receipt for
early submission by email by the final exam on July 29, 2010, then you
must
bring a hardcopy version to me and get a signed, hardcopy receipt from
me or
risk failing to get credit (and thus failing our course) if your email
fails to
reach me in time (email can be unreliable) = 45%
3.
True/False Tests, Exams & Quizzes, all extra credit; almost every
class =
40%
Note:
since the term paper is worth 45%, a failing grade on the term paper
means a
failing grade for the course (the remaining 55% is insufficient to get
the
minimum of 60% to earn at least a D). I am unable to remember any
student ever
failing a class of mine after the student submitted on time a term
paper that
qualifies to get a grade (on an approved paper topic, in ABC format,
without
plagiarism, etc.).
10.
GRADING CRITERIA: Any missed time in class (for example, arriving late
to class
at the start, arriving late to class after a break, or leaving early
before the
start of the quiz or exam at the end of every class) reduces your class
participation grade to the extent that you miss class time. Further,
good class
participation raises borderline grades, which are common. Perfect
attendance
will still get a class participation
grade of only C- if you never speak in class.
Perfect attendance with only 1 unexcused absence will get a class
participation
grade of D+ if you never speak in class. Perfect attendance with only 2
unexcused absences will get a class participation grade of D if you
never speak
in class. Perfect attendance except for less than 3 hours of unexcused
absences
gets a grade of D+ if you never speak in class. Perfect attendance
except for
only 3 hours of unexcused absences will get a class participation grade
of D if
you never speak in class. Perfect attendance with more than 3 hours of
unexcused
absences will get a class participation grade of D- if you never speak
in
class. If you speak in class, then I will use my judgment about the
quality and
quantity of your speaking to help you make up for unexcused absences in
your
class participation grade and to raise your class participation grade
generally. (Obviously, I will make reasonable accommodations for
disabilities
and so you may communicate in class in another way if you are
physically unable
to speak.) The more you speak in class, following my classroom
management
rules, the higher your class participation grade will be. Arriving late
or
leaving early lower your class participation grade in accordance to how
much
classtime you miss without excuse. You have the option to earn an A on
class participation
if you give a class presentation of 3 ABC sets on one of the approved
paper
topics. See my 26 guidelines A-Z on www.sterlingharwood.com for more
info on
how I grade your papers. These guidelines are to be read within the
context of
any applicable Faculty Handbook guidelines for grading and are meant to
be a
supplement to them to give you more specifics and help.
Requirements
for an Incomplete: The student must have the excuse of an unavoidable
circumstance preventing completion of the course on time, and the
student must
use my voicemail or email to notify me of this circumstance on the
earliest
possible day. Only I will make the initial determination on what
circumstances
were/are unavoidable. Students may appeal to our Dean, if necessary.
11.
MAKE-UP POLICY: I allow some students to make up missed exams by
answering
extra questions at the final exam, but only if those students have
written an
alleged excuse for missing those exams and submitted that writing to me
more
than 24 hours before the start of the final exam. Further, you may make
up work
only if the excuse of an unavoidable circumstance prevents you from
submitting
your work on time and you use my voicemail or email to notify me of the
unavoidable circumstance on the earliest possible day. Only I make the
initial
determination on what circumstances were/are unavoidable. Students may
appeal
to our Dean, if necessary. Papers submitted late without excuse mean
that the
student cannot receive a grade of A in our course, but it is generally
better
to submit the paper late than never to submit it. Papers submitted late
by more
than 24 hours without excuse mean the student cannot receive a grade
higher
than C in our course. Papers submitted more than 48 hours late without
excuse
mean the student cannot receive a grade higher than D in our course.
Papers
submitted without excuse after grades are due to be submitted to
admissions and
records cannot count at all toward your grade.
12.
GRADING SCALE: I use letter grades on a 0 (F) to 4.0 (A) scale on
papers and I
use points for tests (quizzes or exams). Convert points on tests into
letter
grades as follows: 0-59% = F; 60-62% = D-; 63-66% = D; 67-69% = D+;
70-72% =
C-; 73-76% = C; 77-79% = C+; 80-82% = B-; 83-86% = B; 87-89% = B+;
90-92% = A-;
93-100% = A. EVC does not allow grades of A+, but I informally keep
track of
them, so that I can use them only in writing a letter of recommendation
for you
if you receive a course grade of A and ask me to write one for you. I
hope
everyone earns an A. I do not grade on a curve where students compete
with each
other for spaces along the curve. Everyone can earn an A. Another
student
earning an A does not make it any less likely that you will earn an A.
We have
cooperation not cutthroat competition in this course, but of course you
may not
cheat or plagiarize. I plan to give a failing grade for the course to
any
student I catch committing plagiarism. Here is the basic policy on
honesty.
13.
COLLEGE HONESTY POLICY: The College and I expect students to write
their own
papers and to avoid copying from another student or author (which is
plagiarism). Consequences of such actions will lead to a reduction of
your
course grade to F for the class, suspension from the class, and may
lead to
expulsion from the college. Violations of standards include but are not
limited
to the following: altering grades; altering or forging college
documents,
records or identification; copying from someone's test or allowing
someone to
copy your test; copying from an author's work without giving credit
(plagiarism; and Dr. Harwood adds that changing a few words here and
there does
not prevent plagiarism); doing an assignment (for example, a term paper
or
essay) for another student or asking, paying, bribing, or blackmailing
someone
to do an assignment for you; sitting in for someone in class or on a
test or
having someone sit in class for you if not authorized by the
instructor;
submitting work previously presented in another class ifnot authorized
by the
instructor; during an exam, using or consulting other test or course
material
not authorized by the instructor; possession of an examination or
materials not
authorized by the instructor. Consequences may include one or more of
the
following actions by appropriate college officials: receiving a failing
grade
on the test, paper or exam; course grade lowered, possibly resulting in
course
failure (and Dr. Harwood adds that he will fail for the course any
student
caught cheating or plagiarizing); verbal or written reprimand/warning;
suspension for a longer specified time; expulsion from college.
14.
ATTENDANCE POLICY: "Students are expected to maintain regular and
prompt
attendance in all classes. Instructors shall maintain a record of
students'
attendance in class." VI. Instruction Policies 6070.1 12/19/89. Similar
policies apply to all colleges and universities where I teach. See your
counselor for details.
15.
WITHDRAWAL/DROP POLICY: It is the ultimate responsibility of the
student to
formally drop the class. You should not rely on the instructor to drop
you
froma class for non-attendance. At EVC, you may drop by telephone using
the
STAR system (223-0300) or by completing the proper forms in the Office
of
Admissions and Records. To be eligible for a refund of fees and/or
prevent a
recording grade of 'F' or 'W,' you must drop the class on or before
posted
date. Similar policies are in effect @ FH. See your counselor or
admissions and
records for important details.
16.
GENERAL EDUCATION LEARNING OUTCOMES: These apply mainly to EVC but FH
has somewhat
similar outcomes. General eduction is the college's commitment to
provide
students with a broad set of knowledge and skills that will help each
student
in their process of becoming a well-rounded healthy person equipped to
participate wisely in the health of our community. It requires a
carefully
selected set of courses and activities on the part of the college and
active
reflection on the part of the student. This course participates in the
general
eduction process by including the following Gerneral Education
Outcomes:
improving the student's experience and abilities in the areas listed
below.
These outcomes contribute to the General Education areas of emphasis
stated in
the accreditation standards and District General Education Philosophy
(pending)
checked below:
1.
civic responsibility (local, national, global); civility; computer
literacy; critical
analysis/logical thinking; cultural diversity; ethical principles;
historical
sensitivity; information competency; oral communication including
speaking and
listening; political involvement (local, national, global); social
responsibility (local, national, global); teamwork (ability to work and
solve
problems as a team); written communication.
17.
COURSE DESCRIPTION & OVERVIEW: The course catalog says:
“Introductory
survey of basic principles and concerns of philosophy and of
philosophical
questions. Examines selected concepts concerned with the meaning and
nature of
reality, knowledge, morals, religion, aesthetics and issues of social
and
political concern.” We will learn much introductory knowledge
about philosophy
generally and the following in particular: 1) social and political
philosophy,
including just war theory and alleged justifications of violence; 2)
philosophy
of religion; 3) ethics and moral philosophy; 4) epistemology; 5)
ontology and
metaphysics; 6) logic and critical reasoning; 7) legal philosophy; 8)
rationalism versus empiricism; 9) theism versus atheism; 10) realism
versus
antirealism; 11) materialism versus idealism versus dualism; 12)
philosophy of
art and aesthetics. For a list of questions we plan to consider, see
the list
of term paper topics in this syllabus. We will learn 32 fallacies,
errors in
reasoning, to avoid. We will learn the definitions and applications of
soundness, validity, strength, and truth in evaluating arguments as
reliable or
unreliable guides to the truth of their respective conclusions. We will
study
probability, including how it is applied to gambling and other games of
chance.
When engaged in moral and political philosophy, we will examine and
apply 5
sets of moral principles – egalitarianism, libertarianism,
utilitarianism,
perfectionism (also known as virtue ethics) and prima facie principles
– to a
wide variety of topics, including the current war in Iraq, the current
war in
Afghanistan, the current war against terrorism, abortion, surrogate
motherhood,
cloning humans, human stem cell research, gun control, euthanasia (also
known
as mercy killing), gay marriage, affirmative action, capitalism,
socialism, globalization,
NAFTA, nuclear power, global warming, acid rain, endangered species,
pollution,
and much more.
18.
FORTY-TWO APPROVED PAPER TOPICS FROM WHICH YOU NEED TO CHOOSE ONLY 1:
Approved
topics for your paper are announced below, but all papers must be done
in the
ABC format exemplified imperfectly but usefully in sample papers on
reserve in
EVC library, explained in class and on www.sterlingharwood.com .
Approved
topics: You must compare a minimum of 6 quotations about ethics from
any
published and named writer(s) who try to give arguments or answers to
the
questions below. If you wish to use an anonymous quotation, then you
must get
Dr. Harwood’s written permission in advance. There is no maximum
number of
quotations or minimum or maximum requirements for the length of your
paper. I
hereby approve the following paper (and presentation) topics:
1)
Pick any two thinkers listed in the index of the textbook listed above
– or
that you get Dr. Harwood to approve in writing in advance of your work
on your
paper – and argue that one of the two has a position on a
philosophical issue
that is more defensible than the other.
2)
Based on the 5 moral principles on www.sterlingharwood.com (which are
also in
Ch.4 of this book on reserve in our campus library: Sterling Harwood,
Business
as Ethical and Business as Usual), has America’s current war in
Iraq been
moral?;
3)
Does human nature exist and, if it does, is it primarily good,
primarily evil
or primarily a mixed bag, and is it more fixed than flexible or more
flexible
than fixed?
4)
Based on the 5 moral principles on www.sterlingharwood.com has
America's
current war on terrorism been moral?
5)
Based on the 5 moral principles on www.sterlingharwood.com, should
prostitution
be legalized, as it is in some counties of Nevada?;
6)
Based on the 5 moral principles on www.sterlingharwood.com, should
pornographic
films and books be legal?;
7)
Does God exist (that is, which is closer to the truth, atheism or
theism)?
8)
Is causal determinism compatible with human freedom and moral
responsibility
and, if so, how?
9)
Which is closer to the truth, empiricism or rationalism?
10)
Is moral relativism true?
11)
Is relativism about all human knowledge true?
12)
Is moral skepticism true?
13)
Is skepticism about all human knowledge true?
14)
Which is closer to the truth, materialism, dualism or idealism?
15)
Based on the 5 moral principles on www.sterlingharwood.com, is
comparable worth
moral?;
16)
Based on the 5 moral principles on www.sterlingharwood.com, is feminism
moral?;
17)
Based on the 5 moral principles on www.sterlingharwood.com, is
capitalism more
moral than socialism?;
18)
Based on the 5 moral principles on www.sterlingharwood.com, is Rush
Limbaugh
right about environmentalism?;
19)
Based on the 5 moral principles on www.sterlingharwood.com, what
currently
illegal drugs (if any) should the government legalize and under what
circumstances?;
20)
Based on facts and logic generally, is moral relativism more justified
than
moral realism?;
21)
Based on the 5 moral principles on www.sterlingharwood.com, is more gun
control
than we already have morally required?;
22)
Based on the 5 moral principles on www.sterlingharwood.com, is cloning
of
humans moral?;
23)
Based on the 5 moral principles on www.sterlingharwood.com, is capital
punishment (also known as the death penalty or execution) moral?
25)
Which is closer to the truth, Darwinism, creationism or Intelligent
Design
Theory?
26)
What’s the most logical explanation of the evidence for
extraterrestrial UFOs,
and what would be the greatest significance philosophically of
discovering the
existence of alien life from other planets?
27)
Addressing some philosophical issues of social or political concern,
and using
the assassination of President Kennedy as a test case to apply logical
principles
of weighing evidence and evaluating argument, what’s the most
logical
explanation of President Kennedy’s death (including whether there
was a
conspiracy and whether Oswald was guilty as charged)?
28)
Addressing some philosophical issues of social or political concern,
and using
the death of Princess Diana as a test case to apply logical principles
of
weighing evidence and evaluating argument, what’s the most
logical explanation
of Princess Diana’s death, which is still under official
government investigation
8 years after she died (including whether there was a conspiracy to
kill her).
29)
Based on the 5 moral principles on sterlingharwood.com, is abortion
moral?;
30)
Based on the 5 moral principles on sterlingharwood.com, is any form of
affirmative action moral?;
31)
Based on the 5 moral principles on sterlingharwood.com, is surrogate
motherhood
immoral?;
32)
Based on the 5 moral principles on www.sterlingharwood.com, is
euthanasia
(mercy killing) moral?;
33)
Based on the 5 moral principles on www.sterlingharwood.com, is gay
marriage
moral?;
34)
Based on the 5 moral principles on www.sterlingharwood.com, is gay
adoption
moral?;
35)
Is existentialism defensible?
36)
Is phenomenology defensible?
37)
Based on the 5 moral principles on www.sterlingharwood.com, is stem
cell
research moral?;
38)
Based on the 5 moral principles on www.sterlingharwood.com, is allowing
gays in
the military moral?;
39)
Is astrology logical?
40)
Which of the theories in philosophy of art discussed on
www.sterlingharwood.com
is most defensible?
41)
Based on the 5 moral principles on www.sterlingharwood.com, is
America's
current war in Afghanistan been moral?
42)
What is the meaning of life?
19.
IMPORTANT NOTE: One of the biggest mistakes students make in this class
is
writing on one of the topics above starting with “Based on the 5
moral
principles …” and failing to include any of the 5 moral
principles in the paper
submitted. That mistake means you wrote on an unapproved topic and can
get no
credit for your paper. The same is true if you fail to put your paper
into the
required ABC format. If you want another topic approved, besides the
topics
approved above, see me to try to get approval before you begin writing,
but all
topics approved require discussing as many of the 5 moral principles as
possible in your C sections of the ABC format. Sample papers in ABC
format will
be available for you to read in EVC Library. No assignment has any
minimum or
maximum length, but you must evaluate (using our ABC format) at least 6
-- and
preferably as many more than 6 as you can -- quotations in the final
version of
your paper. I expect all students to do their best and to enjoy the
course.
Enjoy your work enough to take the time to think well about it, re-read
it and
proofread it carefully. See guideline R of guidelines A-Z on
www.sterlingharwood.com . All written work must be typed (or
word-processed)
double-spaced with 1" margins on all 4 sides of regular (no onion skin)
white 8 1/2" x 11" paper. This means that each page should have about
10 words per line and 25 lines per page (for a total of about 255 words
per
page maximum). Each page of your papers, except perhaps your last page,
MUST
have a minimum of about 245 words following the margins described
above. I
expect everyone to cooperate well in his or her learning team when we
break
into learning teams in class. I expect us to think critically and thus
be
logical and reasonable throughout the course. This obviously includes
treating
each other with patience and fairness.
20.
EXPECTATIONS: SAVE YOUR WORK: I require that you save copies of all
work you
submit for a grade, and keep these copies for at least one year after
you
receive your grade for the course. Failure to save your work for one
year means
that you may lose any appeal of your grade for the paper and for the
course. I
require a copy of your paper, and all or almost all other graded work,
to
consider any appeal of your grade for the course. Protecting privacy
prevents
production of information about grades of any particular student by
email, fax
or phone. I already announced this policy in our syllabus and
repeatedly
announced this policy in our class. If you wish to discuss your grade,
then you
need to make an appointment to meet me and bring your student photo ID
to our
meeting. If a student has a problem, the problem is usually that 1) I
never
received a paper or 2) never received a paper on time or 3) I never
received a
paper in the proper format (for example, ABC format and with moral
principles
for papers on topics in moral philosophy such as, for example,
affirmative
action, euthanasia, capital punishment, abortion, gun control,
surrogate
motherhood, gay marriage, and cloning). So if – repeat if –
your problem is
that you think I lack your paper, then feel free to fax, mail or email
-- no
attachments accepted -- me your paper and ask me to update your grade
in person
by appointment, if possible. I require that you report to me any
work you
fail to receive back without a grade by the next class after the class
in which
you allegedly submitted the missing work. You must get a signed
receipt
from me during that next class or else your report of missing work you
submitted will be rejected as untimely and you risk losing credit for
doing
that work and being ineligible to redo that work if it remains
missing.
This applies to index cards submitted for a grade (extra credit or
otherwise)
and all other graded work. This new rule is in response to a
student last
semester who claimed in an untimely way that he submitted some index
cards and
never received them back. I have doubts about whether the student
ever
submitted the supposedly missing work on time, since no one else
reported such
missing work and it seems highly unlikely that his work alone would
disappear
class after class while others’ work failed to disappear.
If you
experience a disappearing index card (submitted but never returned),
then I
require you to make a backup photocopy (or handwritten copy) of all
future
index cards submitted. You must get a signed receipt from me for
the
final exam, any submission of any version of your term paper, and any
quiz,
exam or test worth more than 12 points. Failure to get that
signed receipt
means that if the work disappears, then I may decide to give you no
credit for
it and may refuse to allow you to make it up.
21.
EXPECTATIONS: CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT RULES INCLUDE:
A.
No blurting = raise your hand and patiently wait for Dr. Harwood to
call on you
before speaking. I certainly plan promptly to call on everyone who
raises his
or her hand.
B.
No murmuring = avoid side-conversations (or talking to yourself) that
are loud
enough for Dr. Harwood to hear. Dr. Harwood has excellent hearing, so
he
recommends that you pass notes back and forth in a non-distracting way
rather
than murmur. Murmuring tends to distract you from what Dr. Harwood is
saying
and tends to distract other students and sometimes even risks
distracting Dr.
Harwood. Stay focused on the class presentation, take detailed notes
(especially since all tests are open note), and face the front of the
class.
C.
No lumbering = stay in your seat during class, unless you need to leave
the
room to take a bathroom break of course. Obviously there's no need to
ask
permission to leave the room; just do so as quietly as you can.
D.
No consuming of or engaging in outside material during class = for
example, no
quilting, no reading of newspapers or magazines that are unassigned,
and no
listening to headphones or ear buds (hearing aids are, of course,
perfectly
fine).
E.
No impatience = patiently listen to and follow Dr. Harwood's
directions,
instructions, and announcements. Patience is indeed a virtue (and a key
to
happiness). If you have a question about instructions, then wait until
the next
break or after class to discuss it unless you raise your hand during or
right
after Dr. Harwood gives the instructions in class.
F.
Bring several blank 5” x 8” index cards (lined or unlined
fails to matter;
color fails to matter) to every class. Bring 2 blank Scantron 882
forms
to the final exam on our last day of class. Do not try to use any
differently sized index card or any other form instead of those
specified
above. Index cards must be of commercial quality and not homemade
cards. 5” x
8” cards are often available @ the campus store, Long’s
Drugs, Office Depot,
Office Max, Staples, Fed Ex Kinko’s or similar stores.
22.
THE BOTTOM LINE: BIGGEST MISTAKES STUDENTS MAKE IN THIS COURSE:
Tied
for 1st. Failing to read carefully the instructions in this syllabus,
and
failing to get the required receipt for submitting your term paper,
which means
that if someone takes your paper from my inbox or your paper is
otherwise
misplaced that you will get no credit for submitting it. So get a
hardcopy
receipt from me when you submit your hardcopy or submit your paper by
email
early enough to get a receipt from me by return email. I require
getting a
signed receipt (or email receipt from my aol address) from me for
submitting
the paper; that’s the only evidence for submitting the paper that
counts if I
do not have your paper for whatever reason. We will not have a
mini-trial or
other proceeding where you try to bring witnesses or any other evidence
instead
of the receipt, which is required.
Tied
for 1st. Writing a paper on an unapproved paper topic. This will lead
to an F
in the course unless you correct this problem with another term paper
on an
approved paper topic (and meeting all other requirements) by the
deadline of
the end of the final exam.
Tied
for 1st. Failing to use ABC format for the term paper (and any oral
presentation). You will fail the course if you fail to submit a term
paper in
ABC format by the end of the final exam.
Tied
for 1st. Failing to include any of the 5 moral principles on
www.sterlingharwood.com when doing assignments on a topic that includes
the
words “Based on the 5 moral principles.” You will fail the
course if you submit
such a paper by the end of the final exam.
5.
Failing to ask me questions in a timely way after reading this syllabus
and the
FAQs on www.sterlingharwood.com. The syllabus and this top 12 list and
the
table of contents to www.sterlingharwood.com are great to try to find
the
answers even faster and better than I can give them to you off the top
of my head
(relying on memory is imperfect; written rules are best).
6.
Missing time in class (absences, late arrivals, early exits that are
not
earned).
7.
Failing to put a grid on all graded work. The grid = draw a cross &
put as
follows: upper left = name of student; upper right “PHIL
60” or “PHIL 1”; lower
left = description of the work submitted; lower right = date submitted
into my
in-box (not the date you did the work or the date it was due if you are
submitting it late; late work must say how many days late it is to get
any
credit at all; the later it is, the less credit you will receive but
it’s
always better late than never until the final deadline at the final
exam, which
will be during our last class).
8.
Combining more than one paper (or presentation) topic in the same
assignment.
9.
Failing to read the sample paper on www.sterlingharwood.com and on
reserve in
the library. Note:
on
www.sterlingharwood.com,
‘FAQ’ = frequently asked question.
10.
Failing to follow guidelines A & U by using a title and headings,
respectively, as signposts to guide the readers of their papers and
presentations.
11.
Failing to follow guideline A by failing to make the title of their
paper or
presentation a claim that indicates an approved paper topic and the
student’s
stand on that topic.
12.
Failing to save the aol website as a word file & failing to use the
Control
+ F search and the table of contents in FAQ2 to search the website
13.
Failing to realize that www.sterlingharwood.com clearly states that
students may
of course use the quotes I posted on www.sterlingharwood.com in the A
sections
of their papers & presentations in ABC format
14.
Failure to take good notes, since all our tests, quizzes, and exams are
open
note (and open book).
23. ASSIGNED READINGS: (all quizzes will be extra credit quizzes until the end of the add period) For the assigned readings see the short form of the syllabus given to students in class in hardcopy, and then read 19 pages in TL per class beyond that for every class. Dr. H will assign one chapter per class from SH with the ones beyond the short form syllabus to be announced shortly.
