DR. STERLING HARWOOD'S HOMEPAGE

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Set 1

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.


33. In Ch.2, Sagan said that the accuracy of Newtonian dynamics (with only tiny corrections from Einstein) is astonishing.T

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.


35. 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.

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.

185. In Ch.17 Sagan says there are no limits to the uses of skepticism.

186.
In Ch.17 Sagan says astrology has been with us for 4,000 years or more.

187.
In Ch.17 Sagan says astrology seems not to be as popular today as it used to be.

188. 
In Ch.17 Sagan says a third of all Americans believe Sun-sign astrology is scientific.

189.
In Ch.18 Sagan says Germany invented the rocket.

190.
In Ch.18 Sagan says the Spanish invented the magnetic compass.

191.
In Ch.18 Sagan says Americans invented the seismograph.

192.
In Ch.19 Sagan quotes Heinrich Heine.

193.
In Ch.19 Sagan says 57% of American adults do not know that electrons are smaller than atoms.

194.
In Ch.19 Sagan says he can find in his undergraduate classes at Cornell University (an Ivy League University, by the way) bright students who do not know that the stars rise and set at night, or even that the Sun is a star.

195.
In Ch. 20, Sagan co-wrote material with Ann Druyan.

196.
In Ch.20 Sagan says he was taken as a child to the American Museum of Natural History.

197.
In Ch.21 Sagan says the Holy Bible, as countless passages confirmed, condoned slavery.

198.
In Ch.21 Sagan reports that African-Americans have made enormous strides in literacy since Emancipation.

199.
In Ch.22, Sagan quotes Henri Poincare about how cruel truth often is.

200.
In Ch.22 Sagan says The X Files (a famous TV series from the 80s and 90s) pays lip service to skeptical examination of the paranormal but is heavily skewed towards the reality of alien abductions, strange powers and government complicity in covering up just about everything interesting.

201.
In Ch.22 Sagan says that in the early 1990s American polls showed that 38% of adults were ignorant of the term 'holocaust.'

202.
In Ch.23 Sagan quotes George Washington saying "Only the military better deserves our patronage more than the promotion of science and literature.

203.
In Ch.24 Sagan discusses science and witchcraft.

204.
In Ch.25, Sagan says that Confucius’ chief failing in life is that he never got to try to construct a model state.

205.
Sagan was an astrologer at Cornell University.

206.
Sagan literally has the last word in the documentary film from 1973 (NBC TV) called In Search of Ancient Astronauts, narrated by Rod Serling, creator of The Twilight Zone.

207.
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.

208.
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 a signal has been detected.

209.
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.

210.
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.

211.
In Ch.7, Sagan reports that Aristotle seriously considered the contention that demons script dreams.

212.
In Ch.7, Sagan reports that Plutarch proposed that the demons came from the Moon.

213.
In Ch.7, Sagan reports that Porphyry proposed that the demons came from the Moon.

214.
In Ch.7, Sagan reports that Michael Psellus was someone who described demons and who was influential philosopher and a shady politician.

215.
In Ch.7, Sagan reports that some thought 12,000 witches darkened the skies as they flew to Newfoundland.

216.
In Ch.8, Sagan fails to write on the distinction between true and false visions.

217.
In Ch.8, Sagan discusses the role in our time of much dismissive chortling and ridicule.

218.
In Ch. 8, Sagan says there are many instances of Reagan failing to distinguish fact from fiction.

219.
In Ch. 8, Sagan says President Reagan claimed that he (Reagan) liberated Nazi concentration camp victims.

220.
In Ch. 8, Sagan reports that Reagan spent WWII in Hollywood and did not liberate any concentration camp victims.

221.
In Ch.8, Sagan says it is hard to imagine serious public dangers emerging out of instances in which political, military, scientific or religious leaders are unable to distinguish fact from vivid fiction.

222.
In Ch.8, Sagan says Alfonso the Wise was king of Castile around 1248.

223.
In Ch.8, Sagan says Jeanne d’Arc and Girolamo Savonarola were burnt at the stake for their visions.

224.
In Ch.8, Sagan says the Inquisition’s punishment for Francisca la Brava was to put her on an ass and give her one hundred lashes in public through the streets of Belmonte naked from the waist up.

225.
In Ch.8, Sagan says it is not hard to imagine serious public dangers emerging out of instances in which political, military, scientific or religious leaders are unable to distinguish fact from vivid fiction.

226.
In Ch.8, Sagan says memory can be contaminated.

227.
In Ch.8, Sagan says memory cannot be contaminated.

228.
In Ch.8, Sagan says false memories can be implanted even in minds that do not consider themselves vulnerable and uncritical.