M JUNE 21: THE SHORT VERSION OF THE SYLLABUS
TU JUNE 22: TL pp.1-19 & 415-418 & SH p. v & CH.1
W JUNE 23: TL pp. 20-38 & SH CH.2
TH JUNE 24: TL pp. 39-57 & SH CH.3
M JUNE 28: TL pp. 58-76 & SH CH.6
TU JUNE 29: TL pp. 77-95 & SH CH.7 & CH.4
W JUNE 30: TL pp. 96-114 & SH CH.8
TH JULY 1: TL pp. 115-133 & SH CH.9
M JULY 5: NO CLASS, INDEPENDENCE DAY CELEBRATION
TU JULY 6: TL pp. 134-152 & SH CH.11
W JULY 7: TL pp. 153-171; SH CH.12
TH JULY 8: TL pp. 172-191; SH CH.13
M JULY 12: TL pp. 192-211; SH CH.18 & CH.19
TU JULY 13: TL pp. 212-231; SH CH.20
W JULY 14: TL pp. 232-251; SH CH.24
TH JULY 15: TL pp. 252-271; SH CH.26
M JULY 19: TL pp. 272-291; SH CH.36
TU JULY 20: TL pp. 292-311; SH CH.52
W JULY 21: TL pp. 312-331; SH CH.53
TH JULY 22: TL pp. 332-351; SH CH.56
M JULY 26: TL pp. 352-371; SH CH.58
TU JULY 27: TL pp. 372-391; SH CH.93 & CH.98
W JULY 28: TL pp. 392-414; SH CH.101 & CH.104
TH JULY 29: NO MORE READING DUE; FINAL EXAM, 100 QUESTIONS IN 105 MINUTES; BRING 2 SCANTRONS 882
********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
FAQ4: For PHIL 60 Spring 2010 @ EVC, what is the test bank (list of questions eligible for quizzes, tests and exams) so far?
I
have answered at least some of the following questions in class, so you
can
unofficially grade your own tests and get faster feedback. We use
scantrons for the final exam but all other exams/tests/quizzes must be
on 5”x8”
index cards. Answers submitted on anything but 5”x8”
cards will be
refused except for final exam answers on scantron form 882 (or 882ES).
Abbreviations
& Clarifications: Note that ‘some’ means “at
least one” and does not mean
“only some.” Note also that ‘L’ means
libertarianism, ‘E’ means
egalitarianism, ‘U’ means utilitarianism, and “Dr.
H” means “Dr. Sterling
Harwood.” ‘Sagan’ means “Carl
Sagan,” the author of one of our required
textbooks.
Dr.
H said in class that in the "About the Author" section found in the
hardback edition of Sagan's book (but usually omitted from the
paperback) is
this claim: "As a community of scholars, we acknowledge with admiration
his relentless pursuit of the really big question ... and the twin
philosophies
by which he lives and teaches: that 'Science is never finished' and
that 'We
make our world significant by the courage of our questions and the
depth of our
answers.'"
1.
In Ch.12, Sagan discusses Occam’s Razor as a tool in
Sagan’s baloney-detection kit.
2.
In Ch.12, Sagan says part of the success of the
tobacco industry in purveying a brew of addictive poisons can be
attributed to
widespread unfamiliarity with baloney detection, critical thinking, and
the
scientific method.
3.
In Ch.12, Sagan asks no questions on page 205.
4.
In Ch.12, Sagan gives us a baloney detection kit to
use to help our critical thinking.
5.
In Ch.12, Sagan says gullibility kills.
6.
In Ch.12, Sagan says tobacco is, by many criteria,
more addictive than heroin.
7.
In Ch.12, Sagan says there was a reason people
would, as the 1940s ad put it, “walk a mile for a Camel.”
8.
In Ch.12, Sagan says that more people died in all of
World War II than those who have died of tobacco.
9.
In Ch.12, Sagan says there was no reason why people
would, as the 1940s ad put it, “walk a mile for a Camel.”
10.
Ch.12 is the chapter in Sagan that Dr. H says is the
most important chapter in that book.
11.
In Ch.12, Sagan says more people have died of
tobacco than in all of World War II.
12.
Regarding Ch.12 in Sagan, Dr. H thinks that on p.206
of Sagan gives a reasonable scientific basis for believing that all of
us will
live an infinite number of years.
13.
In Ch.12, Sagan says that, according to the World
Health Organization, smoking kills three million people every year
worldwide.
14.
In Ch.12, Sagan says the death toll
from tobacco will rise to 10 million annual deaths by 2020 – in
part because of
a massive advertising campaign to portray smoking as advanced and
fashionable
to young women in the developing world.
15. In Ch.12, Sagan notes “the success of the tobacco industry …”
16.
In
Ch.1, Carl Sagan says the evidence for channeling is crummy.
17.
In
Ch.1 of Sagan, Albert Einstein says “All our science, measured
against reality,
is primitive and childlike – and yet it is the most precious
thing we have.”
18.
In
Ch.1, Sagan says Plato reported the story of Atlantis as hearsay coming
down to
him from remote ages.
19.
In
Ch.1, Sagan says there are hundreds of books about Atlantis.
20.
In
Ch.1, Sagan says that Atlantis is the mythical continent that is said
to have
existed something like 10,000 years ago in the Atlantic Ocean (or
somewhere; a
recent book locates it in Antarctica).
21.
In
Ch.1, Sagan says the story of Atlantis goes back to Plato.
22.
In
Ch.2, Sagan says the laws of motion and the inverse square law of
gravitation
associated with the name of Isaac Newton are properly considered among
the crowing
achievements of the human species.
23.
In
Ch.2, Sagan says that the word “Spirit” comes from the
Latin word “to breathe.”
24.
In
Ch.2, Sagan says science is not compatible with spirituality.
25.
In
Ch.2, Sagan says science is a profound source of spirituality.
26.
In
Ch.2, Sagan says that Taylor and Hulse were co-recipients of the 1993
Nobel
Prize in Physics.
27.
In
Ch.2, Sagan says that when the findings and methods of science get
through to
us, when we understand and put this knowledge to use, many feel deep
satisfaction, and that this is true for everyone, but especially for
children –
born with a zest for knowledge.
28.
In
Ch.2, Sagan says that when we recognize our place in an immensity of
light-years and in the passage of ages, we feel so puny that we cannot
be
spiritual.
29.
In
Ch.2, Sagan says one of the great commandments of science is,
“Mistrust
arguments from authority.”
30.
In
Ch.2, Sagan says one of the great commandments of science is,
“Trust arguments
from authority by standing on the shoulders of the good scientists who
have
come before.”
31.
In
Ch.2, Sagan says the independence of science, its occasional
unwillingness to
accept conventional wisdom, makes it dangerous to doctrines less
self-critical,
or with pretensions to certitude.
32.
In
Ch.2, Sagan says that scientists, being primates, and thus given to
dominance
hierarchies, of course do not always follow the commandment to mistrust
arguments from authority.
34.
In
Ch.2, Sagan says that when the findings and methods of science get
through to
us, when we understand and put this knowledge to use, many feel deep
satisfaction, and that this is true for everyone, but especially for
children –
born with a zest for knowledge.
36.
In
Ch.2, Sagan says scientists, being primates, and thus given to
dominance
hierarchies, always follow the commandment to trust arguments from
authority by
standing on the shoulders of the good scientists who have come before.
37.
In Ch.2 Sagan says science is not compatible with
spirituality.
38.
In Ch.2 Sagan says science is a profound source of
spirituality.
39.
In
Ch.2 Sagan says that when we recognize our place in an immensity of
light-years
and in the passage of ages, we feel so puny that we cannot be spiritual.
40.
In
Ch.2, Sagan says scientists, being primates, and thus given to
dominance
hierarchies, always follow the commandment to trust arguments from
authority by
standing on the shoulders of the good scientists who have come before.
41.
In
Ch.2 Sagan says that when we recognize our place in an immensity of
light-years
and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and
subtlty of
life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility
combined is
surely spiritual.
42.
In
Ch.2 Sagan says one of the great commandments of science is
“Mistrust arguments
from authority.”
43. In Ch.2, Sagan says the independence of science, its occasional unwillingness to accept conventional wisdom, makes it dangerous to doctrines less self-critical, or with pretensions to certitude.
44.
In Ch.2 Sagan says the independence of science, its
occasional unwillingness to accept conventional wisdom, makes it
dangerous to
doctrines less self-critical, or with pretensions to certitude.
45.
In Ch.2, Sagan says that scientists, being primates,
and thus given to dominance hierarchies, of course do not always follow
the
commandment to mistrust arguments from authority.
46.
In Ch.2 Sagan says scientists, being primates, and
thus given to dominance hierarchies, always follow the commandment to
trust
arguments from authority by standing on the shoulders of the good
scientists
who have come before.
47.
In Ch.2 Sagan says one of the great commandments of
science is, “Trust arguments from authority by standing on the
shoulders of the
good scientists who have come before.”
48.
In Ch.3 Sagan says that radioactive dating of
samples returned from the moon by the Apollo astronauts shows that
ancient
cratered highlands on the moon are almost 4.5 billion years old.
49.
In Ch.3 Sagan says that Antonin Artaud claimed to
see, in part under the influence of peyote, erotic images in the
patterns on
the outside of rocks.
50.
In Ch.3 Sagan says that perhaps the most famous
spurious claim of a portentous pattern involves the canals of Mars.
51.
In Ch.3 Sagan says a few small mountains on Mars
resemble pyramids.
52.
In Ch.3 Sagan says the canals of Mars were first
observed in 1977.
53.
In Ch.3 Sagan says Venus is much more clement than
Mars.
54.
In Ch.3 Sagan says in the Elysium high plateau on
Mars, there is a cluster of small mountains resembling pyramids –
the
biggest a few kilometers across at the base – all oriented in the
same
direction.
55.
In Ch.3, Sagan says there is something a little
eerie about the pyramids in the desert of Mars that are so reminiscent
of the
Gizeh plateau in Egypt.
56.
In Ch.3, Sagan says that John Michell refuses to
take at face value Artaud’s claims about erotic rocks.
57.
In Ch.3, Sagan says that perhaps the most famous
spurious claim of a portentous pattern involves the canals of Mars.
58.
In Ch. 3 Sagan says that if we scrutinize 100,000
pictures, it’s not surprising that occasionally we’ll come
upon something like
a face.
59.
In Ch.3, Sagan says that radioactive dating of
samples returned from the moon by the Apollo astronauts shows that
ancient
cratered highlands on the moon are almost 4.5 billion year old.
60.
In Ch.3, Sagan says that Antonin Artaud claimed to
see, in part under the influence of peyote, erotic images in the
patters on the
outsides of rocks.
61.
In Ch.3, Sagan says that John Michell is a British
enthusiast of the occult.
62.
In Ch.3, Sagan says the canals of Mars were first
observed in 1977.
63.
In Ch.3, Sagan says Venus is much more clement than
Mars.
64.
In Ch.3, Sagan says a few small mountains on Mars
resemble pyramids.
65.
In Ch.3, Sagan says in the Elysium high plateau on
Mars, there is a cluster of of small mountains resembling pyramids
– the
biggest a few kilometers across at the base – all oriented in the
same
direction.
66.
In Ch.3, Sagan says there is something a little
eerie about the pyramids in the desert of Mars that are so reminiscent
of the
Gizeh plateau in Egypt.
67.
In Ch.3, Sagan says that if we scrutinize 100,000
pictures, it’s not surprising that occasionally we’ll come
upon something like
a face.
68.
In Ch.3, Sagan says our brains are programmed from
infancy for finding faces.
69.
In Ch.3, Sagan says our brains are programmed from
infancy for finding faces.
70.
In Ch.3, Sagan says that perhaps the most famous
spurious claim of a portentous pattern involves the canals
of Mars.In Ch.3, Sagan says Venus is much more clement than Mars.
71.
In Ch.3, Sagan says a few small mountains on Mars
resemble pyramids.
72.
In Ch.4, Sagan mentions the claim that Charles
Piazzi Smyth discovered in the dimensions of the Great Pyramid of Gizeh
a world
chronology from the Creation to the Second Coming.
73.
In Ch.4, Sagan reports that L. Ron Hubbard wrote a
manuscript able to drive its readers insane (with Sagan wondering if
Hubbard’s
manuscript was ever proofed or proofread).
74.
In Ch.4, Sagan asks: how could humans be the result
of an alien breeding program if we share 99.6% of our active genes with
the
chimpanzees?
75.
In Ch.4, Sagan says we’re more closely related to
chimps than rats are to mice.
76.
In Ch.4, Sagan mentions the report that Andrew
Crosse created microscopic insects electrically from salts.
77.
In Ch.4, Sagan quotes John Locke saying in 1690: One
unerring mark of the love of truth is not entertaining any proposition
with
greater assurance than the proofs it is built upon will warrant.
78.
In Ch.4, Sagan discusses Charles Mackay’s 1841 book
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.
79.
In Ch.4, Sagan mentions Wilhelm Reich’s claim to
have uncovered the key to the structure of galaxies in the energy of
the human
orgasm.
80.
In Ch.4, Sagan says Hans Horbiger, under Nazi aegis,
announced the Milky Way was made not of stars but of snowballs.
81.
In Ch.4, Sagan reports that L. Ron Hubbard wrote a
manuscript able to drive its readers insane (with Sagan
wondering if Hubbard’s manuscript was ever proofed or proofread).
82.
In Ch.4, Sagan calls Martin Gardner’s book Fads and
Fallacies in the Name of Science an eye-opener.
83.
In Ch.4, Sagan says that Voltaire wrote: “’Truly,
that which makes me believe there is no inhabitant on this sphere, is
that it
seems to me that no sensible being would be willing to live
here.’ ‘Well,
then!” said Micromegas, ‘perhaps the beings that inhabit it
do not
possess good sense.’” [One alien to another, on approaching
the Earth, in
Voltaire’s Micromegas:
A Philosophical History (1752)]
84.
In Ch.4, Sagan mentions Wilhelm Reich’s claim to
have uncovered the key to the structure of galaxies in the energy of
the human
orgasm.
85.
In Ch.4, Sagan mentions the claim that Charles
Piazzi Smyth discovered in the dimensions of the Great Pyramid of Gizeh
a world
chronology from the Creation to the Second Coming.
86.
In Ch.4, Sagan reports that the Bridey Murphy case
led millions into concluding serious evidence of reincarnation exists.
87.
In Ch.5, Sagan suggests the Donation of Constantine
is a hoax.
88.
In Ch.5, Sagan says that high-altitude balloons can
seem saucer-shaped when seen from the ground, that if you misestimate
how far
away they are, you can easily imagine them going absurdly fast, that
occasionally, propelled by a gust of wind, they make abrupt changes in
direction uncharacteristic of aircraft and in seeming defiance of the
conservation of momentum – if you don’t realize that
they’re hollow and weigh
almost nothing.
89.
In Ch.5, Sagan says he was a member of the U.S. Air
Force Scientific Advisory Board committee that investigated the Air
Force’s UFO
study – called “Project Bluebook,” but earlier called
“Project Grudge.”
90.
In Ch.5 of Sagan, the U.S. Air Force Scientific
Advisory Board committee found the on-going effort of Project Bluebook
to be
lackadaisical and dismissive.
91.
In Ch.5, Sagan asks “After misapprehended natural
events and hoaxes and psychological aberrations are removed from the
data set,
is there any residue of very credible but extremely bizarre cases,
especially
ones supported by physical evidence? Is there a ‘signal’
hiding in all that
noise?” and answers that no signal has been detected.
92.
In Ch.5, Sagan says Lorenzo of Valla was a polymath
and a controversialist and a pedant who was crusty, critical, arrogant
and who
was attacked by his contemporaries for sacrilege, impudence, temerity
and
presumption.
93.
In Ch.5, Sagan says by the middle 1960s Project
Bluebook was headquartered in the same Air Force Base in Ohio where the
Foreign
Technical Intelligence was located, and that Foreign Technical
Intelligence was
concerned chiefly with understanding what new weapons the Soviets had.
94.
In Ch.5, Sagan says there is no difficulty in
understanding the motivation of the hoaxers.
95.
In Ch.5, Sagan says there is difficulty in
understanding the motivation of the hoaxers.
96.
In Ch.5, Sagan suggests the book of Deuteronomy is a
more or less typical example of a hoax.
97.
In Ch.5, Sagan says the only sure way to test your
adversary’s defenses is to fly an aircraft over their borders and
see how long
it takes for them to notice, and that the U.S. did this routinely to
test
Soviet air defenses.
98.
In Ch.5, Sagan says the only sure way to test your
adversary’s defenses is to fly an aircraft over their borders and
see how long
it takes for them to notice, and that the U.S. did this routinely to
test
Soviet air defenses.
99.
In Ch.5, Sagan says there are no cases – despite
well over a million UFO reports since 1947 – in which something
so strange that
it could only be an extraterrestrial spacecraft is reported so reliably
that
misapprehension, hoax, or hallucination can be reliably excluded and
there’s
still a part of Sagan that says “Too bad.”
100.
In Ch.6, Sagan says that since the death of his
parents he has not heard the voice of his mother or father.
101.
In Ch.6, Sagan says that since the death of his
parents, he saw them riding inside a UFO.
102.
In Ch.6, Sagan says Admiral Richard Byrd, Captain Joshua
Slocum and Sir Ernest Shackleton all experienced vivid hallucinations
when
coping with unusual isolation and loneliness.
103.
In Ch.6, Sagan says serious explorers such as
Admiral Richard Byrd, Captain Joshua Slocum and Sir Ernest Shackleton
never
experienced vivid hallucinations even when coping with unusual
isolation and
loneliness.
104.
In Ch.6, Sagan says psychedelic-induced religious
experiences were a hallmark of the Western youth culture of the 1960s.
105.
In Ch.6, Sagan says the Yale anthropologist Weston
La Barre goes so far as to argue that “a surprisingly good case
could be made
that much of culture is hallucination,” and that “the whole
intent and function
of ritual appears to be … [a] group wish to hallucinate
reality.”
106.
In Ch.6, Sagan says roughly 10% of Americans report
having seen one or more ghosts.
107.
In Ch.6, Sagan says 5% to 10% of us are extremely
suggestible, able to move at a command into a deep hypnotic trance.
108.
In Ch.6, Sagan says at least 1% of all of us is
schizophrenic, amounting to over 50 million schizophrenics on the
planet, more
than the population of England.
109.
In Ch.6, Sagan says that in 1970 John Mack published
a book on nightmares.
110.
In Ch.6, Sagan says advertisers must know their
audiences.
111.
In Ch.6, Sagan says audiences must know their
advertisers.
112.
In Ch.6, Sagan says that, from 1894 to the time of
his writing, repeated surveys have shown that 10 to 25 percent of
ordinary,
functioning people have experienced, at least once in their lifetimes,
a vivid
hallucination – hearing a voice, usually, or seeing a form when
there’s no one
there.
113.
In Ch.6, Sagan says that probably a dozen times
since the deaths of his parents he has heard his mother or father, in a
conversational tone of voice, call his name.
114.
In Ch.6, Sagan says advertisers need not know their
audiences.
115.
In Ch.6 Sagan quotes Lucretius, from On the Nature
of Things (circa 60 B.C.), as saying that as children tremble and fear
everything in the blind darkness, so we in the light sometimes fear
what is no
more to be feared than the things children in the dark hold in terror.
116.
In Ch.6, Sagan says audiences need not know their
advertisers.
117.
In Ch.7, Sagan suggests that Augustine wrote The
City of God.
118.
In Ch.7, Sagan reports that Aristotle was Plato’s
famous student.
119.
In Ch.7, Sagan reports that Aristotle seriously
considered the contention that demons script dreams.
120.
In Ch.7, Sagan quotes philosopher Thomas Hobbes as
saying in Leviathan (1651) “Fear of things invisible is the
natural seed of
that which every one in himself calleth religion.”
121.
In Ch.7, Sagan reports that St. Augustine was much
vexed with demons.
122. In Ch.7, Sagan quotes The Isa Upanishad (India, ca. 600 B.C.) as saying: “There are demon-haunted worlds, regions of utter darkness.”
123. In Ch.9, Sagan reports one survey saying that 85% of all violent prison inmates were abused in childhood.
124. In Ch.9, Sagan reports there are many real cases of ghoulish sexual predation by parents or those acting in the role of parents.
125.
In Ch.13, Sagan says British hoaxers confessed to
having made “crop circles,”
geometrical figures generated
in grain fields.
126.
In Ch.13, Sagan says one of the saddest lessons of
history is that if we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend
eventually to
realize our mistake and become depressingly sad about it.
127.
In Ch. 13, Sagan reports that Moses Maimonides was a
Jewish philosopher
128.
In Ch.13, Sagan says one of the saddest lessons of
history is that if we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to
reject any
evidence of the bamboozle.
129.
In Ch.13, Sagan says baloney, bamboozles, careless
thinking, flimflam, and wishes disguised as facts are restricted
to parlor magic and ambiguous advice on matters of the heart.
130.
In Ch.13, Sagan says baloney, bamboozles, careless
thinking, flimflam, and wishes disguised as facts unfortunately
ripple through mainstream political, social, religious, and economic
issues in
every nation.
131.
In Ch.13, Sagan says James “The Amazing” Randi won a
MacArthur Foundation Prize Fellowship.
132.
In Ch. 13, Sagan says the death rate for some goes
down after the Harvest Moon Festival.
133.
In Ch.14, Sagan quotes Cicero as saying that the
first law is that the historian shall never dare to set down what is
false.
134.
In Ch.14, Sagan gives an extended quotation from
Morris Cohen, a celebrated philosopher of science.
135.
In Ch.14, Sagan never quotes Charles Darwin.
136.
In Ch.14, Sagan says Mao Zedon’s “Great Leap
Forward” caused tens of millions of deaths.
137.
In Ch.14, Sagan says Darwin militantly opposed
racism.
138.
In Ch.14, Sagan says we need to understand the
theory to see what it predicts.
139.
In Ch.14 Sagan says Harold C. Urey was an American
chemistry Nobel laureate (winner of the Nobel prize for chemistry).
140.
In Ch.15 Sagan says St. Thomas Aquinas wrote
"Against the Gentiles”.
141.
In Ch.15, Sagan has a longer quote from Charles
Tart.
142.
In Ch.15 Sagan says some of mainstream Christianity
and Judaism embraces and even anticipated at least a portion of the
humility,
self-criticism, reasoned debate, and questioning of received wisdom
that the
best of science offers.
143.
In Ch. 15 of Sagan, no questions appear on page 270.
144.
In Ch.15 Sagan quotes William Blake's prayer saying
may God keep us from double vision.
145.
In Ch.15 Sagan says the Dalai Lama was plainly right
on some matters.
146.
In Ch. 15 Sagan denied that Moses Maimonides wrote
"Guide for the Perplexed.”
147.
In Ch. 16 Carl Sagan makes some criticisms of
nuclear scientist Edward Teller.
148.
In Ch.16 Sagan reports that President Truman
instructed his aides that he (Truman) never wishesd to see J. Robert
Oppenheimer again.
149.
In Ch.16 Sagan reports that Edwin Teller lost part
of his leg in a streetcar accident.
150.
In Ch. 16 Sagan reports that the U.S. thermonuclear
device was exploded in 1952.
151.
In Ch.16 Sagan reports that Life magazine had an
article in 1954 that admired Edwin Teller.
152.
In Ch.16, specifically on page 290, Sagan gives a
few examples of seemingly contradictory aphorisms.
153.
In Ch.16 Sagan makes no criticisms of nuclear
scientist Edward Teller.
154.
In Ch.16 Sagan quotes Euripides.
155.
In Ch.16 Sagan reports that J. Robert Oppenheimer
claimed that scientists had bloody hands.
156.
In Ch.16 Sagan says there was a nuclear accident in
Pennsylvania in 1979.
157.
In Ch.16 Sagan denies that he ever met privately
with Dr. Teller.
158.
In Ch.16 Sagan writes that in 1995 the CIA Inspector
General said absolute secrecy corrupts absolutely.
159.
In Ch.16 Sagan says that the Bible is full of so
many stories of contradictory moral purpose that every generation can
find
scriptural justification for nearly any action it proposes – from
incest,
slavery, and mass murder to the most refined love, courage, and
self-sacrifice.
160.
In Ch.16 Sagan says it is not the particular task of
scientists to alert the public to possible dangers emanating
from science or foreseeable though the use of science.
161.
In Ch.16 Sagan speaks of men being perhaps
“testosterone-inflamed.
162.
In Ch.16 Sagan says “In Joshua and the second half
of Numbers [in the Old Testament of The Bible] is celebrated the mass
murder of
men, women, children, down to the domestic animals in city after city
across
the whole land of Canaan.”
163.
In Ch.16 Sagan says “Even folk institutions that
purport to give us advice on behavior and ethics seem fraught with
contradictions.”
164.