229.
In Ch.8, Sagan says no false memories can be implanted in minds that consider themselves invulnerable and critical.

230.
In Ch.8, Sagan says that Stephen Ceci of Cornell University, Loftus and their colleagues found that preschoolers are exceptionally vulnerable to suggestion.

231.
In Ch.8, Sagan says preschoolers’ exceptional vulnerability to suggestion is surprising.

232.
In Ch.8, Sagan says preschoolers’ exceptional vulnerability to suggestion is unsurprising.

233.
In Ch.8, Sagan says there is no distinction between true and false visions.

234.
In Ch.9, Sagan says therapy does not exist.

235.
In Ch.9, Sagan quotes the fictional character Sherlock Holmes as saying that it is a capital mistake to collect data before one has a theory to test against the data.

236.
In Ch.9, Sagan quotes the fictional character Sherlock Holmes as saying that it is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.

237.
In Ch.9, Sagan quotes Gabriel Garcia Marquez as saying that true memories seemed like phantoms.

238.
In Ch.9, Sagan quotes Gabriel Garcia Marques as saying that false memories were so convincing that they replaced reality.

239.
In Ch.9, Sagan says there is not much to this UFO business, except of course on the psychiatric side.

240.
In Ch.9, Sagan says there is much more to this UFO business than the psychiatric side of it.

241.
In Ch.9, Sagan says some estimates from opnion surveys range as high as one in four American women having been sexually abused in childhood, though Sagan says these estimates are probably too high.

242.
In Ch.9, Sagan says some estimates from opnion surveys range as high as one in six American men having been sexually abused in childhood, though Sagan says these estimates are probably too high.

243.
In Ch.9, Sagan reports one survey saying that 85% of all violent prison inmates were abused in childhood.

244.
In Ch.9, Sagan reports there are many real cases of ghoulish sexual predation by parents or those acting in the role of parents.

245.
In Ch.9, Sagan reports that rape victims are ten times more likely than other women to use alcohol and other drugs to excess and that the problem is real and urgent.

246.
In Ch.9, Sagan reports that two-thirds of all teenage mothers were raped or sexually abused as children or teenagers.

247.
In Ch.9, Sagan reports that a century ago Sigmund Freud introduced the concept of repression, the forgetting of events in order to avoid intense psychic pain.

248.
In Ch.9, Sagan gives a longer quote from FBI expert Kenneth V. Lanning, who says faith, not logic and reason, governs the religious beliefs of most people.

249.
In Ch.9, Sagan suggests that perhaps the startle reflex (sometimes when falling asleep we have the sense of toppling from a height and our limbs suddenly flail on their own) is left over from when our ancestors slept in trees.

250.
In Ch.10, Sagan mentions the Scottish verdict of “not proved.”

251.
In Ch.10, Sagan says magic requires tacit cooperation of the audience with the magician.

252.
In Ch.10, Sagan says he remembered reading in college Robert Lindner’s book from 1954 called The Fifty-Minute Hour.

253.
In Ch.10, Sagan quotes E. M. Butler (from The Myth of the Magus (1948)) as saying: “[M]agic, it must be remembered, is an art which demands collaboration between the artist and his public.”

254.
In Ch.10, Sagan reports that Anthony Hewish won the Nobel Prize in physics for the discovery of pulsars.

255.
In Ch.10, Sagan reports that Anthony Hewish won the Nobel Prize in medicine for the discovery of pulses.

256.
In Ch.11, Sagan quotes the poet Rainer Maria Rilke (from “The Tenth Elegy” (1923)) as stating: “… how alien, alas, are the streets of the city of grief.”

257.
In Ch.11, Sagan discusses Raymond Moody’s alleged evidence that we survive death.

258.
In Ch.13, Sagan says James “The Amazing” Randi won a MacArthur Foundation Prize Fellowship.

259.
In Ch. 13, Sagan says the death rate for some goes down after the Harvest Moon Festival.

260.
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.

261.
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.

262.
In Ch.13, Sagan says British hoaxers confessed to having made “crop circles,” geometrical figures generated in grain fields.

263.
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.

264.
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.

265.
In Ch. 13, Sagan reports that Moses Maimonides was a Jewish philosopher.

266.
In Ch.14, Sagan gives an extended quotation from Morris Cohen, a celebrated philosopher of science.

267.
In Ch.14, Sagan never quotes Charles Darwin.

268.
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.

269.
In Ch.14, Sagan says Mao Zedon’s “Great Leap Forward” caused tens of millions of deaths.

270.
In Ch.14, Sagan says Darwin militantly opposed racism.

271. 
In Ch.14 Sagan says Harold C. Urey was an American chemistry Nobel laureate (winner of the Nobel prize for chemistry).