In Ch.16 Sagan says “In Joshua and the second half
of Numbers [in the Old Testament of The Bible] is celebrated the mass
murder of
men, women, children, down to the domestic animals in city after city
across
the whole land of Canaan.”
165.
In Ch.16 Sagan says “…stories of mass murder … can
be found in the books of Saul, Esther, and elsewhere in the Bible, with
hardly
a pang of moral doubt. It was all, of course, troubling to
liberal
theologians of a later age.”
166.
In Ch.16 Sagan says: “It is properly said that the
Devil can ‘quote Scripture to his purpose.’”
167.
In Ch.16 Sagan says “The Bible is full of so many
stories of contradictory moral purpose that every generation
can find scriptural justification for nearly any action it proposes
– from
incest, slavery, and mass murder to the most refined love, courage, and
self-sacrifice. And this moral multiple personality disorder is hardly
restricted to Judaism and Christianity. You can find it deep
within
Islam, the Hindu tradition, indeed nearly all the world’s
religions.”
168.
In Ch.16 Sagan says “if we must make errors, given
the stakes, they should be on the side of safety.”
169.
In Ch.16 Sagan suggests these two pieces of commonsense
folk wisdom are contradictory: 1) Haste makes
waste; and 2) a
stitch in time saves nine.
170.
In Ch.16 Sagan suggests these two pieces of
commonsense folk wisdom are contradictory: 1) Better safe than sorry;
and 2)
nothing ventured, nothing gained.
171. In Ch.16 Sagan quotes these questions from Euripides from 428 B.C.: "The mind of man -- how far will it decline? Where will its daring impotence find frontiers?"
172. In Ch.16 Sagan quotes these questions from Euripides from 428 B.C.: "The mind of woman -- how far will it progress? Where will its derring-do find limitations from men?"
173. In Ch.16 Sagan quotes these questions from Euripides from 428 B.C.: "The mind of man -- how far will it advance? Where will its daring impudence find limits?"
174. In Ch.16 Sagan quotes these questions from Euripides from 428 B.C.: "The mind of mankind -- how far will it advise? Where will its darting imprudence find libation?"
175. In Ch.16 Sagan says President Harry S. Truman and J. Robert Oppenheimer, the scientific director of the Manhattan nuclear weapons Project, never met.
176. In Ch.16 Sagan rejects the following view: "More often, science is taken to task because it and its products are said to be morally neutral, ethically ambiguous, as readily employed in the service of evil as of good. This is an old indictment. It goes back probably to the flaking of stone tools and the domestication of fire. Since technology has been with our ancestral line from before the first human, since we are a technological species, this problem is not so much one of science as of human nature."
177. In Ch.16 Sagan says John Passmore is an Albanian philosopher who wrote the book Scientism and Its Sycophants.
178. In Ch.16 Sagan says John Passmore is an Austrian philosopher who wrote the book Science and Its Creeps.
179. In Ch.16 Sagan says John Passmore is an Australian philosopher who wrote the book Science and Its Critics.
180.
In Ch. 16 Sagan suggests these two pieces of
commonsense folk wisdom are contradictory: 1) Where there’s
smoke there’s fire; and 2) you can’t tell a book by its
cover.
181.
In Ch. 16 Sagan suggests these two pieces of commonsense
folk wisdom are contradictory: 1) A penny saved is a penny earned; and
2) you
can’t take it with you.
182.
In Ch. 16 Sagan suggests these two pieces of
commonsense folk wisdom are contradictory: 1) He who hesitates is lost;
and 2)
fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
183.
In Ch. 16 Sagan suggests these two pieces of
commonsense folk wisdom are contradictory: 1) Two heads are better than
one;
and 2) too many cooks spoil the broth.
184.
In Ch.17 Sagan mentions crop circles.
449.
A sound argument is a valid argument with no false premises.
450.
A sound argument is valid with no false premises.
451.
A syllogism is an argument with exactly two premises and one conclusion.
452.
A syllogism is an argument with exactly one premise and one conclusion.
453.
All strong arguments are unsound arguments.
454.
All sound arguments are strong arguments.
455.
All sound arguments are weak arguments.
456.
All valid arguments have at least 1 true premise.
457.
All valid arguments have at least 2 true premises.
458.
All valid arguments are valid arguments.
459.
All valid arguments are sound arguments.
460.
All valid arguments are strong arguments.
461.
All valid arguments are weak arguments.
462.
All valid arguments are invalid arguments.
463.
All strong arguments are valid arguments.
464.
All strong arguments are invalid arguments.
465.
All sound arguments are valid.
466.
All sound arguments are invalid.
467.
All sound arguments are sound.
468.
All sound arguments are unsound.
469.
All sound arguments have a true conclusion.
470.
All sound arguments have a false conclusion.
471.
All sound arguments have a true premise.
472.
All sound arguments have a false premise.
473.
‘All S are P’ is an A-claim.
474.
All sound arguments are sound arguments.
475.
All sound arguments are invalid arguments.
476.
All sound arguments are unsound arguments.
477.
All sound arguments are valid arguments.
478.
‘No S are P’ is an E-claim.
479.
No sound arguments are sound arguments.
480.
No sound arguments are unsound arguments.
481.
No sound arguments are valid arguments.
482.
No strong arguments are sound arguments.
483.
No strong arguments are unsound arguments.
484.
No strong arguments are valid arguments.
485.
No strong arguments are invalid arguments.
486.
No sound arguments are invalid arguments.
487.
No sound arguments are strong arguments.
488.
No sound arguments are weak arguments.
489.
No valid arguments are valid arguments.
490.
No valid arguments are strong arguments.
491.
No valid arguments are weak arguments.
492.
No valid arguments are sound arguments.
493.
No valid arguments are invalid arguments.
494.
Some sound arguments are weak arguments.
495.
Some sound arguments are strong arguments.
496.
Some sound arguments are not strong arguments.
497.
Some sound arguments are not weak arguments.
498.
Some valid arguments are valid arguments.
499.
Some valid arguments are not valid arguments.
500.
Some valid arguments are strong arguments.
501.
The following is a) ad hominem, the natural/unnatural fallacy or modus
ponens;
or b) false dilemma, slippery slope or special pleading: We can
recognize that
athletes that participate in sports must be given special consideration
within
our grading system, or we can let the university sink into athletic
oblivion.
502.
The following is a) appeal to authority; b) appeal to ignorance:
Despite
endless efforts, no one has been able to prove that God exists; we may
just as
well stop trying and accept the truth: there is no God.
503.
The following is a) hasty generalization or post hoc ergo propter hoc;
b)
natural/unnatural fallacy or appeal to ignorance: Alicia started
gaining more
weight than ever when she started taking Slimdown; the stuff must be
fattening!
504.
The following is a) false dilemma or slippery slope or b) ad populum:
No
sensible person would support the Equal Rights Amendment. If it were to
pass,
we would have women in combat and unisex bathrooms. Eventually, we
would not
even be able to tell the women from the men!
505.
The following is: a) ad hominem; b) appeal to authority: How can
Clinton be
leading this country! He's a draft-dodging, pot-smoking, womanizer!!
506.
The following is: a) ad hominem; b) appeal to authority: Michael Jordan
wore
that brand, so those must to be the best basketball shoes.
507.
The following is a) appeal to pity; b) ad hominem: Don't ignore the
woman who
gave you birth, raised you, loved you then, and loves you still.
Remember your
mom on Mother's Day.
508.
The following is a) ad hominem; b) ad populum: So what if I didn't
claim all of
the money I earned on my taxes? Lots of people underreport their income.
509.
The following is: a) appeal to pity; b) appeal to authority: That's
gotta be a
great line of clothes. Have you seen the prices and the people
endorsing it?
510.
In a Venn diagram, universal claims must be diagrammed after particular
claims.
511.
The middle term is the term that appears on the right in the conclusion.
512.
The minor term is the term that appears twice in the premises but not
at all in
the conclusion.
513.
The major term is the term that appears on the left in the conclusion.
514.
Every valid argument is sound.
515.
‘Some S are P’ is an I-claim.
516.
‘Some S are not P’ is an O-claim.
517.
Every weak argument has some true premises.
518.
Every valid argument is sound.
519.
Guideline D says you should insist that there are no values or
knowledge for
you to use in your term paper.
520.
Some valid arguments are not strong arguments.
449.
A sound argument is a valid argument with no false premises.
450.
A sound argument is valid with no false premises.
451.
A syllogism is an argument with exactly two premises and one conclusion.
452.
A syllogism is an argument with exactly one premise and one conclusion.
453.
All strong arguments are unsound arguments.
454.
All sound arguments are strong arguments.
455.
All sound arguments are weak arguments.
456.
All valid arguments have at least 1 true premise.
457.
All valid arguments have at least 2 true premises.
458.
All valid arguments are valid arguments.
459.
All valid arguments are sound arguments.
460.
All valid arguments are strong arguments.
461.
All valid arguments are weak arguments.
462.
All valid arguments are invalid arguments.
463.
All strong arguments are valid arguments.
464.
All strong arguments are invalid arguments.
465.
All sound arguments are valid.
466.
All sound arguments are invalid.
467.
All sound arguments are sound.
468.
All sound arguments are unsound.
469.
All sound arguments have a true conclusion.
470.
All sound arguments have a false conclusion.
471.
All sound arguments have a true premise.
472.
All sound arguments have a false premise.
473.
‘All S are P’ is an A-claim.
474.
All sound arguments are sound arguments.
475.
All sound arguments are invalid arguments.
476.
All sound arguments are unsound arguments.
477.
All sound arguments are valid arguments.
478.
‘No S are P’ is an E-claim.
479.
No sound arguments are sound arguments.
480.
No sound arguments are unsound arguments.
481.
No sound arguments are valid arguments.
482.
No strong arguments are sound arguments.
483.
No strong arguments are unsound arguments.
484.
No strong arguments are valid arguments.
485.
No strong arguments are invalid arguments.
486.
No sound arguments are invalid arguments.
487.
No sound arguments are strong arguments.
488.
No sound arguments are weak arguments.
489.
No valid arguments are valid arguments.
490.
No valid arguments are strong arguments.
491.
No valid arguments are weak arguments.
492.
No valid arguments are sound arguments.
493.
No valid arguments are invalid arguments.
494.
Some sound arguments are weak arguments.
495.
Some sound arguments are strong arguments.
496.
Some sound arguments are not strong arguments.
497.
Some sound arguments are not weak arguments.
498.
Some valid arguments are valid arguments.
499.
Some valid arguments are not valid arguments.
500.
Some valid arguments are strong arguments.
501.
The following is a) ad hominem, the natural/unnatural fallacy or modus
ponens;
or b) false dilemma, slippery slope or special pleading: We can
recognize that
athletes that participate in sports must be given special consideration
within
our grading system, or we can let the university sink into athletic
oblivion.
502.
The following is a) appeal to authority; b) appeal to ignorance:
Despite
endless efforts, no one has been able to prove that God exists; we may
just as
well stop trying and accept the truth: there is no God.
503.
The following is a) hasty generalization or post hoc ergo propter hoc;
b)
natural/unnatural fallacy or appeal to ignorance: Alicia started
gaining more
weight than ever when she started taking Slimdown; the stuff must be
fattening!
504.
The following is a) false dilemma or slippery slope or b) ad populum:
No
sensible person would support the Equal Rights Amendment. If it were to
pass,
we would have women in combat and unisex bathrooms. Eventually, we
would not
even be able to tell the women from the men!
505.
The following is: a) ad hominem; b) appeal to authority: How can
Clinton be
leading this country! He's a draft-dodging, pot-smoking, womanizer!!
506.
The following is: a) ad hominem; b) appeal to authority: Michael Jordan
wore
that brand, so those must to be the best basketball shoes.
507.
The following is a) appeal to pity; b) ad hominem: Don't ignore the
woman who
gave you birth, raised you, loved you then, and loves you still.
Remember your
mom on Mother's Day.
508.
The following is a) ad hominem; b) ad populum: So what if I didn't
claim all of
the money I earned on my taxes? Lots of people underreport their income.
509.
The following is: a) appeal to pity; b) appeal to authority: That's
gotta be a
great line of clothes. Have you seen the prices and the people
endorsing it?
510.
In a Venn diagram, universal claims must be diagrammed after particular
claims.
511.
The middle term is the term that appears on the right in the conclusion.
512.
The minor term is the term that appears twice in the premises but not
at all in
the conclusion.
513.
The major term is the term that appears on the left in the conclusion.
514.
Every valid argument is sound.
515.
‘Some S are P’ is an I-claim.
516.
‘Some S are not P’ is an O-claim.
517.
Every weak argument has some true premises.
518.
Every valid argument is sound.
519.
Guideline D says you should insist that there are no values or
knowledge for
you to use in your term paper.
520.
Some valid arguments are not strong arguments.
521.
Some sound arguments are unsound arguments.
522.
Some sound arguments are not unsound arguments.
523.
Some sound arguments are sound arguments.
524.
Some sound arguments are not sound arguments.
525.
Some sound arguments are valid arguments.
526.
Some sound arguments are not valid arguments.
527.
Some sound arguments are invalid arguments.
528.
Some sound arguments are invalid arguments.
529.
Some sound arguments have a false conclusion.
530.
Some invalid arguments have only true premises and a true conclusion.
531.
Some valid arguments are sound arguments.
532.
Some valid arguments are not valid arguments.
533.
Some valid arguments are invalid arguments.
534.
Some valid arguments are invalid arguments.
535.
Some valid arguments are weak arguments.
536.
Some valid arguments are not weak arguments.
537.
Some strong arguments are sound arguments.
538.
Some strong arguments are sound arguments.
539.
Some strong arguments are not sound arguments.
540.
Some strong arguments are unsound arguments.
541.
Some strong arguments are not unsound arguments.
542.
Some strong arguments are valid arguments.
543.
Some strong arguments are not valid arguments.
544.
Some strong arguments are invalid arguments.
545.
Some strong arguments are not invalid arguments.
546.
Every sound argument has some true premises.
547.
Every sound argument is strong.
548.
Every valid argument is strong.
549.
Every valid argument has some true premises.
550.
Every strong argument is sound.
551.
Every strong argument is valid.
552.
Every weak argument is sound.
553.
Every weak argument has a true conclusion.
554.
Guideline A for your paper says to use a title that identifies your
topic.
555.
Guideline A for your paper says to identify your stand on your paper
topic.
556.
Guideline B for your paper says to take stands on issues throughout
your term
paper.
557.
Guideline C says you should sweep counterarguments under the rug to
ignore
them.
558.
Guideline C says you should present and fully explore counterarguments.
559.
Guideline E says extra effort exhibits excellence.
560.
Guideline H says you should maximize assumptions.
561.
Guideline I says you should avoid specificity.
562.
Guideline M says you should use a new paragraph to indicate the first
occurrence of a major new idea in your term paper.
563.
Guideline S says to increase your use of negative terms like
‘no,’ ‘not,’ and
‘never.’
564.
Every valid argument is sound.
565.
Every invalid argument is unsound.
566.
Every invalid argument is strong.
567.
Every invalid argument is unsound.
568.
Every invalid argument is weak.
569.
Every invalid argument has some true premises.
570.
Every strong argument has a conclusion that is necessarily true.
571.
Every invalid argument has some false premises.
FAQ5: For
all courses, what are Dr. Harwood's CRUCIALLY important
Guidelines A-Z for Creating & Grading Papers & Presentations?
I will use these 26 guidelines in grading your papers and
presentations. So learn all the guidelines thoroughly. The first letter
in a comment like 'AF' refers to the guideline I am relying on to
comment on your paper and the second letter will be 'F' (meaning
'followed') or 'U' (meaning 'unfollowed'). So, for example, 'AF' means
guideline A was followed. 'AU' means guideline A was unfollowed. 'BF'
means guideline B was followed and 'BU' means guideline B was
unfollowed. Don't worry, 'FU' means only that guideline F was
unfollowed. ;o) Avoid being confused by 'UU,' which means only that
guideline U was unfollowed. Call me @ 408-259-7777 or my cell @
408-687-8199 if you want any more help with understanding my comments
on your graded work, my guidelines A-Z, or any other part of our course
together.
When writing your first draft, concentrate primarily on guidelines A
through F, but follow all 26 guidelines A-Z before submitting your
paper. Guidelines with an asterisk (*) are especially important. The
alphabetical order is no indicator of importance. For hardcopies,
double space your paper, having a maximum of ABOUT 25 lines per page
and ABOUT 10 words per line, for a total of ABOUT 255 words per page
maximum. This allows enough room for my comments. Except perhaps for
your last page, have a minimum of ABOUT 245 words per page minimum. You
needn't count words; just double space with one inch margins on all
four sides and use font size 14.
GUIDELINE A. Create a title for your paper that clearly TAKES A STAND
on your approved paper topic. This means that if you use a question for
your title, be sure to answer that question in your title (or a
subtitle). Here's an example of a title with a subtitle: "Is Abortion
Moral?: No". 'No' is the subtitle. "Is Abortion Moral?: Yes" would be
an equally excellent title for a paper on abortion. Here are examples
of bad titles that fail to follow guideline A: “Paper,”
“Term Paper” “Philosophy Paper”;
“Philosophy Term Paper”; "Affirmative Action"; "Abortion";
“Death Penalty,” “Executions,” “Capital
Punishment,” Euthanasia"; "Gun Control"; "Surrogate Motherhood."
Here are examples of good titles that follow guideline A: "Say
'Affirmative' to Affirmative Action"; "Affirmative Action is Reverse
Discrimination & Wrong," "Kill Euthanasia: It's Wrong," “Put
Mercy Killing out of its Misery: It’s Wrong,” "Euthanasia:
We Have a Moral Right to Death with Dignity," "Abort Abortion: It's
Wrong," "Abortion: Women Should Have the Right to Choose," "Gun Down
Gun Control: It's Wrong," "Gun Control is So Good It Saves Lives."
Number all of your pages (except any separate title page you have) and
avoid using any covers for your papers. Just staple your paper in the
upper left-hand corner. Remember to put the grid in the upper
right-hand corner of your title page. Remember, if you submit it for a
grade, it must have a grid! See FAQ for key details about the grid.
GUIDELINE B.* Begin your paper with “In this paper I will argue
that ____” and then fill in the blank to announce at the outset
the
main purpose of your paper. Be sure to fill in that blank with the same
position you stated in your title (see guideline A) and in your heading
for your introduction (see guideline U). The quotations in your
A-sections must always be controversial and published. Clearly
identify which
arguments are yours. Take a stand on the main issues early on, and
continue to take stands on issues throughout your paper. Announce in
your first paragraph of your introduction what conclusion you will
argue for in your paper and, if your paper is about a moral issue, what
moral principles you will use to support your conclusion. If you are
morally evaluating a case, then state your moral evaluations of each
morally questionable action in your case clearly and early in your
first paragraph on p.1 of your paper. When writing on a moral question,
you must argue from at least one moral principle. But the more moral
principles you show to be on your side, the better your paper will be.
GUIDELINE C.* Anticipate and fully present all significant
counterarguments to your views, and respond to these counterarguments.
You may respond by modifying your position or by arguing against the
counterarguments. If you are writing on a moral question, then in your
first paragraph on page 1 announce what moral principles your opponents
will use. You will find counterarguments in the assigned readings. The
better the argument, whether it favors your side or not, the more space
you should devote to it in your paper.
GUIDELINE D. Guideline 'D' is about 'doubt.' Avoid extreme relativism
and skepticism, unless that is your approved paper topic. Extreme moral
relativism states that no argument is any better than any other
argument. Extreme moral skepticism is the view that no moral knowledge
exists.
GUIDELINE E. * Extra effort exhibits excellence. More is better. Show
that you have read and mastered all the assigned readings. You must
always use citations. See guideline O below. Carefully present and
evaluate ALL the assigned readings that are relevant to your paper
topic. Avoid viewing the paper as a mere exercise or chore that you
must complete. Instead, view the paper as one of the few chances you
will have to show what you know. View the paper as a great opportunity
to show all of the relevant information that you know. Your paper
should be an analytical paper rather than a research paper. You might
find some outside research helpful after mastering and analyzing the
readings assigned. You must however document any factual claims you
make that fail to be obvious. If you have any doubt about whether your
factual claims are obvious, document them. See guideline M below.
Philosophy papers are not history or psychology papers. Philosophy
papers frequently morally evaluate and argue rather than just describe.
GUIDELINE F.* Give the FULL and COMPLETE definition of any principle or
concept when you first use it. After you have given the full and
complete definition, usually in section 2C of your paper, you should
just repeat a short version of the key element in the definition that
you intend to apply to evaluate an action in your case. Since my
courses often involve applying principles and concepts, define your
terms and then SHOW HOW they APPLY to the case or argument or issue or
quote in question. In writing on moral questions, show, BY ARGUMENT,
that the moral principles make the facts of the case morally relevant.
Argue that the facts favor one side rather than the other(s). The more
principles you use (without distorting the principles or the facts of
your case) to support your evaluations or analysis, the better your
paper will be.
GUIDELINE G. Use topic sentences. Use words to show the relationships
between sentences in your arguments (for example, "In other words,"
"That is," "For example," "However," "Still," "Besides," "Indeed,"
"So," “Hence,” “Thus,” “Ergo,”
"Therefore," "Further," "Furthermore," "Moreover," "Similarly,"
"Likewise," "Contrariwise," "On the contrary," "Rather," "Instead," "In
sum," "Finally," and "In conclusion,"). Use 'Further' or 'Additionally'
rather than 'And' to start a sentence. Use 'However' or "On the other
hand" rather than 'But' to start a sentence. Use
‘Alternatvely’ rather than ‘Or’ to start a
sentence. 'And,' 'But' and 'Or' are a bit too informal for your
scholarly papers.
GUIDELINE H. Minimize assumptions, especially key, controversial, or
unstated assumptions. Clearly and explicitly argue for every evaluation
or conclusion or analysis that you make. In moral writing, morally
evaluate every morally questionable action in your case. The number of
morally questionable actions will vary from case to case. Accepting an
assumption without critical thinking is giving someone a free pass and
in philosophy and critical thinking there are no free passes.
GUIDELINE I.* Be specific. In the words of The Beatles' album "Sgt.
Pepper": "Indicate precisely what you mean to say."
GUIDELINE J.* Use extreme words (also called ‘watchwords,’
for example, 'any,' 'all,' 'always,' 'whenever,' 'whatever,' 'never,'
'no,' 'none,' 'every,' 'solely,' 'only,' 'completely,' 'fully,' 'lone,'
'must,' 'absolutely,' 'unquestionable,' 'impossible,'
‘inconceivable,’ 'undeniably') only with extreme caution,
since extreme words used without qualifying words (for example,
'almost,' 'usually,' 'typically,' 'often,' 'frequently,' 'not') often
lead to overstatement and falsehood. Avoid hyperbole (that is,
exaggeration for rhetorical effect). Avoid overstating arguments and
points. Avoid slanted rhetoric.
GUIDELINE K. Avoid using rhetorical questions as substitutes for
arguments. Try to answer any questions you pose in your paper and do so
immediately after you ask them. So that means you should never pose two
questions in a row. Consider the following exchange from Lincoln, a
novel by one of my favorite writers, Gore Vidal:
Seward: "Never end a speech with a question."
Lincoln smiled, "For fear you'll get the wrong answer?"
Seward nodded, "People are perverse."
Compare this to the ad populum fallacy.
GUIDELINE L. Be brief. As Shakespeare wrote (in "Hamlet"), brevity is
the soul of wit. Eliminate unnecessary words by using the active voice
instead of the passive voice. Further, almost always delete 'actually'
and 'really.' Balance guidelines L and E. See guideline T on the
passive voice. Here's an example of the active voice: "The bat hit the
ball." Here's an example of the passive voice: "The ball was hit by the
bat." The active voice is briefer than the passive voice.
GUIDELINE M. Use a separate paragraph every time you start a
significantly new event in your paper. For example, defining a moral
principle is one significant event but then applying that definition to
a quote is a new event deserving a new (separate) paragraph. Further,
if a paragraph consists of only one or two brief sentences, check to
see whether the paragraph is best incorporated into another paragraph
of your paper. If a paragraph runs for much over a page, check to see
that you are neither rambling, merely drifting down a stream of
consciousness, nor being verbose.
GUIDELINE N. Avoid using scarequotes (that is, inverted commas). For
example, avoid saying "This seems 'right'" or "You are 'wrong'."
GUIDELINE O. It is false to think that anything goes when it comes to
citations. You must have a named, individual, nonfictitious person to
cite. The name must be sufficiently recognizable to allow
identification. Many websites are ineligible for citations but many
other websites are eligible. Check with Dr. Harwood well in advance of
submitting your work (term papers are due at the end of the term) to
make sure you get credit for your citation. The sources that are OK to
cite are too numerous to list here, but for a start the press of any
accredited university are OK, as are: The New York Times, The
Washington Times, The San Jose Mercury News, The Wall Street Journal,
The Washington Post, The Nation, The National Review, The Weekly
Standard, Foreign Affairs, The New Republic, The Economist, Life, Time,
U.S. News and World Report, Look, The Saturday Evening Post, Fortean
Times, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, and many thousands more. These
online sites and thousands more that you can get Dr. Harwood to approve
in advance are OK to cite: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
www.sterlingharwood.com, The Encarta Encyclopedia, The Encyclopedia
Britannica, cnn.com, foxnewschannel.com, historychannel.com,
abcnews.com, pbs.org; and http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/. If
the source you wish to cite is not on this list, then you must check
with Dr. Harwood at least several days in advance of submitting your
term paper with the citation in question and in advance of you spending
much time and effort on the citation in question. Remember, only
information attributable to a named individual nonfictitious person (or
an organization that Dr. Harwood approves in advance) is eligible for
citation in your term paper. Read and think about whatever you like,
but Dr. Harwood wants your term paper to focus on real info from real
people rather than waste time or distract by you citing in your term
paper, for example, just some actor or imposter or fictitious person
like "lonely girl" on the Internet.
Whenever you use someone else's idea(s), use a citation immediately
following it (at the end of the sentence, in parentheses) to give 5
pieces of key information: 1) author; 2) title; 3) publisher; 4) year
or date; and 5) page. If you cite the Internet, then also include,
along with the full name of the individual, nonfictitious person you
are citing (or some organization approved by Dr. Harwood in advance),
the URL (universal resource locator; the website address) and the date
you last visited that website. Avoid quote-quilting (that is, overusing
others' arguments and merely weaving them together into a position). If
you use the exact words of another, then you must use quotation marks
around all of those exact words. Failure to quote exact words and
failure to credit others with a citation when you use their ideas is
plagiarism, which is unethical and sometimes illegal. Dr. Harwood
punishes plagiarism by giving an F for the course to any student who
plagiarizes. If you have any doubt or ignorance about what plagiarism
means, then before you submit any work carefully read the definition of
plagiarism at www.dictionary.com -- and other dictionaries -- and
consult a school counselor about our college's rules concerning
plagiarism and academic honesty and integrity.
GUIDELINE P. Avoid understating your point. One of the most important
things you will learn in college is how to give your points just the
right level of emphasis, avoiding overemphasis and underemphasis. On
overemphasis, see guideline J above. On underemphasis, probabilities
are usually crucial. Showing a mere possibility is helpful only when
rebutting a claim that something is impossible. Lawyers rightly
ridicule arguments trying to show some possible, horrible consequence
to a law or ruling, calling such arguments "possible horrible
arguments." Avoid making such arguments. Avoid weasel words, which tend
to water down and understate your point. Weasel words include, but are
hardly limited to: ‘maybe’, ‘may’,
‘perhaps’, ‘might’, ‘could’,
‘would’, ‘possible’, ‘possibly’,
‘conceivable’, ‘conceivably’, and
‘can’.
GUIDELINE Q. Expose the commission of any fallacies others commit, but
avoid oversimplifying or distorting others' views or the definitions of
the fallacies just to rebut your opponents. Avoid committing any
fallacies yourself. For detailed descriptions of about 33 fallacies,
see another FAQ below.
GUIDELINE R. Proofread your paper carefully! Bad proofreading is the
fastest way to lose credibility with your readers. Imagine if you wrote
paper on Microsoft and kept calling it Macrosoft or Macrosift all the
way through your paper. Your readers would infer that since you fail to
know even how to spell your subject, you do not know what you are
talking about. At best, typographical or grammatical errors distract
your reader; and dividing your reader's attention risks
misinterpretation of your views. At worst, such errors obscure thoughts
you wish to communicate, and convince your reader that his or her
wisdom is no match for your ignorance. Here are some words that are
often misspelled or misused: 1) 'argument' is right; 'arguement' is
wrong; 2) "it's" means "it is"; 'its' is the possessive of 'it'; 3)
'criterion' is singular and 'criteria' is plural; 4) 'solely' is right;
'soley' and 'soly' are wrong; 5) 'occurrence' is right; 'occurence' is
wrong; 6) 'likelihood' is right; 'likelyhood' is wrong; 7) 'judgment'
is best in America; 'judgement' is the British spelling; and 8) 'lose'
(not 'loose') is the opposite of 'win', and 'losing' (not 'loosing')is
the opposite of 'winning'; 9) 'loose' is the opposite of 'tight'.
GUIDELINE S. Put points positively, which makes your writing less
evasive and more forceful and clear. Use these words to help you avoid
'not': 'lack', 'without,' 'refrain,' 'shun,' 'fail,' 'scarcely,'
'hardly,' 'refuse,' 'refrain,' 'reject,' 'avoid,' 'doubt,' "decide
against," and "rather than” ; “instead of." Avoid using
negative terms such as 'not' and 'never.' Avoid using contractions (for
example, "don't" and "ain't" and "I'll") in formal writings such as
your paper. This guideline prevents you from using double negatives and
from mincing words (e.g., "not without" and "not unreasonable").
GUIDELINE T. Use the active voice. Passive voice is good for
politeness, suspense and evasion of responsibility (for example,
President Reagan's "Mistakes were made" on the Iran/Contra scandal).
Your scholarly papers put a premium on other values such as clarity and
brevity, which are much better served by the active voice. The passive
voice often uses forms of the verb "to be", often uses the past
participle of a verb, and often uses 'by.' For example, the active
voice of "Plato argued for this conclusion" is better than "This
conclusion was argued for by Plato."
GUIDELINE U.* Use numbered headings (see the sample paper in FAQ3
above) to show your readers where you are heading. The heading is like
a headline and thus the heading for your introduction, for example,
should thus appear on a separate line above the first paragraph of your
introduction. Pity your reader. He or she must take thousands of tiny
stains (letters) and use interpretation to make from these stains a
philosophy or a position. Avoid passing up opportunities to use
headings to let your reader know what your conclusions will be (where
you are heading) and how you will get there. Headngs are useful
signposts.
GUIDELINE V. Use complete sentences. That is, avoid "sentence
fragments."
GUIDELINE W. For all oral presentations, use all the applicable info in
the 5 moral principles, the 7 truth tips and the 33 fallacies (all 43
of these items are posted on this homepage in FAQ 8, FAQ9 and FAQ10) to
evaluate quotations in ABC format. Follow the following six points.
First, if the oral presentations are required to be in learning teams,
every member of a learning team should evaluate at least one quotation
using the ABC format in every oral presentation. Second, interact with
your audience (for example, have a thorough question/answer period,
which is required for all presentations, and distribute a handout to
the audience with all the quotes you present unless you write the
quotes on the board or present them in an overhead or powerpoint).
Third, use numbered or lettered points in your graphics or slides
(rather than merely bulleted points). This aids specificity and ease of
reference. Fourth, if you use any overheads, use blocking on overheads
(so there is never a blank screen displayed). Fifth, use an energetic
or passionate tone. Sixth, use some good-natured humor. Being
good-natured means that you should avoid foul language and avoid making
other people or groups, races, sexes etc. the butt of your jokes.
Non-human animals and extraterrestrial aliens (if they exist) are
usually fair game for use as characters in good-natured jokes.
Self-deprecating and good-natured humor using polite language is
usually a big plus.
GUIDELINE X. Avoid splitting infinitives. Infinitives involve verbs.
Examples of infinitives: 1) "to go" is the infinitive of 'go'; 2) "to
die" is the infinitive of 'die'. Here's an example of a split
infinitive: "Its 5-year mission is to boldly go where no one has gone
before." Adverbs usually split infinitives.
GUIDELINE Y. Avoid ending sentences with prepositions. Winston
Churchill jokingly said that this error is a mistake up with which he
will not put. ;o) Examples of propositions include: at, under, over,
of, for, in. Examples of sentences ending with prepositions include: 1)
"Where's the library at?"; 2) "Check to see if the mail is in"; and 3)
"You are the one I came for."
Another joke concerning this guideline is:
Freshman: “Where’s the library at?”
Professor: “Here at Cornell we simply do not end our sentences
with prepositions.”
Freshman: “OK, then where’s the library at –
scumbag!”
GUIDELINE Z. Avoid contractions, which are too informal for the
scholarly writing you do. Examples of contractions include: "I'm,"
"Don't," and "I'll." Further, avoid starting sentences with 'And,'
'But,' or 'Or' since these are also too informal.
********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
FAQ6: For all courses, what is a good sample paper for us to read to
help us write our term paper in ABC format?
FAQ6: For all
courses, what
is the best sample paper for us to read to help us write our term paper
in the
required ABC format?
Here's the best (though imperfect, as all things are) sample paper from
an
actual student, with some tweaking by Dr. H to make it a better sample
for you
to follow (but not plagiarize of course).
Pat Nguyen/PHIL 10
term
paper/date of submission: 7/27/10
Euthanasia is Moral: Avoid Killing Rights to Mercy Killing
1. Introduction: Mercy Killing is Right
In this paper I
will argue that voluntary euthanasia, which occurs
when a
patient requests his or her own mercy killing, is moral. This answers
the
fundamental ethical question in euthanasia about whether it is morally
acceptable “for a third party, such as a physician, to end the
life of a
terminally ill patient who is in intense pain.”
(http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/euthanas.htm, “Euthanasia”, last
visited Tuesday,
November 30, 2004.)
What is euthanasia? Technically speaking, euthanasia is denoted as:
“the act or
practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or
injured
individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless
way for
reasons of mercy” (“Euthanasia”, http://www.m-w.com,
last visited Tuesday,
November 30, 2004). Also, according to http://www.medterms.com, it
literally
means “good death” as derived from two Greek words:
“eu”, meaning good, and
“thanatos”, meaning death ["Euthanasia," last visited
11/30/06.)
Moreover, as read in http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/euthanas.htm, there are
two types
of euthanasia: active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. Active
euthanasia is
also commonly referred to as assisted suicide because it involves
forcefully
ending a suffering person’s life by means of, for instance, a
lethal injection.
Passive euthanasia, though, is just a person’s refusal to use
life-sustaining
mechanisms. For example, a person may not be able to breathe, but one
can
refuse to try to resuscitate him. [“Euthanasia”, last
visited 11/30/06.]
Further, in subsequent arguments for my view supporting moral rights to
euthanasia,
I will use the egalitarian belief that we must protect the innocent
from
undeserved suffering. I will also use libertarianism through its
conviction
that anything between consenting adults is morally allowable as well as
its
stance against paternalism. Furthermore, I will use the prima facie
principles
of beneficence and nonmaleficence, the virtue of kindness in
perfectionism.
Finally, I shall use utilitarianism as well.
The counter-arguments in this paper that will be applied will use
religion as their
main support and will attack the principles supporting euthanasia with
different perspectives and illogical reasoning through fallacies.
However, I
will show these counter-arguments to be flawed through indicating these
fallacies and will cite examples of how euthanasia is often more moral
than the
alternative of prolonging the life of a patient or allowing the patient
to live
longer naturally.
2. We should save hospital care and life-prolonging mechanisms for
people who
actually have a chance to survive
2A. "The maintenance of life by artificial means is, in such cases,
sadly
pointless, and if all available means of prolonging life were always
used, the
hospitals would be quickly filled with living corpses while ordinary
patients
could find no beds. Thus, virtually everyone who has thought seriously
about
the matter agrees that it is morally acceptable, at some point, to
cease
treatment and allow such people to die." (James Rachels, quoted in Tom
Regan, Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral
Philosophy,
3rd ed., p. 38.)
2B. I agree.
2C. The moral principle of utilitarianism supports my agreement with
the quote in section 2A above. Utilitarianism is “a
theory of
ethics and
politics that judges the morality of actions by their
consequences.” (Bryan
Magee, The Story of Thought, DK Publishing, First American Edition,
1998, p.
231.) The full definition of
utilitarianism is:
"The basic and only value of utilitarianism is utility (also called
happiness, welfare, well-being or flourishing). Since this is the only
value
utilitarianism has, utilitarianism has only one principle in its
definition,
namely, to maximize net happiness for all in the long
run.Utilitarianism has
two slogans:
UTILITARIAN SLOGAN #1) Promote the greatest happiness for the greatest
number
of people; and
UTILITARIAN SLOGAN #2) Each person counts for one and only one in
calculating
the maximum amount of happiness.
Note that SLOGAN 1) does not mean that we should do whatever most
people want
to do. The minority of people might be made so unhappy, for example,
that the
majority's happiness cannot outweigh it. Utilitarianism also does not
require
merely that you producesome more happiness than unhappiness. It
requires each
person to produce the greatest net balance of happiness over
unhappiness for
everyone in the long run. slogan 2) means that each person's happiness
counts
the same, so it would be wrong, for example, to count a particular
amount of
happiness of a white person as more important (or less important) than
the same
amount of happiness for a black person." (Sterling Harwood,
www.sterlingharwood.com, last visited 11/28/06, and Sterling Harwood,
Business
as Ethical and Business as Usual (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing
Co., 1996),
p. 24.)
Now I shall apply the above definition of utilitarianism to the quote
in 2A.
After all, if more terminally ill people were kept alive solely through
pain-killers and sedatives, then they are numbed to the state in which
they can
no longer feel or can barely feel either pain or pleasure; they are
merely
alive, not much more. In other words, these beings are no longer
sentient.
Furthermore, these non-feeling individuals take away the attention and
the care
that doctors and nurses could give to sentient individuals. Thus, this
makes
the sentient people, who could actually appreciate and benefit from the
nourishment, to feel pain. gf Therefore, this fails to create the
maximum
amount of happiness for the greatest amount of sentient beings and is
lacks
morality in the light of utilitarianism.
Moreover, egalitarianism also supports my agreement with the quote in
section 2A above. The full and complete
definition of egalitarianism is:
"Egalitarianism (Often Called Fairness or Justice)The basic value of
egalitarianism is equality (often called fairness of justice). The
basic idea
of egalitarianism is that good people should fare well and bad people
should
fare badly.The definition of egalitarianism includes the following
principles:
1. Treat relevantly similar cases similarly, and relevantly different
cases
differently.
2. Discrimination (e.g., racism and sexism) is wrong. Discrimination is
failing
to treat relevantly similar cases similarly or failing to treat
relevantly
different cases differently.
3. We should prevent innocent people from suffering through no fault of
their
own.
4. Exploitation - taking unfair advantage of an innocent person's
predicament -
is wrong.
5. We should regularly give significant amounts to charity.
6. No one should profit from his or her own wrong.
7. The punishment should fit (be proportional to) the crime.
8. Promises should be kept.
9. Merit should be rewarded.
10. Reciprocity is important.
11. Gratitude is important." (Sterling Harwood,
www.sterlingharwood.com,
and Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual
(Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996), p. 24.)
Now I shall apply the foregoing definition of egalitarianism to the
quotation
in 2A. One belief of egalitarianism is that we should prevent
innocent
individuals from suffering through no fault of their own. If ill or
injured
people who have a chance to survive are made to suffer because of the
excessive
care paid to patients who are going to die anyway, egalitarianism would
consider that to be not moral. Therefore, it would prevent the innocent
from
suffering if we could put the terminally to sleep and pay attention to
persons
who have a chance to live.
In addition, the prima facie principles of nonmaleficence and
beneficence also
apply here. The full and complete definition of the set of prima facie
principles is:
"The basic idea of these principles is that there is more than one
basic
moral value. The principles below will often conflict, and so some will
outweigh others depending on the circumstances. We are unable say in
advance
which ones will outweigh which others. We must take each moral
situation as it
comes and judge based on the totality of the circumstances,
whichprinciple is
more important in that case. Prima facie moral principles are moral
factors
that can be outweighed by other moral factors (that is, byother prima
facie
moral principles). The main prima facie moral principles are:
PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #1. Fidelity: Avoid breaking promises.
PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #2. Veracity: Avoid telling lies.
PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #3. Fair play: Avoid exploiting, cheating, or
freeloading.
PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #4. Gratitude: Return favors and appreciate the
good
others do for you.
PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #5. Nonmaleficence: Avoid causing pain or
suffering.
Note: this is not the same as nonmalevolence, which concerns only
motivation
rather than causation.
PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #6. Beneficence: Benefit others and cause them to
be
happier. Note: this is not the same as benevolence, which concerns only
motivation rather than causation.
PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #7. Reparation: Right your wrongs; repair the
damage that
is your fault.
PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #8. Avoid killing except when necessary to defend
against
an immoral attack." (Sterling Harwood, www.sterlingharwood.com, and
Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual (Belmont,
CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996), p. 25.)
Now I shall apply the above definition of prima facie moral principles
to the
quotation in 2A. The same idea also applies here. If we allow the
passing of
euthanasia, then we make the individuals with non-life-threatening
diseases
happier and prevent suffering while we end the suffering of the
mortally ill.
Libertarianism applies here, too. The full definition of libertarianism
is:
"Libertarianism: Libertarianism is the moral and political philosophy
that
underpins capitalism, especially laissez-faire capitalism (that is,
capitalism
as it existed before President Franklin Delano Roosevelt created
welfare state
capitalism in response to The Great Depression).The basic value of
libertarianism is liberty (also called freedom). However,
libertarianism fails
to support always maximizing liberty, since libertarianism generally
refuses to
allow violating one person's liberty to increase the liberty of other.
The
definition of libertarianism includes the following sub-principles:
1. Anything between consenting adults is morally permissible. Note that
this
does not mean that doing some things to an adult without his consent
(for
example, punishment) is immoral.
2. Laissez faire capitalism is morally required. This includes caveat
emptor
(let the buyer beware) rather than government safety or health
regulations. In
a libertarian nation, there would be no welfare state or government
food stamps
to save the poor. Private property is important.
3. Coercion (the deprivation of liberty) is wrong except to punish
criminals,
to defend against an immoral attack, and to supervise thementally
incompetent
(for example, children, the senile, the retarded, and the insane).
Paternalism
against mentally competent adults is wrong. The definition of
paternalism is
restricting the freedom of another personallegedly for his/her own good.
4. Everyone must keep his/her promises. Fraud is wrong.
5. Government should be minimal. Government should be only a
nightwatchperson
limited to peacekeeping functions (for example, the police and the
military),
enforcing principles 1-4 above with as little force as possible."
(Sterling Harwood, www.sterlingharwood.com, and Sterling Harwood,
Business as
Ethical and Business as Usual (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.,
1996), p.
24.)
Now I shall apply libertarianism to the quote in 2A. Using this
principle, it
is clear that the liberties of the individuals waiting for the hospital
beds
and the terminally-ill patients are being violated. The mortally-ill
have no
say in whether they want to continue living in the hospital beds, and
the ones
waiting for the beds have no choice in whether they can receive the
treatment
that the dying patients are occupying. gf; Therefore, it would increase
the
liberty of everybody if one lets the dying die and allow the living a
chance to
live.
Finally, Perfectionism applies here. The full definition of
perfectionism is:
"PERFECTIONISM (Often Called Virtue Ethics) =
The basic value of perfectionism is a good character. One has a duty to
perfect
one's own character. The following are the main character traits that
are
virtures (forms of excellence tending to constitute a good character),
or vices
(character flaws tending to constitute a bad character).
VIRTUE #1. Courage is a virtue and cowardice is a vice.
VIRTUE #2. Honesty is a virtue and dishonesty is a vice.
VIRTUE #3. Kindness is a virtue and unkindness is a vice.
VIRTUE #4. Loyalty is a virtue and disloyalty is a vice.
VIRTUE #5. Gratitude is a virtue and ingratitude is a vice.
VIRTUE #6. Charity is a virtue and uncharitableness is a vice.
VIRTUE #7. Being forgiving exhibits a virtue and being unforgiving
exhibits a
vice." (Sterling Harwood, www.sterlingharwood.com, last visited
11/28/06,
and Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual
(Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996), p. 25.)
Now I shall apply perfectionism's definition to the quote in 2A. Since
perfectionism is also called virtue ethics, that means that one has to
have
good character and is required to refine it. Also, one of its virtues
(deed
that often leads to good character), kindness, and vices (deed that
often leads
to poor character), unkindness [Taken from Dr. Harwood’s Website:
http://members.aol.com/svharwood1/myhomepage/], of; both demonstrate
how
euthanasia would be moral. For example, it would be cruel to the living
patients to deny them care because of consideration devoted to the
terminally-ill, who are also suffering as a result of unkindness
because they
are forced to live, though bearing excruciating pain.
3. God’s existence has not been tangibly proven. Also, one should
not have to
be made to suffer unwanted and undeserved pain.
3A. "Suffering is a part of life; God has ordained that we must suffer
as
part of His Divine plan. Therefore if we were to kill people to 'put
them out
of their misery,' we would be interfering with God's plan." (James
Rachels, in Tom Regan, ed., Maters of Life and Death: New Introductory
Essays
in Moral Philosophy, 3rd ed., p. 53.)
3B. I disagree.
3C. This argument commits the “non causa pro causa”
fallacy, which “occurs when
the cause for an occurrence is identified on insufficient
evidence.” (See,
www.sterlingharwood.com, last visited 11/28/06.) The occurrence is that
suffering is a part of life, but the cause, that God created the
suffering as
part of his plan, is unsupported by any evidence. This argument does
not
include any proof that God created this suffering.
Furthermore, egalitarianism strictly disagrees with this statement as
well.
Suffering is hardly a necessary or good part of life if the person is
innocent.
Therefore, one should protect these innocent individuals from suffering
and not
lengthen it to an unendurable extent. Libertarianism also enhances the
fault in
this assertion by believing that individuals have the right to liberty.
Ergo,
one should have the liberty to choose to be put out of her misery.
Again, nonmaleficence and beneficence of prima facie principles
demonstrate how
one should not be made to suffer in his life and be made happier. If he
wants
to end his misery through death, then he should be able to do so
because this
way he could benefit because he could end his pain and suffering.
Additionally,
because kindness is valued and unkindness is reviled in perfectionism,
it is
more moral to be kind enough to the patient to allow him to end his
anguish
through death than to be unkind and ignore his request.
4. Voluntary euthanasia avoids violating any person’s rights
because it avoids
impeding anyone’s wishes
4A. “If an action promotes the best interests of everyone
concerned and
violates no one's rights, then that action is morally acceptable. In at
least
some cases, active euthanasia promotes the best interests of everyone
concerned
and violates no one's rights. Therefore, in at least some cases, active
euthanasia is morally acceptable.” (James Rachels, quoted in Tom
Regan, Matters
of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, 3rd
ed., p.
38.)
4B. I agree.
4C. Employing libertarianism, I can use the idea that paternalism,
which is
restricting the freedom of mentally competent adults, is wrong. In
active
euthanasia, it is true that no person’s rights are violated. The
patient
readily consents to the death by asking his or her physician for help
and the
physician consents by agreeing to it. Refusing to allow this would be
restricting the freedom of these individuals and therefore wrong.
Egalitarianism shows also that the dying patient is bearing enough pain
to
desire death as opposed to life and did not do anything immoral to
bring about
her lethal illness. Therefore, for this innocent person to be denied
his
request to die is causing her to undergo suffering. In other words,
nobody’s
rights are being taken away, since the doctor is agreeing to it and the
patient
desires it.
Further, to promote utilitarianism, protecting the interests of
everyone
involved is euthanasia, since it is voluntary in most cases, would
maximize the
happiness of everyone involved. The prima facie principle of
beneficence
supports this further by showing that the patient would be made
happier, since
he wants death and therefore benefited. Perfectionism also proves this
point
because allowing the patient to do what he wants, which is to die in
this case,
is kinder to him than to force him to live.
5. Most patients who request voluntary euthanasia want to die not just
because
of treatable emotional pain, but because of unbearable physical pain as
well.
5A. “Second, terminally ill persons seeking doctor-assisted
suicide usually
struggle with depression, guilt, anger, and a loss of meaning. They
need to be
reassured that their lives and their suffering have purpose. They don't
need to
be helped toward the exit.” [Tuesday, November 30, 2004, Trudy
Chun and Marian
Wallace, "The Arguments of Those in Favor of Assisted Suicide Are
Flawed". Suicide. Roman Espejo, Ed. Opposing Viewpoints® Series.
Greenhaven Press, 2003.]
5B. I disagree.
5C. The prima facie principle of nonmaleficence shows how that no
matter what
suffering a person goes through and for whatever purpose it may be,
this person
is still suffering. Even if she is emotionally counseled, she will
still have
to bear the incurable pain that usually accompanies a terminal illness.
Perfectionism promotes kindness as a virtue, and though the definition
of
kindness is broad, it can be agreed that kindness involves helping
someone. In
a case such as euthanasia, if one denies someone his plead to end his
misery,
she is not helping him, but hindering him and is consequently being
unkind to
him.
Further, based on egalitarianism, the dying innocent people are still
suffering
a huge burden; no matter how much assurance they receive that it is
fine to
suffer, they are nevertheless still suffering and to cause such is
immoral. mu;
use a separate paragraph for every moral principle or fallacy; ef;
Utilitarianism promotes a similar outlook: if the maximum amount of
happiness
is not provided for the maximum amount of people, which is true in this
case
because the individuals are still suffering and therefore unhappy, then
the
situation is not moral. Through libertarianism, it is seen that
paternalism
could be avoided if doctors or caretakers were to help these hopelessly
ill
patients achieve their freedom to decide to die, rather than refusing
to help
them.
6. One has the liberty to choose whether one should live or die
6A. “Moreover, as Bentham's famous follower John Stuart Mill put
it, the
individual is sovereign over his own body and mind; where one's own
interests
are concerned, there is no other authority. Therefore, if one wants to
die
quickly rather than lingering in pain, that is strictly a personal
affair, and
the government has no business intruding.” (James Rachels, quoted
in Tom Regan,
Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy,
3rd ed.
,p.38.)
6B. I agree.
6C. Few if any people are able to control another person’s
emotions and
thoughts because he, being in his own shoes for all of his life, knows
what is
best for him. Libertarianism advocates that as long as this person is a
mentally competent adult, he has the right to make all his decisions,
including
the one of life or death.
Further, in utilitarianism, as long as this person and the people who
care
about him are happy with his decision of death, then his decision to
end his
life because of his illness is morally acceptable. Nonmaleficence in
the prima
facie principles indicate that it is okay for this decision of
voluntary death
because it is to end the pain that the person is facing. Similarly,
egalitarianism also believes that these innocents should use the option
of
euthanasia if it prevents them from suffering further. Furthermore,
this
argument is not only supported by the main moral principles, but even
the
ancient Roman Stoics believed “in a man’s right to
determine his own death as
well as his own life.” (Bryan Magee, The Story of Thought, DK
Publishing, First
American Edition, 1998, p. 47.)
7. Voluntary euthanasia does not need to be in an ideal world to be
used
appropriately.
7A. "It is naive to imagine that a policy and a law permitting
euthanasia
will not lead to insensitive, inhumane, and intolerable abuse simply
because
those who designed the law were governed by pure motives and noble
purpose. The
position in favor of legalizing VE rests upon an assumption of ideal
hospitals,
doctors, nurses and families. But we do not live in an ideal world. The
issue
is whether we should try this social experiment. I believe we should
not."
(David J. Roy, Director, Center of Bioethics, Clinical Research
Institute of
Montreal, "When the Dying Demand Death: A Position Paper on
Euthanasia," pp. 10-11.)
7B. I disagree.
7C. This argument is guilty of the strawman fallacy, which
“occurs when we
misrepresent an opponent’s position to make it easier to attack,
usually by
distorting his or her views to ridiculous extremes. This can also take
the form
of attacking only the weak premises in an opposing argument while
ignoring the
strong ones.” (See, www.sterlingharwood.com, last visited
11/28/06.) It assumes
that euthanasia supporters believe that all doctors and caregivers are
well-intending and because of this, these supporters think legalizing
euthanasia will work. However, this may be false. Most supporters know
very
well that there are plenty of doctors who would rather profit than help
a
patient. They believe, though, that euthanasia can be legalized with
restraints. One can draw several criteria for what physical condition a
patient
has to be in to be considered a candidate for voluntary euthanasia, and
not
rely one caregiver’s advice. For example, for a patient to be
considered for
voluntary euthanasia, she must be deemed terminally ill with no hope of
recovery by at least three physicians. (Saturday, December 11, 2004,
author
unknown,http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/suave_link/home.html.) If one
fails
to meet the numerous criteria, then euthanasia cannot be performed
anyway.
Therefore, euthanasia can be legally and morally used. As
utilitarianism would
say, this provides more happiness for the society, though it is not
ideal.
Also, libertarianism would argue that as long as the patient is a
mentally-competent consenting adult, then she has the right to do what
she
wants with her life. Besides, it would be unethical on the basis of the
prima
facie principle of beneficence as well since patients would be less
content if
the state refuses to legalize voluntary euthanasia because they would
still
have to undergo intense suffering.
8. Voluntary euthanasia is acceptable because often the patients’
lives and bodies
cannot be used anymore anyway.
8A. "A few hospice leaders claim that their care is so perfect that
there
absolutely no need for anyone to consider euthanasia. While I have no
wish to
criticize them, they are wrong to claim perfection. Most, but not all,
terminal
pain can today be controlled with the sophisticated use of drugs, but
the point
these leaders miss is that personal quality of life is vital to some
people. If
one's body has been so destroyed by disease that it is not worth living
in,
that is an intensely individual decision which should not be thwarted.
In some
cases of the final days in hospice care, when the pain is very serious,
the
patient is drugged into unconsciousness. If that way is acceptable to
the
patient, fine. But some people do not wish their final hours to be in
that
fashion." (Derek Humphry, "Why I Believe in Voluntary
Euthanasia," (1995), p. 5.)
8B. I agree.
8C. Voluntary euthanasia comes directly under the patient’s
choice to die. Just
as this person has a right to choose to live, he also has the right to
choose
to die. Libertarianism fully supports this view, since this view
involves
individual liberty and freedom of choice. These persons’ bodies
are so
deprecated that they are obviously in intense pain. As said in
egalitarianism
and the prima facie principle of nonmalef; ef; icence, one should
refrain from
causing pain and suffering. Therefore, it would be more moral to allow
the
patient, which is also kindness in the view of perfectionism, to die a
less
painful, peaceful death, than to force him to live in a severely
atrophied body
which he wants to avoid.
9. History and other societies’ practices and beliefs against
euthanasia do not
make it any less moral
9A. “History has taught this and that is why there are only two
countries in
the world today where euthanasia is legal. That is why almost all
societies -
even non-religious ones - for thousands of years have made euthanasia a
crime.
It is remarkable that euthanasia advocates today think they know better
than
the billions of people throughout history who have outlawed euthanasia
- what
makes the 50 year old euthanasia supporters in 2003 so wise that they
think
they can discard the accumulated wisdom of almost all societies of all
time and
open the door to the killing of innocent people?” (International
Task Force on
Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, Saturday, December 11, 2004
“Arguments Against
Euthanasia”,
http://www.euthanasia.com/argumentsagainsteuthanasia.html.)
9B. I disagree.
9C. This statement is a combination of the past belief fallacy, which
“is a
form of t; qf; he fallacy of common belief (ad populum) and a form of
the
fallacy of appealing to authority (the authority of tradition). The
same error
in reasoning is committed except the claim is for belief or support in
the
past.” (See, www.sterlingharwood.com, last visited 11/28/06] and
the ad
verecundiam fallacy of appealing to authority, which “tries to
convince the
listener by appealing to the reputation of a famous or respected
person.” (See,
www.sterlingharwood.com, last visited 11/28/06.] The premises can be
true even
if the conclusion is false. The premise here is that history and
societies have
made laws that imply or say that euthanasia is immoral, and the
conclusion is
that euthanasia is immoral. However, it is very likely for euthanasia
to be
moral, even if there have been laws banning it.
Also, the moral principle of egalitarianism says that these people who
desire
euthanasia may be innocent, but they are suffering and therefore should
be
given a means to end their suffering, regardless of laws or, as
libertarianism
would say, anything that sacrifices their personal liberty. Moreover,
utilitarianism argues that it is irrelevant whether society deems
euthanasia
bad; if the more people are suffering rather than happy, as in the case
of the
euthanasiasts (people who desire euthanasia). This belief leads to the
prima
facie principle of nonmaleficence which deems that even though
anti-euthanasia
sentiment and laws have been in society, they are still possibly
morally
unacceptable because they fail to limit the amount of pain and
suffering in
hopelessly ill patients.
10. Euthanasia will not necessarily cause a huge downfall of morals in
society
10A. "The category of the hopelessly ill provides the possibility of
even
worse abuse. Embedded in a social policy, it would give society or its
representatives the authority to eliminate all those who might be
considered
too 'ill' to function normally any longer. The dangers of euthanasia
are too
great to all to run the risk of approving it in any form. The first
slippery
step may well lead to a serious and harmful fall." (J. Gay-Williams,
"The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia," in Joseph Grcic, ed., Moral Choice:
Ethical Theories and Problems, p. 308.)
10B. I disagree.
10C. The slippery slope fallacy, which “is a line of reasoning
that argues
against taking a step because it assumes that if you take the first
step, you
will inevitably follow through to the last” (See,
www.sterlingharwood.com, last
visited 11/28/06.) is evident in this argument. It assumes that if one
approves
euthanasia, then an accumulation of horrid acceptances in society, such
as
immediately killing anyone who is deemed deficient in our society. Of
course,
this is not guaranteed to happen and is an overestimation. My
opposition lacks
any logically compelling evidence or argument that legalizing
euthanasia will
cause such dreadful consequences.
After all, the murder of innocent people against their will is contrary
to the
beliefs of egalitarianism, nonmaleficence and beneficence of prima
facie
principles, perfectionism, utilitarianism, and libertarianism, since it
causes
unkindness and suffering to people who want to avoid dying by violating
their
rights. On the other, hand, voluntary euthanasia, as discussed
previously, does
not violate any of these principles. Ergo, euthanasia will most likely
not lead
to the disposing of just any individuals who are not deemed
“normal” in
society.
11. Conclusion: Euthanasia Is Moral
In conclusion, there are many reasons about why voluntary euthanasia is
moral.
After using the egalitarianism concept of preventing innocents of
suffering,
the libertarianism ideal of anti-paternalism and that anything between
morally
consenting adults is morally acceptable, the utilitarianism belief that
one
should maximize happiness, the prima facie principles of beneficence
and
nonmaleficence, the perfectionism virtue of kindness and vice of
unkindness,
and proving my opponents’ fallacies, I have proven that
euthanasia provides a
just means to end a patient’s intense suffering. Euthanasia
involves a person’s
individual rights to decide his or her life or death, regardless of
religion or
society’s belief. One should avoid prolonging the suffering of
others by trying
to keep him or her alive, as opponents of euthanasia advocate. In other
words,
the side in favor of euthanasia is better because it has more logical
reasoning
than the side opposing it. With voluntary euthanasia, our society can
become a
more humane one in which to live.
********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
FAQ7: For
all courses, what is the required ABC
format for organizing
papers (unless otherwise stated on the greensheet or syllabus)?
See the sample paper that is on this AOL website. Use the basic format
-- which has only 3 steps and is thus as easy as A,B,C. Here it is
simplified to only 4 words: A = Quote (anything from a published source
on your approved paper topic); B = agree/disagree (with the quote you
gave in section A); C = Explain (why you agree or disagree with the
quote you gave in section A). You MUST use the letters, 'A,' 'B,' and
'C' in you paper to identify these sections in every ABC set. See
guideline U in FAQ3 on this. It's as easy as ABC and is summarized in
only 4 words: A = quote; B = agree/disagree; & C = explain.
Here is a longer explanation to help you understand these instructions
even better. If you are still unclear, discuss the instructions with
your learning team members. If you are still unclear, then call, email,
or see me to specify which part(s) of the instructions are still
unclear to you. More detailed instructions, fleshing out the six words
of instruction above: A. Quote an argument (or in the case of Baby M or
the Ford Pinto, for example, the statements describing a morally
questionable act) you are going to evaluate from my website (or any
published source, following guideline O of guidelines A-Z in FAQ3); B.
state whether you agree or disagree with the argument (or the act) you
are evaluating (stating whether your agreement/disagreement is major or
minor); and C. state in as much specific detail as you can WHY you
agree or disagree with the argument (or the act) you are evaluating.
Repeat this A, B, C, organization -- using the letters A, B, C in
following guideline U in FAQ3 above -- for as many arguments (or acts)
as you can (following guideline E in FAQ3 above). The more arguments
(or acts) you evaluate, the better grade your paper will receive (all
else being equal). I grade based on quality times quantity (see
guideline E of FAQ3 for details on this and all of FAQ3 for key details
on grading).
********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
FAQ8: For all courses, what are
the 5 moral
principles you should use AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE (see Guideline E in the
answer to FAQ5) if you write on any moral
or political topic such as affirmative action, gun control, abortion,
euthanasia, prostitution, the morality or immorality of human nature,
legalization of drugs, cloning, stem cell
research, global warming, nuclear power plants, or surrogate motherhood
(or some others in the list of approved topics on the syllabus)?
It is useful to compare, contrast, and apply at least the following 5
moral principles that have influenced the role of business in society
by influencing moral and political debates in American democracy. So
here are 5 major moral theories or principles that you should use
throughout the course to morally evaluate positions, theories,
philosophies, and arguments. Using them showsme that you deserve credit
for reading this post and thinking well about it enough to incorporate
these ideas into your evaluations. These are hardly the only values one
can apply, but they are certainly a good start and they are always
worth keeping in mind. I doubt that any moral theory has a monopoly on
the truth, but all of these theories have something worthwhile to
contribute to the discussions or evaluations we will have. In this new
world order or era of building coalitions, try to build an alliance
between as many of them as you can whenever you are evaluating an act,
policy, institution, system, or figure in business. Fun facts: In some
formats my color coding shows up (if you copy and paste this into Word
it may work). I used green for the heading of egalitarianism below,
since critics of egalitarianism say that it is based somewhat on envy
(as in being green with envy). I used red for the heading of
libertarianism, since libertarianism arch-rival is socialism or
communism (and their color is red, as in "Red Menace" or "Red
Baiting"). I used blue for utilitarianism, since utilitarianism values
happiness and thus wants to minimize unhappiness(feeling blue). I used
gray for the prima facie moral principles, since they see things not in
black and white terms but as shades of grayreflecting many factors.
Finally, I used yellow for perfectionism, since yellow is synonymous
with cowardice -- one of the main vices perfectionism opposes. (I
generally recommend avoiding the use of yellow, since it is somewhat
hard to read.)
Egalitarianism (Often Called Fairness or Justice)The basic value of
egalitarianism is equality (often called fairness of justice). The
basic idea of egalitarianism is that good people should fare well and
bad people should fare badly.The definition of egalitarianism includes
the following principles:
1. Treat relevantly similar cases similarly, and relevantly different
cases differently.
2. Discrimination (e.g., racism and sexism) is wrong. Discrimination is
failing to treat relevantly similar cases similarly or failing to treat
relevantly different cases differently.
3. We should prevent innocent people from suffering through no fault of
their own.
4. Exploitation - taking unfair advantage of an innocent person's
predicament - is wrong.
5. We should regularly give significant amounts to charity.
6. No one should profit from his or her own wrong.
7. The punishment should fit (be proportional to) the crime.
8. Promises should be kept.
9. Merit should be rewarded.
10. Reciprocity is important.
11. Gratitude is important.
Libertarianism: Libertarianism is the moral and political philosophy
that underpins capitalism, especially laissez-faire capitalism (that
is, capitalism as it existed before President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
created welfare state capitalism in response to The Great
Depression).The basic value of libertarianism is liberty (also called
freedom). However, libertarianism fails to support always maximizing
liberty, since libertarianism generally refuses to allow violating one
person's liberty to increase the liberty of other. The definition of
libertarianism includes the following sub-principles:
1. Anything between consenting adults is morally permissible. Note that
this does not mean that doing some things to an adult without his
consent (for example, punishment) is immoral.
2. Laissez faire capitalism is morally required. This includes caveat
emptor (let the buyer beware) rather than government safety or health
regulations. In a libertarian nation, there would be no welfare state
or government food stamps to save the poor. Private property is
important.
3. Coercion (the deprivation of liberty) is wrong except to punish
criminals, to defend against an immoral attack, and to supervise
thementally incompetent (for example, children, the senile, the
retarded, and the insane). Paternalism against mentally competent
adults is wrong. The definition of paternalism is restricting the
freedom of another personallegedly for his/her own good.
4. Everyone must keep his/her promises. Fraud is wrong.
5. Government should be minimal. Government should be only a
nightwatchperson limited to peacekeeping functions (for example, the
police and the military), enforcing principles 1-4 above with as little
force as possible.
UTILITARIANISM =
The basic and only value of utilitarianism is utility (also called
happiness, welfare, well-being or flourishing). Since this is the only
value utilitarianism has, utilitarianism has only one principle in its
definition, namely, to maximize net happiness for all in the long
run.Utilitarianism has two slogans:
UTILITARIAN SLOGAN #1) Promote the greatest happiness for the greatest
number of people; and
UTILITARIAN SLOGAN #2) Each person counts for one and only one in
calculating the maximum amount of happiness.
Note that SLOGAN 1) does not mean that we should do whatever most
people want to do. The minority of people might be made so unhappy, for
example, that the majority's happiness cannot outweigh it.
Utilitarianism also does not require merely that you producesome more
happiness than unhappiness. It requires each person to produce the
greatest net balance of happiness over unhappiness for everyone in the
long run. slogan 2) means that each person's happiness counts the same,
so it would be wrong, for example, to count a particular amount of
happiness of a white person as more important (or less important) than
the same amount of happiness for a black person.
PRIMA FACIE MORAL PRINCIPLES =
The basic idea of these principles is that there is more than one basic
moral value. The principles below will often conflict, and so some will
outweigh others depending on the circumstances. We are unable say in
advance which ones will outweigh which others. We must take each moral
situation as it comes and judge based on the totality of the
circumstances, whichprinciple is more important in that case. Prima
facie moral principles are moral factors that can be outweighed by
other moral factors (that is, byother prima facie moral principles).
The main prima facie moral principles are:
PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #1. Fidelity: Avoid breaking promises.
PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #2. Veracity: Avoid telling lies.
PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #3. Fair play: Avoid exploiting, cheating, or
freeloading.
PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #4. Gratitude: Return favors and appreciate the
good others do for you.
PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #5. Nonmaleficence: Avoid causing pain or
suffering. Note: this is not the same as nonmalevolence, which concerns
only motivation rather than causation.
PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #6. Beneficence: Benefit others and cause them to
be happier. Note: this is not the same as benevolence, which concerns
only motivation rather than causation.
PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #7. Reparation: Right your wrongs; repair the
damage that is your fault.
PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #8. Avoid killing except when necessary to defend
against an immoral attack.
PERFECTIONISM (Often Called Virtue Ethics) =
The basic value of perfectionism is a good character. One has a duty to
perfect one's own character. The following are the main character
traits that are virtures (forms of excellence tending to constitute a
good character), or vices (character flaws tending to constitute a bad
character).
VIRTUE #1. Courage is a virtue and cowardice is a vice.
VIRTUE #2. Honesty is a virtue and dishonesty is a vice.
VIRTUE #3. Kindness is a virtue and unkindness is a vice.
VIRTUE #4. Loyalty is a virtue and disloyalty is a vice.
VIRTUE #5. Gratitude is a virtue and ingratitude is a vice.
VIRTUE #6. Charity is a virtue and uncharitableness is a vice.
VIRTUE #7. Being forgiving exhibits a virtue and being unforgiving
exhibits a vice.
********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
FAQ9: For all courses, what are
the 7 truth tips we should try to use
to discover truth generally and try to use in section C of our ABC sets
in our term papers?
Introduction: What is truth? President Gerald R. Ford said that truth
is the glue that holds together civilization. (1976 Republican National
Convention in Kansas City) Others are more cynical, saying that truth
is just a lie yet to be uncovered. (Sam Peckinpaugh's film "The
Osterman Weekend") For our purposes, truth is the part of a claim that
corresponds with reality.
Here's a problem. Can anyone consistently believe all three of these
plausible positions? 1. Truth is the glue that holds together
civilization (President Ford's view). 2. War is the unifying principle
of every society (a view spoken by actor Donald Sutherland in the film
'JFK'). 3. The first casualty of war is truth (an old addage about
propaganda and secrecy often repeated by reporters in America during
wartime).
Here are 4 tips I've based on Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker
(Critical Thinking, 5th ed., Mayfield Publishing, 1998, p. 266 and in
the new 6th edition, too) to help you know when you should accept a
premise as true (as opposed to rejecting a premise as false, or neither
accepting it nor rejecting it while you think about it more).
TRUTH TIP 1. Accept a claim as true if it comes from a credible source
(for example, an expert or authority) and fails to conflict with what
you have observed, your background knowledge, or other credible claims.
[Note: To accept a passage means to accept it as true and to agree with
it. Further, appealing to authority to show probable truth is not the
fallacy of appealing to authority. "Expert A claims X. So, X is more
likely to be true." is not the same as the fallacious "Expert A claims
X. So, X is true."]
TRUTH TIP 2. Reject a claim that conflicts with what you have observed
or otherwise have reason to believe, unless you have a very good reason
for doing so.
TRUTH TIP 3. Reject a claim that conflicts with the claims of another
credible source unless you have resolved the question of which source
should be believed (that is, which source is more credible than the
other).
TRUTH TIP 4. Claims that are vague, ambiguous, or otherwise unclear
require clarification before acceptance.
Here are 3 other tips from Dr. Harwood
TRUTH TIP 5. Claims with extreme words - watchwords - without any
qualifying words (qualifiers) are more likely to be false. Watchwords
include: 'never' (as in "Never say 'never'."), 'always', 'all',
'every', 'none', 'absolutely', 'exceptionless', 'impossible', 'total',
'totally', 'complete', 'completely', 'full', 'fully', 'only', 'lone',
'no', 'zero', 'perfect', 'best', 'unprecedented'. Qualifiers include:
probably, possible, almost, nearly, quite, not (for example, "Not all
red birds can fly well."), sometimes, somewhat, perhaps, maybe,
possible, could, might, may, can.
TRUTH TIP 6. Claims with extreme qualifiers - weaselwords - are more
likely to be true. Weaselwords are slippery or slick words which water
down the import of a claim. So premises using weaselwords are less
likely to be important. Weaselwords include: 'possibly', 'possible',
'perhaps', 'maybe', 'might', 'could', 'can', 'potential',
'potentially'. Note: "not impossible" amounts to a weaselphrase.
TRUTH TIP 7. Moral claims are more likely to be acceptable the more
they are supported by the 5 moral principles on this site (and listed
below). If you are evaluating a quote on a moral issue such as
affirmative action, euthanasia, abortion, gun control, capital
punishment, surrogate motherhood, human cloning, stem cell research,
legalizing prostitution, legalizing currently illegal drugs, etc., use
the moral principles utilitarianism, egalitarianism, libertarianism,
perfectionism (virtue ethics), and prima facie moral principles to
evaluate the quotes. The definitions of these 5 moral principles are on
this site and in Ch.4 of Dr. Harwood's book Business as Ethical and
Business as Usual (Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996).
********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
FAQ10:
For all courses, what are 33 fallacies to avoid committing and
to expose and disagree with when others commit them?
33 Fallacies To Avoid & To Criticize When You Find That Others
Commit Them
Fallacies are mistakes in reasoning or argument. Some textbooks
define
these fallacies differently. The following definitions, descriptions or
examples are the ones that I have found to be most useful. See me if
you encounter other definitions, descriptions or examples that clash
with the ones
here, so we can see which is most useful.
Arguments consist of a series of statements intended to establish the
truth of a conclusion. Premises are reasons the arguer gives to try to
establish the truth of a conclusion. A conclusion is the claim that the
arguer ultimately wants to show to be true. Arguers often indicate
premises by using: 'since,' 'because,' 'for the reason that' or 'for'
(as in 'you should stay with me; for I love you.') These words are
direct premise indicators. Direct premise indicators often serve as
indirect conclusion indicators. For example, in the argument "Abortion
is wrong because it kills people"
the premise is directly indicated to be "Abortion kills people" but
indirectly the conclusion is indicated to be " Abortion is wrong."
Conclusions are often indicated by the words: 'In conclusion', 'I
conclude,' 'therefore,' 'Thus,' 'so,' 'hence,' or 'Ergo.' These words
are direct conclusion indicators. The initials Q.E.D. also directly
indicate a conclusion,
since they stand for a Latin phrase meaning "that which is to be
demonstrated." Direct conclusion indicators serve as indirect premise
indicators. Since each argument has only one conclusion, by process of
elimination
everything else working in the argument would be a premise. Generally,
it is a good strategy to argue from less controversial premises to more
controversial conclusions. For if your premises are every bit as
controversial and uncertain as your conclusion is, then as a practical
matter you will usually fail to convince your audience that your
conclusion is true.
A sound
argument must, by definition, be both 1) valid; and 2) without
false premises. An unsound argument is simply an argument that is not
sound (an invalid argument, an argument with at least one false
premise, or both). All fallacies are unsound (except begging the
question, which merely cannot ever be known to be sound), but four of
the fallacies listed below are valid.
A valid
argument is one where it is impossible for all the premises to be
true and the conclusion to be false. In other words, IF all the
premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. Stated
differently, the truth
of the conclusion of a valid argument would necessarily follow from the
truth of all the premises. This is why invalid arguments are often
called non-sequiturs, since "non sequitur" is Latin for "does not
follow." An invalid argument is simply an argument that is not valid
(that is, an argument where it is possible for all the premises to be
true and the
conclusion to be false). Fallacies 1 through 16 are invalid and
fallacies 17 through 19 are valid (though hasty generalization can be
interpreted reasonably as valid or as invalid). A strong argument, by
definition, is defined one where IF all the premises are true, then the
conclusion is likely to be true. All valid arguments are strong, but
not all strong
arguments are valid. Strong arguments tend to have words associated
with probabilities being over 50% for example, 'most,' 'almost all,'
'nearly all,' the majority,' 'usually,' 'typically,' most often,'
'probably,' and 'most commonly.' For example, "Most as are Bs. Jim is a
A. So Jim is a B." is a strong but invalid argument. A weak argument is
an argument that is not strong (that is, even if all the premises are
true, then the conclusion is not likely to be true, meaning its
probability is 50% or less.)
FALLACY
1), THE AD POPULUM FALLACY: This fallacy is invalid.
Model: Most (or all) people believe X.
Therefore, X is true
This fallacy is invalid since the premise can be true and the
conclusion false. For example: even when most people believed the earth
was flat, the earth was not flat.
FALLACY
2), THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY: This fallacy is invalid.
Model: Arguer x is defective.
Therefore, the conclusion of X's argument is false.
This fallacy is invalid, since the premise can be true and the
conclusion false.
For example: Hitler was morally defective (to say the least!) but that
does not imply that Hitler's belief that Britain had an air force
during WWII was false.
The Ad hominem fallacy occurs
when the arguer is attacking the person making the argument. This
fallacy is
attacking the arguer rather than his/her argument. Example: John's
objections to capital punishment carry no weight since he is a
convicted felon. Note: Saying something negative about someone is not
automatically ad hominem. If a person (politician for example) is the
issue, then it is not a
fallacy to criticize him/her.
FALLACY
3), THE FALLACY OF APPEALING TO AUTHORITY: This fallacy is
invalid.
Model: X is an expert.
X believes Y
Therefore, Y is true
This fallacy is invalid because the conclusion can still be false even
if all the premises are true.
Example 1: Newton believed the orbit of Mercury around the sun had one
particular shape, but Einstein later showed that Newton was wrong about
this.
Example 2: is Einstein's belief that indeterminism in physics is
incorrect.
He said: "God does not play dice with the universe." But indeterminism
fits the evidence better than Einstein's view does. Even the best
experts can be wrong. Appealing to law or culture can also commit this
fallacy, since they are also fallible authorities.
"Ad verecundiam" is the Latin
name for Appeal To Authority. This
fallacy tries to convince the listener by appealing to the reputation
of a famous or respected person. Oftentimes it is an authority in one
field who is speaking out of his or her field of expertise. Example:
Sports stars selling cars or hamburgers. Or, the actor on a TV
commercial that says, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV."
FALLACY
4), APPEAL TO PITY: This fallacy is invalid.
Model: X is pitiful
Therefore, X is wrong
Even if it is pitiful to amputate the leg of a sick child, that does
not mean that amputation is wrong, since amputation can be medically
necessary
to save the child's life.
FALLACY
5), EQUIVOCATION: This fallacy is invalid. One equivocates by
trading on an ambiguity. One equivocates by acting as if an
ambiguous
word or phrase has only one meaning when it has at least two.
Example 1:
It is generally wrong to lie.
We generally ought to prevent wrongdoing.
Therefore, we generally ought not to let sleeping dogs lie.
Example 2:
Premise 1): Every human has a right to life
Premise 2): All fetuses are human
Conclusion: Therefore, all fetuses have a right to life.
There are different senses of the word 'human.' One is a biological
sense but he other is a moral sense. We can see the difference when we
say:
"Hitler was inhuman." Which doesn't mean that Hitler was of a species
other then Homo sapiens. Another example is from Captain Kirk's eulogy
of First Officer Spock in Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan. Kirk said: " Of
all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most --
human." Spock was biologically only half-human and half-Vulcan. Anyway,
a soul seems less of a biological entity than a moral one. For example,
when we say Hitler had
no soul, we seem to mean that he had no moral character. So, for all
example 2 claims at least, fetuses might be human in the biological
sense but not in the moral sense. Obviously, whether the fetus is
a person (has moral character or status) is key to many arguments about
whether abortion is immoral killing. It seems irrelevant to at
least some utilitarian arguments, however, since utilitarianism's
requirement of maximizing happiness for all in the long run need not
(and perhaps could not consistently) be limited to persons currently
alive. If we limited utility to be maximized to those currently
alive, then we might perversely be required to spend lavishly on
medical care in the last 6 months of life for many terminally ill
patients at the expense of promoting long-term projects (such as
R&D or long-run space exploration) that will create a serious
amount of net benefit only for those who are not yet alive or born.
Equivocation is a product of semantic ambiguity. The arguer uses the
ambiguous nature of a word or phrase to shift the meaning in such a way
as to make the reason offered appear more convincing. Example: We
realize that workers are idle during the period of lay-offs. But the
government should never subsidize idleness, which has often been
condemned as a vice. Therefore, payments to laid off workers are wrong.
FALLACY
6), COMPOSITION: This fallacy is invalid. This fallacy wrongly
assumes that whatever is true of each part of the whole is true of the
whole.
Model: X is true of each part of Y
Therefore, X is true of Y
This fallacy is invalid, since the premise can be true and the
conclusion false.
Example 1: each part of a compound could be a poison, but when combined
the two poisons cancel out each other poisonous effects. Na and Cl are
poisons when consumed individually, but combine to form NaCl, which is
ordinary table salt.
Example 2: Each book in the bargain book bin costs only $1, so
therefore one can buy the entire collection of books in the bargain
book bin for only $1.
This fallacy is committed when we conclude that a whole must have a
characteristic because some part of it has that characteristic.
Example: The
Dawson family must be rolling in money, since Fred Dawson makes a lot
from his practice.
FALLACY
7), DIVISION: This fallacy is invalid. This fallacy wrongly
assumes that whatever is true of the whole is true of each part of the
whole (or a particular part of the whole.)
Model: X is true of Y
Therefore, X is true of each part of Y.
This fallacy is invalid, since the premise can be true and the
conclusion false.
Example 1: unsurpassed musical greatness in rock 'n roll in true of
'The Beatles, but that does not imply that unsurpassed musical
greatness in rock 'n roll is true of each solo Beatle (for example
Ringo Starr.)
Example 2: is that since NaCl is not poisonous, Na is not poisonous.
This would be a fatal error in reasoning.
This fallacy is committed when we conclude that any part of a
particular whole must have a characteristic because the whole has that
characteristic.
Example: I am sure that Karen plays the piano well, since her family is
so musical.
FALLACY
8), THE NATURAL/UNNATURAL FALLACY: This fallacy is invalid.
Avoid confusing this fallacy with the so-called naturalistic fallacy in
metaethics, which studies the meaning and reference of moral language.
Model 1: X is natural
Therefore, X is good
Model 2: X is unnatural
Therefore, X is bad
FALLACY
9), DENYING THE ANTECEDENT: This fallacy is invalid. The fallacy
falsely assumes that a sufficient condition is a necessary condition.
First we need to know what an antecedent is. We can put a conditional
statement into the following standard form: If A, then B. The
antecedent of "If A, then B." is A. The antecedent comes before ('ante'
which means 'before') the word 'then' in the standard form "If A, then
B." This fallacy is invalid,
since the premises can both be true even when the conclusion is false.
Example 1: If Elvis made a triumphant return from the dead, then people
will listen to his music.
Elvis hasn't made a triumphant return from the dead.
Therefore, people will not listen to his music.
Example 2: If you get cancer, your medical problems will worsen.
You did not get cancer.
Therefore, your medical problems did not worsen.
Example 3:If it rains today, then the streets will get wet today.
If didn't rain today.
Therefore, the streets didn't get wet today.
Example 4: If you are in California, then you are in the U.S.
You are not in California.
Therefore, you are not in the U.S.
Example 5: If X is between consenting adults, then X is morally
permissible.
X is not between consenting adults.
Therefore, X is not morally permissible.
Note Libertarianism supports the first premise in Example, so look for
this fallacy more when you see libertarianism.
This is an invalid form of the conditional argument. In this one, the
second premise denies the antecedent of the first premise, and the
conclusion denies the consequent. It is often mistaken for modus
tollens. Example: If she
qualifies for a promotion, she must speak English. She doesn't qualify
for the promotion, so she must not know how to speak English.
FALLACY
10), AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT: This fallacy is invalid. This
fallacy falsely assumes that a necessary condition is a sufficient
condition. First, we need to know what a consequent is. A conditional
statement can be put
into the following standard form: If A, then B. The consequent of "If
A, then B." is B. The consequent follows ('seque' means, "to follow",
as in a musical seque, a sequence, and consequences following an act.)
Example 1: If Elvis made a triumphant return form the dead, then the
people will listen to his music.
People will listen to his music.
Therefore, Elvis made a triumphant return from the dead.
Example 2: If you get cancer, then your medical problems will worsen.
Your medical problems worsened.
Therefore, you got cancer.
Example 3: If it rains today, then the streets will get wet today.
The streets got wet today.
Therefore, it rained today
Example 4:
If you are in California, then you are in the U.S.
You are in the U.S.
Therefore, you are in California.
Example 5:
Capital punishment of X is constitutional only if X received due
process.
X received due process.
Therefore, capital punishment of X is constitutional.
This is an invalid form of the conditional argument. In this case, the
second premise affirms the consequent of the first premise and the
conclusion affirms the antecedent. Example: If he wants to get that
job, then he must know Spanish. He knows Spanish, so the job is his.
FALLACY
11), POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC: This is a Latin sentence meaning
"It happened after the event, so it happened because of the event."
This fallacy is invalid. This
fallacy includes any argument of the form: "X occurred after Y,
therefore X occurred because of Y." This fallacy underestimates the
frequency of coincidences.
Example 1:
I won at blackjack last time after I rubbed my rabbit's foot.
Therefore, I won at blackjack last time because I rubbed my rabbit's
foot.
"post hoc ergo propter hoc" means "After this, therefore caused by
this." It is a form of the false cause fallacy in which a person infers
that because one event followed another it is necessarily caused by
that event. Example:
Mary joined our class and the next week we all did poorly on the quiz.
It must be her fault.
FALLACY
12), APPEAL TO FORCE (ALSO CALLED ARGUMENTUM AD BACCULUM): This
fallacy is
invalid. This fallacy includes any argument which threatens those who
refuse to believe its conclusion.
Example: You better believe abortion is wrong because if you don't,
then you will burn in hell forever.
FALLACY
13), APPEAL TO IGNORANCE: This fallacy is invalid. Argumentum ad
ignorantium is the Latin name for appeal to ignorance. Arguing on the
basis of what is not known and cannot be proven. (Sometimes called the
"burden of proof" fallacy). If you can't prove that something is true
then it must be false (and vice versa). Example: You can't prove there
isn't a Loch Ness Monster, so there must be one.
This fallacy includes any argument of this form:
We don't know X is false.
Therefore, we know X is true.
Or
We don't know X is true
Therefore, we know X is false.
Example 1: No one has ever really proven there are no ghosts.
Therefore, there are ghosts.
Example 2: No one has shown that argument X commits a fallacy on Dr.
Harwood's List of Fallacies.
Therefore, argument X does not commit a fallacy.
FALLACY
14), THE EXISTENTIAL FALLACY: This fallacy is the least
important for our purposes, since it applies in the fewest numbers of
arguments that we are likely to consider. This fallacy is
invalid. The
fallacy moves from only universal premises to a particular conclusion.
In other words, one cannot prove an I or O claim with premises made up
of only A
or E claims. An A claim has the form: All S are P. An E claim has the
form: No S are P. An I claim has the form: Some S are P. An O claim has
the form: Some S are not P.
FALLACY
15), THE STRAWMAN FALLACY: One commits this fallacy whenever one
attacks an argument that no one has ever made and that is so weak that
no one would probably ever make it. This fallacy is invalid, since the
argument attacked is irrelevant. It's possible for the argument
attacked to be unsound and yet just as likely for the conclusion of the
argument attacked to be true. So the strawman fallacy of attacking the
argument is irrelevant and thus invalid. For the same reasons, the
strawman fallacy is weak.
Example One: Liberals think that murderers shouldn't be punished but
should be given a handshake for overcoming being victims of society and
for showing much self-esteem. This is absurd. So, liberalism is false.
Example Two: Conservatives think that starving people -- especially
starving children, who need to learn key lessons early in life --
shouldn't be helped with free food aid because they should learn to
pull themselves up by their own bootstraps instead of asking for a free
handout, which will only make them woefully dependent on others instead
of committed to embracing the
rugged individualism they will need to survive in the long run in this
cold, cruel world. This is absurd. So, conservatism is false.
The strawman fallacy occurs when we misrepresent an opponent's position
to make it easier to attack, usually by distorting his or her views to
ridiculous extremes. This can also take the form of attacking only the
weak premises in an opposing argument while ignoring the strong ones.
Example:
Those who favor gun-control legislation just want to take all guns away
from responsible citizens and put them into the hands of the criminals.
FALLACY
16), HASTY GENERALIZATION: Logicians usually consider this
fallacy invalid (but below we will explore a different interpretation
that would make this fallacy valid). This fallacy is committed when
once fails to take enough time to collect a large enough sample or a
randomized enough sample on which to extrapolate scientifically.
Model: A is a representative sample of Bs.
X is true of all Bs is sample A.
Therefore, X is true of all Bs.
This fallacy is usually considered invalid, due to what is called the
General Problem of Induction, which is that science seems to assume
that the future will be relevantly similar to the past. But there is no
way to support this assumption scientifically without begging the
question at issue. For to say that the assumption has worked in the
past and is therefore likely to work in the future is to beg the
question of whether the past will be relevantly similar to the future.
But if scientists really simply assume that the future will be like the
past, then this is a valid argument, since it is impossible for both
premises to be true and the
conclusion to be false. One might rephrase the argument as: S is true
of all Bs in sample A. If A is representative sample of Bs, then X is
true of all Bs. A is a representative sample of Bs. Therefore, X is
true of all Bs.
Further, obvious claims of the form "A is a representative sample of
Bs." Are not always false. But when they are false, then the fallacy of
hasty generalization is created.
Hasty generalization is a generalization accepted on the support of a
sample that is too small or biased to warrant it. Example: All men are
rats! Just look at the louse whom I married.
FALLACY
17), FALSE DILEMMA: This fallacy is valid but unsound. This
fallacy claims you are facing a dilemma when you really are not. A
dilemma is a tough situation, when you are between the proverbial rock
and a hard
place. This fallacy falsely limits your choices. False Dilemma
(often called
the either/or fallacy or false dichotomy). This fallacy assumes that we
must choose one of two alternatives instead of allowing for other
possibilities; a false form of disjunctive syllogism. Example:
"America, love it or leave it." (The implication is, since you don't
love it the only option is to leave it).
Example 1: Either X or Y is true.
X is false
Therefore, Y is true.
Example 2: Either X or Y is true.
Y is false.
Therefore, X is true.
This fallacy follows the logical process of elimination. This fallacy
is valid, since it is impossible for both premises to be true and the
conclusion false. The fallacy is unsound because the premise "Either X
or Y is true." Is false. Obviously, statements of the form "Either X or
Y is true" will not always be false. But when they are false, and when
they are used in an argument using this process of elimination, then
they create the fallacy of false dilemma.
FALLACY
18), FALSE ANALOGY: This fallacy is valid but unsound. This
fallacy compares apples and oranges, as the old saying goes. It
compares two things that are not comparable. It draws an analogy which
fails to fit. The fallacy is valid, since it is impossible for both
premises to be true and the conclusion false. But the fallacy is
unsound because it has the false premise claiming that two things are
analogous are false. But when they are false, they create the fallacy
of false analogy.
Model: X is analogous (that is, relevantly similar) to B in all
respects.
X is true of A.
Therefore, X is true of B.
For example: Eagle eggs are similar to human fetuses in that both are
precious. We should have laws protecting eagle eggs from human
destruction.
Therefore, we should have laws protecting human fetuses from abortion.
(This argument is a version of one by Steve Friend, a Pennsylvania
State
Legislator in the 1980s.) One relevant difference between eagle eggs
and human fetuses that the argument overlooks is that eagle eggs are
usually outside of the mother eagle but the human fetus is usually
inside the human mother. Another relevant difference might be that
human mothers, but
not eagles, have a moral right or privacy that includes intimate
private parts like the womb.
Here's another example. Some stock analysts state that there's never
just one cockroach, comparing bad news about a company to a cockroach.
This fallacy is an unsound form of inductive argument in which an
argument relies heavily on a weak analogy to prove its point. Example:
This must be a great car, for, like the finest watches in the world, it
was made in Switzerland.
FALLACY
19), BEGGING THE QUESTION: This fallacy is valid but it is, as a
practical matter, impossible to know that it is sound; for in its
premises it assumes what needs to be proved (namely, the conclusion
about which we
are arguing).
Model: X is true. Therefore, X is true.
This fallacy is valid, since it is impossible for X to be true in the
premise and false in the conclusion. This fallacy may look as if no one
would use or be fooled by such an argument. But Hitler and others used
the infamous technique of the big lie, which is simply repeated over
and over until it gains credence even though it begs the question that
was originally at issue.
Begging the Question is an argument in which the conclusion is implied
or already assumed in the premises. Some scholars also call this fallacy
circular argument.
Example: Of course the Bible is the word of God. Why? Because God says
so in the Bible.
My favorite example of begging the question comes from Larry of The Three Stooges, who says in one episode:
"I do not snore in my sleep. I stayed up awake all last night to see if I snored and I didn't."
FALLACY 20),
INCONSISTENCY (ALSO CALLED: SELF-CONTRADICTION): Inconsistency
involves
hypocrisy (failing to
practice what you preach) or a contradiction. Here are some examples.
Inconsistency: A discourse is inconsistent or self-contradicting if it
contains, explicitly or implicitly, two assertions that are logically
incompatible with each other. Inconsistency can also occur between
words and actions.
Example 1: When Curt is driving on the road he curses the cyclists
there and yells at them to use the sidewalk instead. When Curt is
walking on the sidewalk, he curses the cyclists there and yells at them
to use the road instead.
Example 2: Some racists inconsistently believe that blacks are filthy,
lazy,
and untrustworthy yet believe that blacks are naturally suited to cook,
clean, and handle the children while white parents are away.
Example 3: Some sexists inconsistently believe that women are dull,
passive,
and poor entrepreneurs yet believe women are scheming manipulators with
great verbal skills who can wrap men around their little fingers.
Example 4: Puritans inconsistently believe that sex is a dirty,
disgusting, degrading act we should share only with someone we love.
Example 5: Nazis believed Jews were generally bankers or rich people
and that Jews were generally revolutionary communists. Nazis believed
that Jews were mentally and physically inferior to the vast majority of
Germans yet somehow controlled Germany and were running Germany into
the ground.
Example 6: Some think that white men can't jump yet say they admit they
enjoy
watching the part of the Olympics where many whites excel at the high
jump.
Exmaple 7: Some racists say that black genes prevent blacks from
playing golf well yet they admit that Tiger Woods -- whom they know to
be partly black -- is the best golfer of the 21st Century.
Example 8: Some racists say no whites can rap worth a crap yet they
admit that Eminem and Marky Mark (Mark Wahlberg) are great rappers.
Example 9: A woman who represents herself as a feminist, yet refuses to
believe that women should run for Congress.
FALLACY
21), NON SEQUITUR: Non
sequitur is a Latin phrase meaning: "It does not follow."
In this fallacy the
premises have no direct relationship to the conclusion. This fallacy
appears in political speeches and advertising with great frequency.
Example: A waterfall in the background and a beautiful girl in the
foreground have nothing to do with an automobile's performance.
FALLACY
22), AMPHIBOLY: A fallacy of syntactical ambiguity where the
position of words in a sentence or the juxtaposition of two sentences
conveys a mistaken idea. This fallacy is like the fallacy of
equivocation except that the ambiguity does not result from a shift in
meaning of a single word or phrase, but is created by word placement..
Example: Jim said he saw Jenny walk her dog through the window. Ow! She
should be reported for animal
abuse.
FALLACY
23), APPEAL TO EMOTION: In this fallacy, the arguer uses
emotional appeals rather than logical reasons to persuade the listener.
The fallacy can appeal to various emotions including pride, pity, fear,
hate, vanity, or sympathy. Generally, the issue is oversimplified to
the advantage of the arguer. Example: In 1972, there was a
widely-printed advertisement printed by the Foulke Fur Co., which was
in reaction to the frequent protests
against the killing of Alaskan seals for the making of fancy furs.
According to the advertisement, clubbing the seals was one of the great
conservation stories of our history, a mere exercise in wildlife
management, because "biologists believe a healthier colony is a
controlled colony."
FALLACY
24), QUESTIONABLE CAUSE: (In Latin: non causa pro causa, "not
the cause of that"). This form of the false cause fallacy occurs when
the cause for an occurrence is identified on insufficient evidence.
Example: I can't find the checkbook; I am sure that my husband hid it
so I couldn't go shopping today.
FALLACY
25), SLIPPERY SLOPE: This fallacy is similar to false dilemma.
It essentially states "Either one avoid setting foot on the slippery
slope or else one will slide too far down the slippery slope and get
hurt." If there
is a third alternative, then one committed the slippery slope fallacy
and the fallacy of false dilemma.
Slippery slope is a line of reasoning that argues against taking a step
because it assumes that if you take the first step, you will inevitably
follow through to the last. This fallacy uses the valid form of
hypothetical syllogism, but uses guesswork for the premises. Example:
We can't allow students any voice in decision making on campus; if we
do, it won't be long before they are in total control.
FALLACY 26),
COMMON BELIEF: This fallacy is similar to the ad populum
fallacy. It is sometimes called the "bandwagon" fallacy or 'appeal to
popularity". This fallacy is committed when we assert a statement to be
true on the evidence that many other people allegedly believe it. Being
widely believed is not proof or evidence of the truth. Example: "Of
course Nixon was guilty in Watergate. Everybody knows that."
FALLACY
27), PAST BELIEF: This is a form of the fallacy of common belief
(ad populum) and a form of the fallacy of appealing to authority (the
authority of tradition). The same error in reasoning is committed
except the claim is for belief or support in the past. Example: We all
know women should
obey their husbands. After all, marriage vows contained those words for
centuries.
FALLACY
28), CONTRARY TO FACT HYPOTHESIS: This fallacy is committed when
we state with an unreasonable degree of certainty the results of an
event that might have occurred but did not. Example: If President Bush
had not gone into the Persian Gulf with military force when he did,
Saddam Hussein
would control the world's oil from Saudi Arabia today.
FALLACY
29) TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT: This fallacy is committed when we
try to justify an apparently wrong action by charges of a similar
wrong. The underlying assumption is that if they do it, then we can do
it too and
are somehow justified. Example: Supporters of apartheid are often
guilty of this error in reasoning. They point to U.S. practices of
slavery to justify their system.
FALLACY
30), SLANTING: A form of is representation in which a true
statement is made, but made in such a way as to suggest that something
is not
true or to give a false description through the manipulation of
connotation.
Example: I can't believe how much money is being poured into the space
program (suggesting that 'poured' means heedless and unnecessary
spending)
FALLACY
31), RED HERRING: This fallacy introduces an irrelevant issue
into a discussion as a diversionary tactic. It takes people off the
issue at hand; it is beside the point. Example: Many people say that
engineers need more practice in writing, but I would like to remind
them how difficult it is to master all the math and drawing skills that
an engineer requires.
FALLACY
32), FAILING TO FOLLOW OCCAM'S RAZOR: Occam's Razor is named
after medieval logician William of Occam (also known as William of
Ockham). Occam's Razor cautions: Do not multiply entities beyond
necessity. Inotherwords, if 2 theories or explanations both fit the
evidence equally well and predict with equal accuracy, then choose the
simpler of the 2 theories or explanations. We should do so because
every claim that an entity exists has a probability greater than 0 of
being wrong. So to claim that 2 entities exist instead of 1, when both
theories fit the evidence equally well and predict the future equally
well, means that you are sticking your neck out unnecessarily by making
an unnecessary claim that has a realistic chance of being wrong.
Following Occam's Razor is also called following the law of parsimony
or economy. Being parsimonious or economical here means avoiding the
making of unnecessarily extravagant claims about how many things exist.
A leading example of how Occam's Razor is used is in arguments by atheists arguing against the existence of God (or gods). Atheists often argue that science (including but not limited to Darwinism) explains (or can explain) all the phenomena or events we observe, that science presents such explanations without God as part of any of the scientific explanations, and so it would multiply entities beyond necessity to claim that God exists or some gods exist. See generally, Richard Dawkins's book The God Delusion (Houghton, Mifflin Harcourt, 2006).
FALLACY
33), THE GAMBLER'S FALLACY: The Gambler's fallacy assumes that
the gambler is "due to
win" the next try at a random game (for example, roulette) when the
gambler has lost a few in a row. The fallacy normally takes the view
that the longer the gambler's losing streak is, the more likely it is
that the gambler will win the next try at a random game of chance. The
problem with this assumption is that a truly random game leaves no room
for the game to remember who has won or lost in the past. If the
gambler has bet on number 7 in roulette and lost 5 times in a row, the
chances of the number 7 coming up the next time is still 1 in 38 (there
are 38 numbers on most roulette wheels, which include the numbers 1
through 36, 0 and 00). If the gambler loses 10 times in a row betting
on number 7, the chances that the 11th roll of the roulette wheel will
produce a 7 as the winning number are still 1 in 38. The roulette wheel
has no mind and hence no memory. On the other hand, defenders of such
thinking as non-fallacious would ask us to compare the idea of the law
of averages and the idea of "regression toward the mean." Further,
defender's of the gambler committing the gambler's fallacy would ask us
to compare the apparent memory of the past in the random game found in
the Monty Hall paradox. The Monty Hall paradox is that you
increase your odds of winning by switching from one randomly chosen box
to another even though only 1 of the 2 random boxes has the prize to
win. The set up is that you choose 1 of 3 boxes, only 1 of which
has the prize, then Monty Hall eliminates one of the losing boxes and
asks you if you wish to switch your choice to the other remaining box
after one losing box is taken away. You should switch, since 2/3
of the time your initial choice was wrong and only 1/3 of the time your
initial choice was right (the winning box). So 2/3 of the time
you will be switching into a winning choice and 1/3 of the time you
will be switching into a losing choice. Thus, your odds of
winning move from 1/3 without a switch to 2/3 with a switch. This
is a paradox because it seems that it should be otherwise, since you
appear to be randomly choosing between only 2 boxes, one of which has
the prize and the other of which fails to have the prize, apparently
indicating that your odds of winning the prize would be 50% (50/50)
whether you switch or decide against switching. The situation,
however, acts
as if it remembers your previous bet with a 1 in 3 chance. You
can empirically verify that switching increases the odds of winning by
conducting experiments going through the choices described above, for
example, by having a friend hide a penny under 1 of 3 playing cards and
then choosing 1 of the cards, and then having your friend remove one of
the other cards that has no penny underneath it, then asking you
whether to switch or not. If you switch, you'll find out over the
long run that you win an average of about 2/3 (about 67%) of the time
and when you decide against switching you'll find that you win over the
long term only about 1/3 (about 33%) of the time on average. It's
amazing but true.
********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
FAQ11: For all courses, what is
Dr. Harwood's introductory lecture in
philosophy?
INTRODUCTORY LECTURE IN PHILOSOPHY
Part 1: What is philosophy?
When I was a child I first realized we were all in big trouble when I
realized that the word 'life' itself is a four-letter word. Ancient
Greek philosopher Plato said that philosophy begins in childlike wonder
such as the realization I just mentioned. What is philosophy? I will
try to define it in three ways. First, I will examine the word itself.
Second, I will list some of the main questions that philosophers have
traditionally asked while working in the three main categories. Third,
I will give some examples of a characteristically philosophical
attitude.
Part 2: The Word 'Philosophy'
First, let's examine the word 'philosophy.' Note that
www.dictionary.com is a fine resource. 'philo' means love, as in
philanderer (lover of women), philanthropy (love of humankind),
Philadelphia (brotherly love), etc. 'Phillip,' by the way means "lover
of horses." So you might lightly tease some of your chums named
'Phillip' if the mood strikes you. 'sophy' means 'wisdom,' as in
'sophisticated' or 'sophist.' Socrates, a father figure in Western
Philosophy, famously battled the sophist Protagoras intellectually in
Plato's great dialog "Protagoras." Sophists are distinct from
philosophers. The philosophers of Socrates's day in ancient Greece,
about 300 to 500 B.C. (or B.C.E, meaning before the common era), were
unpaid. The sophists were paid and acted as lawyers, ad men, PR men,
consultants, and spin doctors act today. Philosophers of Socrates's
time were more of a religous or isolated cast of characters. Socrates
and other philosophers were worldly, however. Thales, the first Western
philosopher on record, was a business man from Miletas. He used his
philosophy in a practical way to help him predict where olive trees
would grow best. He became rich. Socrates was worldly, too. He was a
soldier who showed great endurance, especially of the cold, in battle.
Plato, the most famous student of Socrates, was a wrestler from a rich
and aristocratic family. Plato is merely a nickname for the man
formally known as Aristocles. 'Plato,' like "The Body" in the
politician's name "Jesse 'The Body' Ventura', is a nickname referring
to wrestling. Plato not only mentally wrestled with great ideas, he
also physically wrestled other people. 'Plato' in Greek means 'broad'
or 'flat,' which could refer to Plato's broad shoulders or to his
victorious pinning of his opponents flat to the wrestling mat.
The analysis of the word 'philosophy' is hardly as helpful in getting a
definition as is examination of the words in other fields of study. For
example, 'oceanography' clearly indicates that oceans and graphs are
involved. And 'biology' means the study of life, so we can see how life
functions (fleeing, fighting, feeding, and fornication -- reproduction)
would be involved. But what is love of wisdom? Don't all scholars in
all fields, at least the best of those scholars, love wisdom? So what
sets philosophy apart from them? To answer this we must turn to the
question philosophers tend to occupy themselves with and then finally
to the attitude philosophers have usually used in exploring those
questions.
Part 3: The Questions Of Philosophy
Philosophers, especially in Western Civilization, have tended to ask
the following sorts of questions in three main fields of study.
Axiology: the study of value. Socrates is famous for asking "What is
the good life?" Part of his answer was that the unexamined (uncritical)
life was not worth living. Here are more questions philosophers have
asked conerning value, including moral values and artistic (aesthetic)
values. What is art? What is good art? Are all values relative to
culture or the individual? Is there any disputing matters of taste? Are
all values subjective? Are there any values at all? What is the best
economic system? What is the best political system? What is the best
legal system? Is abortion moral? Is affirmative action moral? Is gun
control moral? Is euthanasia (mercy killing) moral? Is surrogate
motherhood moral? Is capital punishment moral?
Note that on the last question, Socrates had a particular personal
interest. He was capitally punished for allegedly corrupting the youth
and worhshipping a false god (a god not approved of by the state).
Socrates' alleged corruption of the youth had nothing to do with the
fact that Socrates had sex with young boys under 18. That was accepted
in ancient Athens. Indeed, in the dialog "Protagoras," Plato quotes
Socrates as saying that his favorite sex partner was a young boy whose
stubble had just begun to grow on the chin (maybe around age 13 or 14
or so). No, the corruption for which Socrates was executed was teaching
the youth that democracy was not the best form of government. Socrates
worshipped The Oracle at Delphi, which had two mottoes: 1) Know
thyself; and 2) Nothing too much (that is, everything in moderation;
nothing in excess).
Philosophy is defined more by its questions than by its answers,
especially since some philosophers are quite modest and humble in
admitting that they cannot yet answer such questions (or that they can
ever answer them). Socrates's method, which is now famously named The
Socratic Method, is to teach by asking students penetrating questions
that expose contradictions or puzzles in the thinking of students. For
example, if I ask you if there are too many lawyers in America, many
will answer 'Yes.' Further, if I ask you if supply and demand determine
prices in a freemarket or capitalist society like America, many will
answer 'Yes' again. Finally, if I ask if lawyers cost too much in
America, many will answer 'Yes' for a third time. But if lawyers cost
too much, and supply and demand determine the price of lawyers, then
the cost of lawyers should be low rather than high. So the three 'Yes'
answers above seem to form an inconsistent set of beliefs. This forces
the student to re-examine his/her fundamental believes, at least one of
which and maybe all three of which must be rejected. Further, the
lessons of this kind of teaching tend to stick in the mind of the
student much longer and stronger than the lessons learned from other
forms of teaching; for the lesson springs from the student's very own
mind. Thus the student tends to feel as if he/she has participated in
the learning and teaching process and he/she has! So pride in his/her
learning makes the lesson much stronger in his/her mind.
Epistemology: the study of knowledge. This is the second of three main
areas of exploration for the philosopher. Here are the questions that
tend to arise here, though there is no complete list of questions in
any of the three areas. As philosophers learn and grow, and the
philosophical tradition does the same, the list of questions grows,
too. Here's a partial list, then: What is knowledge? Is knowledge
justified true belief? How does science acquire knowledge? What is the
scientific method? How does logic lead to knowledge? How can logic aid
critical thinking? How can logic evaluate arguments? Is all knowledge
relative or subjective? Is skepticism right to say that there is no
knowledge at all? How do we know that we know? How can a skeptic
consistently claim to know that there is no knowledge? Can anything,
even God or gods, have infinite knowledge? What is the relationship, if
any, between the intellect (knowing) and the will (loving and other
emotions)? Is curiosity an emotion leading to knowledge or death? Can
we voluntarily do what we know is wrong? Can we act contrary to our
better judgment? How do we know that we everything isn't doubling in
size every 5 minutes? How can we know the past? How can we know the
present? How can we know the future? How do we know that the entire
known universe isn't just a piece of spit dangling from the fang of an
enormous dragon?
The third main area of philosophical exploration is ontology -- also
called metaphysics, the study of existence. Here are some traditional
trends in the kinds of questions philosophers ask here. What exists?
Does matter exist? Does spirit exist? What relationship, if any, exists
between mind and body? Does God exist? Do gods exist? Does evil exist?
Does an afterlife exist? Does infinite space exist? Does infinite time
exist? Does free will exist? Do other minds exist? Does causation
exist? Does ESP exist? Do UFOs exist? Do strange monsters such as the
Loch Ness monster, Yeti, Bigfoot, exist? Do supernatural forces exist?
Do strange forces exist in the Bermuda Triangle? Does the Mystery Spot
in Santa Cruz, California hold supernatural powers over gravity? Are
all four main types of physical forces unified at some fundamental
level? What are the fundamental building blocks of life? What are the
fundamental components of the universe? Is there any intelligent life
on other planets or in outer space? What is life? What is the nature
and meaning of life?
Part 4: The Attitude Of Philosophy
Early on in my life I adopted the attitude that we needed to improve
upon the general rules authorities were handing us. For example, the
Golden Rule seems reasonable enough at first blush. Do unto others as
you would have them do unto you commits to the value of mutual respect
and reciprocity. But suppose some guy wants Madonna to do something
really weird unto him as a total surprise to him? Does that mean that
he gets to do the same weird thing to her as a total surprise to her?
No, that's too easy a justification for questionable behavior. It
would, for example, automatically allow a masochist (one who enjoys
having suffering inflicted on him) become a sadist (one who enjoys
inflicting pain on others). But can masochism or sadism really be
justified by such a simple application of the Golden Rule. Wouldn't we
need to know more to know that they are justified, if they are even
justified at all?
My first philosophical experience came around age 8 in third grade. The
teacher had some handouts to handout, as teachers often do with
handouts. She said the first handout should be taken only by the
youngest child in each family. So I took one of those handouts when the
stack of handouts came around to me. Then the teacher announced that
the next handout should be taken only by the oldest child in each
family. So when the second stack of handouts came around to me, the
teacher had her eye on me. Perhaps by age 8 I had already acquired a
rep. Anyway, when the second stack came I took another handout and the
teacher immediately screamed at me "Sterling Harwood, how can you
possibly be both the oldest child in your family and the youngest child
in your family?!!!" And I simply replied: "Because I'm the only child
in my family." The class full of children all burst into laughter and
from the explosion of laughter and from the shock of the humiliation
the teacher was propelled backwards, with a thud, into the blackboard.
She turned around and the children burst into laughter again because
the teacher's black dress was now all white in the back from hitting
the blackboard with a thud. This impressed on me the power of
philosophy: how even a child could get an authority figure off his back
just by thinking better than the authority. You see, my conceptual
categories were superior to the conceptual categories of my teacher.
She thought of the categories of young and old as opposites that could
never meet in the same person. I knew better from my own personal
experience of being an only child, the youngest and oldest child at the
same time.
Our next, first philosophical experience comes from philosopher Paul
Weiss, who taught for years at Yale University. Yale is an Ivy League
university, in the same league with Cornell University, the Ivy League
school I where received my M.A. and Ph.D. in Philosophy. So I always
felt a bit closer to Dr. Weiss. Weiss then went on to teach at The
Catholic University of America. I always laugh at the word 'The,' as if
CU thinks that Notre Dame or Santa Clara University, etc. don't even
exist, as if 'The' meant "The Only." Weiss said his first philosophical
experience was of feeling overmatched by a puzzle that occurred to him
around age 8 in third grade. He heard his teacher make the sweeping
claim that every word in the huge dictionary at the front of the class
was made up only of combinations of the 26 letters on the list of the
alphabet atop the blackboard at the front of the room. Immediately,
Weiss said, he began to try to think of counterexamples to the
teacher's authoritative and sweeping pronouncement. But he said that he
experienced the philosopher's usual mental state: a headache coming on
from having his mind overmatched by the question he was trying to
answer. He couldn't think of any counterexample. I told this story for
years in class until one student told me that she had counterexamples:
contractions (e.g., "don't" and "I'll"), which have apostrophes in
addition to letters of the alphabet; and that made me think of
hyphenated words (e.g., "well-respected") that have a hyphen in
addition to letters. So that's an optimistic end to this tale; we can
solve the puzzles and mysteries of philosophy sometimes even when the
first philosopher who tackles them gives up.
The third, first philosophical experience I have to share is form my
fellow graduate student at Cornell named Terry. She told me that she
was about 8 and was hiking in the woods one day when her friend said
"I'm gonna go to the bathroom." Terry objected, you may urinate and you
may defacate, but one thing you definitely won't be doing is going to
the bathroom, since we're
in the middle of the woods and there are no bathrooms. It is an absurd
euphemism to call it a bathroom. What did Terry's companion expect, to
walk around the bushes and find a tree stump as a toilet seat that she
could raise or lower? You can see how philosophers get people annoyed,
with even Socrates annoying people so much as to get executed. People
are rushing around with their lives and philosophers tend to slow them
down to reflect on what they are doing and whether it is truthful or
worthwhile.
The fourth and final first experience in philosophy, illustrating the
philosophical attitude of precision in words, critical thinking and
questioning even to the point of annoyance of others, especially
authorities, is from a law professor of mine named Alan. He said that
his first experience came when he was about age 8. His mom told him not
to eat the pie she had just put in the fridge before dinner since that
would spoil his appetite. Mom went out of the kitchen to do another
errand, leaving Alan alone in the kitchen. When mom returned she was
appalled to see her son Alan machine eating one cookie after another
right out of the cookie jar, no napkin, no plate, just straight from
the jar into his mouth. Indeed, the cookies were Moravian cinnamon
cookies. So he was literally caught red-handed with his hand in the
cookie jar.
Part 5: Conclusion
In conclusion, the attitude of philosophy is somewhat irreverent. It
questions authority and even itself. Clarifying the questions may be an
even more important contribution philosophy makes than it makes with
the answers it gives. Philosophy requires leisure, since it slows down
the hustle and bustle of daily life and asks us to reflect on what we
are doing and whether the game is worth the candle -- whether the paper
chase or whatever it is we are doing is really worth all our efforts,
time, trouble, and expense. Such careful, logical, undogmatic,
unorthodox questioning must involve critical thinking.
********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
FAQ12: For all courses, what are
some arguments on euthanasia (mercy
killing) that students have the option of evaluating in a paper?
Remember, you have my permission to quote in your A-sections anything
from any published source on your approved paper topic, including but
not limited to the following:
EUTHANASIA ARGUMENT 1. "For the Christian,
life is God's gift and its
end is to be determined by Him. God is sovereign over life and death:
we have no jurisdiction in this area; therefore, we have no mandate to
end our lives. We trust the Author of life to allow only what
ultimately benefits us to be fall us. God's providence." Dr. Robert C.
Pankratz and Dr. Richard M. Welsh, "A Christian Response to
Euthanasia",
http://www.tkc.com/resources/resources-pages/euthanasia.html, last
visited 12/28/2009.
EUTHANASIA ARGUMENT 2. "If we did not have
effective means of
controlling and alleviating severe pain, then active euthanasia
(mercy-killing) would be morally acceptable. But through medical
advances we now have very effective methods of controlling and
alleviating even themost severe pain. So, obviously, active euthanasia
is not morally acceptable." Author unknown; argument presented in Bruce
Waller, Critical Thinking: Consider the Verdict (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1998), pp. 105-106.
EUTHANASIA ARGUMENT 3. "The philosophers
rightly observe that existing
law against assisted suicide reflect and entrench certain views about
what gives life meaning. But the same would be true were the court to
declare, in the name of autonomy, a right to assisted suicide. The
challenge is to find a way to honor these claims that preserves the
moral burden of hastening death, and that retains the reverence for
life as something we cherish, not something we choose. Michael J.
Sandel, Staff Writer, "Last Rights", The New Republic, April 14, 1997,
Vol. 216, Issue 15, p. 27.
EUTHANASIA ARGUMENT 4.
The things we make turn around and make us; and
just as the Pill helped transform our ideas about sexual freedom, so
will the obitioner (a physician who practices assisted VE) change the
way we regard aging. How often, in the assisted-suicide future, will
someone look at an elderly person and thing, consciously or
semiconsciously, 'Gee, guess it's about time, huh? I'm thinking of the
way we treat people in wheelchairs, people who can't feed themselves
whose bodies don't look or work 'right'. Societies that drift in this
direction, as Germany did under the Nazis, instill in their citizens a
visceral sense of the handicapped as a drain or drag on the healthy
body of the rest of us. Such attitudes are not spontaneous
manifestations of evil. You have to train people to feel this way; but
if you do, they will." Rand Richards Cooper, author, "The Dignity of
Helplessness: What Sort of Society Would Euthanasia Create?",
Commonwealth Magazine, Vol. 123, 10/25/1996, p. 12.
EUTHANASIA ARGUMENT 5.
"I've been thinking a
lot this week about
mother's death two years ago: about the family's arguments regarding
whether her dialysis should be discontinued as she slipped further into
end-stage diabetes and an increasing state sleep and hallucination. She
hung on for months until her body gave out on its own. Yeller's death
was shorter and less anguished. Yeller was an animal, not a person.
Putting him " to sleep" was the right thing to do. We don't put animals
through the same ropes, trying to maintain life when it's obviously
untenable. I wonder if we are being kinder to them than to ourselves."
Richard Scheinin, Religion and Ethics writer, "A Loved Pet Dies With
Dignity Without Prolonging the Inevitable-Don't Humans Deserve the Same
Peace?", San Jose Mercury News, 5/4/1996, p. 1E.
EUTHANASIA ARGUMENT 6.
"[The goal] of society should be to encourage
people to live rather than to make it easier for them to die. Our
ability to overcome medical or emotional adversity is immeasurably
enhanced if society's ethic is that we should try to carry on, that our
courage in not giving up will give others courage when a crisis hits
them. Given the underside of human nature, we will have all too many
cases where relatives will want to hasten the end for selfish reason."
Malcom Forbes Jr., Tycoon, "Encouraging the Living to Live," Forbes
Magazine, Vol. 157, 4/22/1996, p. 24.
EUTHANASIA ARGUMENT 7. "There is reason to believe that many religious
groups will end up endorsing death with dignity, because religions have
a habit of changing. Although the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic
Church has been emphatic in its opposition to euthanasia, spending
millions to defeat such propositions at the polls, there are respected
voices raised within that church in support of physician - assisted
death. A Gallup poll, reported in American Demographics magazine four
years ago, indicated that 65 percent of the American public favored
allowing doctors to help the terminally ill end their suffering if the
patient and his or her family request it. Many of those people will
want the comfort of knowing that, if they so choose, a physician will
be ready, willing, and able to help them escape agonizing pain and the
humiliation of helplessness by offering a death with dignity and the
churches blessing." William H. Carr, Staff Writer, "A Right to Die,"
Saturday Evening Post, Vol. 267, Sept.-Oct. 1995, p. 50.
EUTHANASIA ARGUMENT 8. "A few hospice leaders claim that their care is
so perfect that there absolutely no need for anyone to consider
euthanasia. While I have no wish to criticize them, they are wrong to
claim perfection. Most, but not all, terminal pain can today be
controlled with the sophisticated use of drugs, but the point these
leaders miss is that personal quality of life is vital to some people.
If one's body has been so destroyed by disease that it is not worth
living in, that is an intensely individual decision which should not be
thwarted. In some cases of the final days in hospice care, when the
pain is very serious, the patient is drugged into unconsciousness. If
that way is acceptable to the patient, fine. But some people do not
wish their final hours to be in that fashion." Derek Humphry, "Why I
Believe in Voluntary Euthanasia," (1995), p. 5.
EUTHANASIA ARGUMENT 9.
"One objection to assisted suicide and active
voluntary euthanasia is that they involve killing, and all killing is
morally wrong. This principle may be based on religious views (e.g.,
the sixth commandment) or maintained on purely secular grounds. But
whatever its basis, we cannot appeal to this unqualified principle to
condemn the practices in question unless we are prepared to condemn,
for example, the killing of steers for food, fish for sport, trees for
paper, weeds to beautify a garden, mosquitoes for comfort, and so
forth." Alister Browne, Ph.D., Division of Biomedical Ethics, UBC,
"Assisted Suicide and Active Voluntary Euthanasia", Canadian Journal of
Law and Jurisprudence, Vol. II, No. 1, January 1989, p.3.
EUTHANASIA ARGUMENT 10. "The category of the hopelessly ill provides
the possibility of even worse abuse. Embedded in a social policy, it
would give society or its representatives the authority to eliminate
all those who might be considered too 'ill' to function normally any
longer. The dangers of euthanasia are too great to all to run the risk
of approving it in any form. The first slippery step may well lead to a
serious and harmful fall." J. Gay-Williams, "The Wrongfulness of
Euthanasia," in Joseph Grcic, ed., Moral Choice: Ethical Theories and
Problems, West Publishing Co., 1989, p. 308.
EUTHANASIA ARGUMENT 11. "The maintenance of life by artificial means
is,
in such cases, sadly pointless, and if all available means of
prolonging life were always used, the hospitals would be quickly filled
with living corpses while ordinary patients could find no beds. Thus,
virtually everyone who has thought seriously about the matter agrees
that it is morally acceptable, at some point, to cease treatment and
allow such people to die." James Rachels, quoted in Tom Regan, Matters
of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, 3rd
ed., Temple University Press, 1980, p. 38.
EUTHANASIA ARGUMENT 12. "If an action promotes the best interests of
everyone concerned and violates no one's rights, then that action is
morally acceptable. In at least some cases, active euthanasia promotes
the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one's rights.
Therefore, in at least some cases, active euthanasia is morally
acceptable." James Rachels, quoted in Tom Regan, Matters of Life and
Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, 3rd ed., Temple University Press, 1980, p.
38.
EUTHANASIA ARGUMENT 13. "If a person prefers and even begs for death as
the only alternative to lingering on in this kind of torment, only to
die anyway after a while, then surely, it is not immoral to help this
person die sooner." James Rachels, quoted in Tom Regan, Matters of Life
and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, 3rd ed., Temple University Press, 1980, p.
38.
EUTHANASIA ARGUMENT 14. "Moreover, as Bentham's famous follower John
Stuart Mill put it, the individual is sovereign over his own body and
mind; where one's own interests are concerned, there is no other
authority. Therefore, if one wants to die quickly rather than lingering
in pain, that is strictly a personal affair, and the government has no
business intruding." James Rachels, quoted in Tom Regan, Matters of
Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, 3rd ed.,
Temple University Press, 1980, p.38.
EUTHANSIA ARGUMENT 15. "For the utilitarian, the question was simply
this ' Does it increase or decrease human happiness to provide a quick,
painless death for those who are dying n agony?' Clearly, they
reasoned, the only consequences of such actions will be to decrease the
amount of misery in the world; therefore, euthanasia must be morally
right." James Rachels, quoted in Tom Regan, Matters of Life and Death:
New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, 3rd ed., Temple University Press, 1980, p.
38.
EUTHANASIA ARGUMENT 16. Once a certain practice is accepted, from a
logical point of view we are committed to accepting certain other
practices as well, since there are no good reasons for not going on to
accept the additional practices once we have taken the all important
first step." James Rachels quoted in Tom Regan, Matters of Life and
Death: New Introductory Essays in Philosophy, 3rd ed., Temple University Press, 1980, p.
61.
EUTHANASIA ARGUMENT 17. "Suffering is a part of life; God has ordained
that we must suffer as part of His Divine plan. Therefore if we were to
kill people to 'put them out of their misery,' we would be interfering
with God's plan." James Rachels, in Tom Regan, ed., Maters of Life and
Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, 3rd ed., Temple University Press, 1980, p.
53.
EUTHANASIA ARGUMENT 18. Our second
theological
argument starts from the
principle that "The life of a man is solely under the dominion of God."
It is for God alone to decide when people shall live and when they
shall die; therefore, we have no right to 'play God' and arrogate this
decision unto ourselves. So euthanasia is forbidden." James Rachels, in
Tom Regan, ed., Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in
Moral Philosophy, 3rd ed., Temple University
Press, 1980, p. 53.
EUTHANASIA ARGUMENT 19. "VE [voluntary
euthanasia] as an individual
choice is entirely distinct from murdering people who are judged (by
others) to have no worth. The "right" view of morality indicates that
if we have a right to live, we have a right to give up that life...
religious arguments cannot apply to anyone who does not share that
belief. A wish to exercise personal autonomy and a desire to avoid
unwanted suffering are the twin foundation stones of the case for VE."
Dr. Robert L. Gandling, Family Physician, "The Case for Voluntary
Euthanasia", [date unknown], pp. 1-2.
EUTHANASIA ARGUMENT 20. "Man is called to
fullness of life which far
exceeds the dimensions of his earthly existence, because it consists of
sharing the very life of God. Every individual, precisely by reason of
the mystery the Word of God who was made flesh, is entrusted to the
maternal care of the Church. Whatever is opposed to life itself, such
as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful
destruction... all these things and others like them are infamies
indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who
practice them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they
are a supreme dishonor to the Creator." Pope John Paul II, "On the
Value and Inviolability of Human Life," [date unknown], pp. 6-7.
EUTHANASIA ARGUMENT 21. "It is naive to imagine that a policy and a law permitting euthanasia will not lead to insensitive, inhumane, and intolerable abuse simply because those who designed the law were governed by pure motives and noble purpose. The position in favor of legalizing VE rests upon an assumption of ideal hospitals, doctors, nurses and families. But we do not live in an ideal world. The issue is whether we should try this social experiment. I believe we should not." David J. Roy, Director, Center of Bioethics, Clinical Research Institute of Montreal, "When the Dying Demand Death: A Position Paper on Euthanasia," [date unknown], pp. 10-11.
********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
FAQ13: COMING SOON TO A COMPUTER SCREEN NEAR YOU
********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
FAQ14: What are 184 quotes on human nature that students may use in the A-sections (and of course in the C-sections, where students may use quotes from any source) of any paper they choose to write on whether human nature is basically good, bascially evil or basically a mixed bag of good and evil (and whether human nature is basically fixed or basically flexible)?
Here are the aforementioned quotes with some of Dr. H's brainstorming
about
them. There are three main issues, at least, running through these
quotes: 1)
how good, evil or mixed human nature is; 2) how free or unfree human
nature is;
3) and how fixed or flexible (changeable, malleable, or plastic) human
nature
is. So as you read each quote, read it to see if the quote is relevant
for at
least one of those three issues.
HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 1: "Out of the crooked timber of human nature
nothing
quite straight can be made." ~ Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), from "Idee
zu einer allegemeinen Geschichte in weltburgerlicher Absicht" (1784),
unpublished translation by R. G. Collingwood, quoted in Isaiah Berlin,
The
Crooked Timber of Humanity, ed. by Henry Hardy (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf,
1991), p. vii.
HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 2: “Part Two is an account of the sourced of
the moral
sentiments – human nature, family experiences, gender, and
culture. The reader
is no doubt quite prepared to encounter chapters on family and culture,
but may
be surprised to find ones on biology and gender. He shouldn’t be.
We already
know that criminality is importantly influenced by biological factors,
including sex; it stands to reason that noncriminality should be
influenced by
such factors as well. To believe otherwise is to believe that
law-abidingness
is wholly learned, while criminality is a quasi-biological interruption
of that
acquired disposition. That is, to say the least, rather
implausible.” James Q.
Wilson, The Moral Sense (The Free Press, 1993), p. xiv.
Note to students: Think more about criminality and human nature. Since
human
nature includes two biological genders, and since there are so many
more males
than females in prison, a question of any difference in criminal human
nature
along gender lines is raised by these statistics. Of course, this is at
least
somewhat arbitrary, since what counts as a crime or not is at least
often
socially determined. For example, without Roe v. Wade -- the 1973
Supreme Court
case that could have been decided differently -- America could have
continued
to make most abortions crimes, in which case most of the 1.5 million
abortions
a year could be cited by some as evidence of some tendency toward
criminality
in women (and all abortionists of either gender), even if only a small
fraction
of those 1.5 million a year would break a law against abortion. A small
fraction of 1.5 million abortions per year -- 2% -- would surpass by
10,000 the
approximately 20,000 murders committed each year in America.
Further, consider Anne Fausto-Sterling's point that some believe there
are 3 to
5 sexes, distinguishing anatomical features from genetic features and
allow for
hermaphrodites with some mix of both male and female anatomical
features.
HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 3: “Historians will show how this [the rise of
Nazism]
happened and perhaps even try to explain why it happened. The
philosophical
interest is also a historical interest: for instance, in the
replacement of the
idea of justice by the idea of liberty as the dominant concept in
political
morality during the nineteenth century, not only among Hegelians and
Marxists,
but also among liberals and radicals. The identification, or at least
association, of improvement and progress with the extension of liberty
persisted from Rousseau and the Jacobins through J. S. Mill up to the
present
day, and it is conspicuous again in Rawls’s A Theory of Justice.
Liberty, like
happiness and the pursuit of happiness, is a positive ideal, while
justice is a
negative ideal. To recommend practices and institutions in proportion
as they
remove barriers to the freedom of individuals is to aim at a positive
good. The
aim is one of enlightened improvement in harmony with those human
desires which
can be assumed to be almost universal. We think of justice as a
restraint upon
those desires: the desire for a greater share of rewards, the desire
for
dominance. It is the denial of pleonexia, as Plato wrote, of getting
more than
is due, of unmeasured ambi- [end of p. 71] tion, of over-reaching, and
of
self-assertion without limit. When justice needs to be enforced and is
enforced, the scene is not one of harmony; some ambitions are
frustrated. A
barrier is erected; an impossibililty declared.” – Stuart
Hampshire, Innocence
and Experience (Harvard University Press, 1989), pp. 71-72.
You can use some of this to help thinking about free will and to
broaden the
discussion to include political freedom. There seems to be something in
human
nature that craves freedom. Hampshire’s contrasting of liberty
with justice
here is interesting. Human nature also seems to crave justice, in the
form of
revenge, for example.
Think of the new series by Oxford University Press on the vices. Simon
Blackburn wrote a book in the series, a book on lust. So another aspect
of
human nature to discuss are other cravings such as lust, gluttony,
greed or
avarice, etc.
HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 4: “Hume, in common with other British
moralists of his
century, envisages both an actual and a desirable convergence of all
humanity
on shared moral sentiments, admitting local varieties around a common
center.
He is not greatly interested in the specific virtues attached to
specific
social roles and functions. In this respect he is to be ranked with
Kant as
sharing the Enlightenment programme: that humanity should be united
across all
barriers of social status and origin in shared moral concerns and
values.
Benevolence and a capacity for sympathy were to be the primary virtues
and they
were appropriate in every rank of society and to every office and
function.
The arguments of this book [Hampshire’s Innocence and Experience]
are
throughout directed against this Enlightenment conception of a single
substantial morality, including a conception of the good and of human
virtue,
as being the bond that unites humanity in universal sentiments or in
universal
moral beliefs. Humanity is united in the recognition of the great evils
which
render life scarcely bearable, and which under-determine any specific
way of
life and any specific conception of the good and of the essential
virtues. The
glory of humanity is in the diversity and originality of its positive
aspirations and dif- [end of p. 107] ferent ways of life, and the only
universal and positive moral requirement is the application of
procedural
justice and fairness to the handling of moral conflicts between
them.” – Stuart
Hampshire, Innocence and Experience (Harvard University Press, 1989),
pp.
107-108.
My brainstorm here is that you might combine many thoughts into a
section
called ‘The Enlightenment Conception of Human Nature.’
Further, you would
usefully discuss more whether human nature implies any single
substantive
morality or any conception of the good or of human nature, and whether
any of
these things could serve as a bond uniting humanity.
HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 5: “Contrary to the simple-minded historical
relativism
traceable to Hegel’s influence, the problem in moral philosophy
of combining
consistency in theory and fidelity to known facts about human nature
remains
much the same; the problems have not greatly changed in the changing
social
conditions. Past theories and their critics have revealed blind alleys,
and we
can stand on the shoulders of the moral philosophers of the past and
try to
come closer both to the facts of human nature and to new social
conditions. But
one could sit in the same room with Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle,
Montaigne,
Hobbes, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Hume, Kant, Burke, Mill, and
Tocqueville, and
one could read a paper on procedural justice to this gathering. In the
discussion that followed it would be clear that everyone present was
talking
about the same subject, and that it was certainly not a subject
sustained only
by a university syllabus. The discussion would touch on the perennial
topics of
the underpinnings and origins of justice, of the universal and
conventional
elements in justice, and of the relation of private to public
morality.” –
Stuart Hampshire, Innocence and Experience (Harvard University Press,
1989), p.
157.
My brainstorm here is that W. B. Gallie’s distinction between
concepts and
conceptions applies usefully here, and that it solves some of the
relativism
traceable to pages 100-101 in the original edition of Thomas S.
Kuhn’s The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, circa
1962).
Additionally, if the subject is not sustained only by a university
syllabus,
what does sustain it? Is it something in human nature itself that
sustains it?
Is some part of human nature riveted to the idea of justice and the
application
of ideas of justice? Are we by our natures advocates of justice or
avengers of
injustice?
HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 6: “At least since Hobbes’s Leviathan,
political
philosophers have used the device of the device of the social contract
to pick
out a set of shared beliefs, or of shared purposes, actual and
possible, which
can form a consensual meeting-Harmony andground for all citizens,
whatever the
other differences between them are. The hankering after some kind of
consensus,
which persists in Rawls’s theory, is both nat- [end of p. 188]
tural and very
strong. It is assumed that there cannot be social stability within
nations, and
– now perhaps more urgent – peace between nations, unless
an implicit consensus
is first discovered and then is made explicit and reinforced. The
assumption
has been that, from the moral point of view, the bedrock of human
nature is to
be found in self-evident and unavoidable beliefs. But after every
attempt the
alleged unavoidable beliefs are shown to be either vacuous or, if
substantial,
dubious, and at least very far from being unavoidable.
We should look in society not for consensus, but for ineliminable and
acceptable conflicts, and for rationally controlled hostilities, as the
normal
condition of mankind; not only normal, but also the best condition of
mankind from
the moral point of view, both between states and within states. This
was
Heraclitus’s vision: that life, and liveliness, within the soul
and within
society, consists in perpetual conflicts between rival impulses and
ideals, and
that justice presides over the hostilities and finds sufficient
compromises to
prevent madness in the soul, and civil war or war between peoples.
Harmony and
inner consensus come with death, when human faces no longer express
conflicts
but are immobile, composed, and at rest. To correct Plato’s
analogy: justice
within the soul may be seen as the intelligent recognition and
acceptance of
conflicting and ambivalent elements n one’s own imagination and
emotions – not
the suppression of conflicts by a dominant intellect for the sake of
harmony,
but rather their containment through some means of expression peculiar
to the
individual. In pursuing its changing conceptions of the good, the life
of the
soul is a series of compromise formations, which are evidently unstable
and
transient, just as every successive state of society is evidently
unstable and
transient.” – Stuart Hampshire, Innocence and Experience
(Harvard University
Press, 1989), pp. 188-189.
My brainstorm here is that this passage applies to both cosmopolitanism
and
Plato. The vision of Heraclitus or Hampshire deserves a mention, if
only in a
note, in work on Plato, to give an alternative vision to Plato’s
vision. It may
realistically even warrant a paragraph or so of discussion in the main
text of
your chapter on plato. As an advocate of Enlightenment liberalism, I
find
Hampshire’s view surprisingly challenging. I think his view must
go wrong
somewhere, but his eloquence makes his points seem to ring true to me
and so I
have some difficulty locating any source of error. So maybe he’s
right after
all or maybe there needs to be a synthesis of the best of his view with
the
best of Enlightenment liberalism.
I seem to agree with Hampshire that human nature is to be or involve a
tendency
toward a state of unrest, toward instability and transient states of
becoming.
Yet there also seem to be remarkably many humans who stagnate in
laziness or
otherwise stay remarkably the same for remarkably long periods of time.
Laziness and resistance to change seem to be significant parts of human
nature,
for many humans at least. Others seem to exhibit by nature a mammalian
restlessness.
HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 7: “What is it then which binds those who have
more than
enough and those with less than enough in the ties of obligation? For
most
people, obligations are a matter of custom, habit and historical
inheritance as
much as a matter of explicit moral commitment. But might there not be
something
more than custom, habit and inheritance? Whatever the customs of a
country, it
would seem ‘unnatural’ for a father to deny his duty
towards the needs of his
children, unnatural for a daughter to refuse to give shelter to her
homeless
father. Beneath all these, there is nature: the natural [end of p. 27]
feeling
which ought to exist between father and children and more mysteriously
between
human beings as such.” – Michael Ignatieff, The Needs of
Strangers: An Essay on
Privacy, Solidarity and the Politics of Being Human (New York: Penguin
Books,
1984), pp. 27-28.
Joseph Campbell’s citation of Schopenhauer’s metaphysical
realization of
oneness between even strangers applies here to help demystify this
point. You
might use this quote as a springboard to a discussion of moral realism
rooted
in human nature as opposed to the rival of moral realism rooted in mere
custom,
habit and inheritance.
HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 8: “The language of human needs is a basic way
of speaking
about this idea of natural human identity. We want to know what we have
in
common with each other beneath the infinity of our differences. We want
to know
what it means to be human, and we want to know what that knowledge
commits us
to in terms of duty. What distinguishes the language of needs is its
claim that
human beings actually feel a common and shared identity in the basic
fraternity
of hunger, thirst, cold, exhaustion, loneliness or sexual passion. The
possibility of human solidarity rests on the idea of natural human
identity. A
society in which strangers would feel common belonging and mutual
responsibility to each other depends on trust, and trust reposes in
turn on the
idea that beneath difference there is identity.” – Michael
Ignatieff, The Needs
of Strangers: An Essay on Privacy, Solidarity and the Politics of Being
Human
(New York: Penguin Books, 1984), p. 28.
This quote seems relevant to both cosmopolitanism and human nature.
Again
relevant is the Schopenhauer/Campbell point on the metaphysical
realization of
identity in even a stranger. Ignatieff has a way with words, as one
would
expect of a Penguin Book, since they target more of a mass audience
than other
imprints. I have in mind here the second and third sentences of the
quote
above, which are eloquent enough to serve as an epigram.
HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 9: “Yet when one thinks about it, this is a
puzzling idea.
For who has ever met a pure and natural human being? We are always
social
beings, clothed in our skin, our class, income, our history, and as
such, our
obligations to each other are always based on difference. As me who I
am
responsible for, and I will tell you about my wife and child, my
parents, my
friends and relations, and my fellow citizens. My obligations are
defined by
what it means to be a citizen, a father, a husband, a son, in this
culture, in
this time and place. The role of pure human duty seems obscure. It is
difference
which seems to rule my duties, not identity. [He’s not eloquent
in this last
sentence, since I think he means to say: It is difference, not
identity, which
seems to rule my duties.]
Similarly, if you ask me what my needs are, I will tell you that I need
the
chance to understand and be understood, to love and be loved, to
forgive and be
forgiven, and the chance to create something which will outlast my
life, and
the chance to belong to a society whose purposes and commitments I
share. But
if you were to ask me what needs I have as a natural, as opposed to a
social
being, I would quickly find myself restricted to those of my body. I
would
abandon the rest as the work of my time and place, no less precious for
all
that, but not necessarily a universal [end of p. 28] human claim or
entitlement. Yet even the natural identity of my body seems marked by
social
difference. The identity between such hunger as I have ever known and
the
hunger of the street people of Calcutta is a purely linguistic one. My
common
natural identity of need, therefore, is narrowed by the limits of my
social
experience here in this tiny zone of safety known as the developed
world.” –
Michael Ignatieff, The Needs of Strangers: An Essay on Privacy,
Solidarity and
the Politics of Being Human (New York: Penguin Books, 1984), p. 28.
Brainstorm: Ignatieff is generally eloquent (with only a lapse or two)
again
here. This quote, which you could and should whittle down easily
enough, seems
a perfect springboard for you to discuss a tension in views between 1)
inclinations toward rewarding individual merit achieved or shown
through social
climbing and achieving social distinction and 2) inclinations toward a
cosmopolitan set of human rights based on a moral realism rooted in our
human
nature. This tension you reflecting in telling me that you were finding
it
surprisingly hard to distance yourself in your cosmo paper from
egalitarian
language or ideas. One possible way to reconcile these two
inclinations, which
is what Ignatieff seems to be trying to do, is to make
Aristotle’s point that
we are by nature social beings; we are by nature party animals. Hume
makes a
similar point about us being by nature sympathetic to other humans at
least.
The quote seems relevant to cosmopolitanism.
HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 10: “On the heath, human beings have the body
in common, and
nothing else. King and beggar no longer share reason: they babble
together like
birds. In physical suffering alone are they equal, and in this alone
are they
the same.
Again, the humanism of our day believes that human beings have much
more in
common than this. Our needs are greater [end of p. 43] than the needs
of our
bodies. We are creatures of reason and speech, and it as creatures who,
alone
of all the species, can create and exchange meaning that we all have
intrinsic
needs for respect, understanding, love and trust.
These seem to be more generous and humane assumptions to make about
human
nature than the view that Shakespeare presents in his vision of the
heath
[emphasis added]. Yet humane assumptions have unintended consequences.
As soon
as one enlarges the definition of the human, real human beings begin to
be
excluded: the Tom O’Bedlams of our time, the mad kings, the
insane, the
retarded, the deaf and dumb, the crippled and deranged. Those doctors
and
magistrates who have taken upon themselves the awesome business of
deciding who
is human – i.e. who is ration – have crated a vast array of
institutions
designed to make Tom O’Bedlam and the mad king human again. The
converse of the
rational man has turned out to be man the disciplinarian, the man who
takes
upon himself the godly power of deciding who is in the sacred circle of
reason
and who is without. Enlarging the criterion of the human beyond the
body has
had the unexpected effect of legitimizing the despotism of reason over
unreason.” – Michael Ignatieff, The Needs of Strangers: An
Essay on Privacy,
Solidarity and the Politics of Being Human (New York: Penguin Books,
1984), pp.
43-44.
Consider taking Shakespeare’s side in this debate with Ignatieff.
You’d be in
good company. This quote is also a splendid springboard for you to jump
into a
discussion of political correctness and egalitarian mainstreaming of
the
disabled or differently abled or physically challenged or follically
challenged
or vertically challenged or whatever pc term we settle on instead of
often
disfavored terms like ‘cripples,’ ‘gimps,’ etc.
This quote also goes to the
issue of how good or evil or mixed human nature is, since Ignatieff
claims he
is making a more humane assumption about human nature than is
Shakespeare in
King Lear, etc.
HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 11: “Law is born from despair of human
nature.” – Jose
Ortega y Gasset, 1883-1955, quoted in W. H. Auden and Louis
Kronenberger, The
Viking Book of Aphorisms, 1962, quoted in the section entitled
“Human Nature”
in David S. Shrager and Elizabeth Frost, eds., The Quotable Lawyer (New
York:
Facts on File, 1986), p. 129.
This quote suggests that the commonsense of having laws shows that
human nature
is mainly evil, which is to despair over here. Considering thoughts
from
various cultures and times can only strengthen your thought through the
diversity of positions you consider to enrich your discussion. The
directness
of the quote in linking directly two important things (law and human
nature)
make it useful. The brevity of the quote also makes it desirable.
HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 12: “This world is indeed in darkness, and how
few can see
the light! Just as few birds can escape from a net, few souls can fly
into the
freedom of heaven.” – The Buddha, aphorism #174 from The
Dhammapada, translated
by Juan Mascaro (New York: Penguin Books, 1973), p. 60. Do not quote
the
following in any A-section. Consider: The Buddha seems to side with
those
arguing that human nature is mostly evil rather than mostly good or
mostly
mixed.
HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 13 (the same as Euthanasia Argument #17 elsewhere in
this
website): "[The goal] of society should be to encourage people to live
rather than to make it easier for them to die. Our ability to overcome
medical
or emotional adversity is immeasur