272.
In Ch.14, Sagan says we need to understand the theory to see what it predicts.

273.
In Ch. 15 of Sagan, no questions appear on page 270.

274.
In Ch.15 Sagan says St. Thomas Aquinas wrote "Against the Gentiles.”

275.
In Ch.15, Sagan has a longer quote from Charles Tart.

276.
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.

277.
In Ch.15 Sagan quotes William Blake's prayer saying may God keep us from double vision.

278.
In Ch.15 Sagan says the Dalai Lama was plainly right on some matters.

279.
In Ch. 15 Sagan denied that Moses Maimonides wrote "Guide for the Perplexed.”

280.
In Ch. 16 Carl Sagan makes some criticisms of nuclear scientist Edward Teller.

281.
n Ch.16, specifically on page 290, Sagan gives a few examples of seemingly contradictory aphorisms.

282.
In Ch.16 Sagan makes no criticisms of nuclear scientist Edward Teller.

283. I
n Ch.16 Sagan quotes Euripides.

284.
In Ch.16 Sagan reports that J. Robert Oppenheimer claimed that scientists had bloody hands.

285.
In Ch.16 Sagan reports that President Truman instructed his aides that he (Truman) never wished to see J. Robert Oppenheimer again.

286.
In Ch.16 Sagan reports that Edwin Teller lost part of his leg in a streetcar accident.

287.
In Ch. 16 Sagan reports that the U.S. thermonuclear device was exploded in 1952.

288.
In Ch.16 Sagan reports that Life magazine had an article in 1954 that admired Edwin Teller.

289.
In Ch.16 Sagan says there was a nuclear accident in Pennsylvania in 1979.

290.
In Ch.16 Sagan denies that he ever met privately with Dr. Teller.

291.
In Ch.16 Sagan writes that in 1995 the CIA Inspector General said absolute secrecy corrupts absolutely.

292.
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.

293.
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.

294.
In Ch.16 Sagan speaks of men being perhaps “testosterone-inflamed.

295.
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.”

296.
In Ch.16 Sagan says “Even folk institutions that purport to give us advice on behavior and ethics seem fraught with contradictions.”

297.
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.”

298.
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.”

299.
In Ch.16 Sagan says: “It is properly said that the Devil can ‘quote Scripture to his purpose.’”

300.
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.”

301.
In Ch.16 Sagan says “if we must make errors, given the stakes, they should be on the side of safety.”

302.
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.

302.
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.

303.
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.

304.
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.

305.
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.

306.
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.

307.
In Ch.17 Sagan mentions crop circles.

308.
In Ch.17 Sagan says there are no limits to the uses of skepticism.

309.
In Ch.17 Sagan cautions us not to abet (help maintain) a general climate in which skepticism is considered impolite, science tiresome, and rigorous thinking somehow stuffy and inappropriate.

310.
In Ch.17 Sagan says he thinks skepticism is impolite.

311.
In Ch.17 Sagan writes about University of Buffalo philosopher Paul Kurtz.

312.
In Ch.17 Sagan quotes Bertrand Russell as saying that insight, untested and unsupported, is an insufficient guarantee of truth.

313.
In Ch.17 Sagan says many pseudoscientific and New Age belief systems emerge out of dissatisfaction with conventional values and perspectives.

314.
In Ch.17 Sagan says some skeptics compel belief.

315.
In Ch.17 Sagan says Alfred Wegener refuted the theory of continental drift.

316.
In Ch.17 Sagan says astrology has been with us for 4,000 years or more.

317.
In Ch.17 Sagan says astrology seems not to be as popular today as it used to be.

318.
In Ch.17 Sagan says a quarter of all Americans believe in astrology.

319.
In Ch.17 Sagan says a third of all Americans believe Sun-sign astrology is scientific.

320.
In Ch. 17 Sagan says the fraction of schoolchildren believing in astrology rose from 40% to 59% from 1978 to 1984.

321.
In Ch.17 Sagan quotes Michael Faraday as saying that nothing is too wonderful to be true.

322.
In Ch.17 Sagan says most scientists would agree with the ancient Chinese proverb “Better to be too credulous than too skeptical.

323.
In Ch.17 Sagan says many scientists tend to be diffident (unconfident) about describing their own sense of wonder at the dawning of a wild surmise.

324.
In Ch.17 Sagan tries to stress (that is, emphasize) that at the heart of science is an essential balance of two seemingly contradictory attitudes – an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive, and the most ruthlessly skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new.

325.
In Ch.17 Sagan says that the essential balance at the heart of science is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense.

326.
In Ch. 17 Sagan says the collective enterprise of creative thinking and skeptical thinking, working together, fail to keep the field on track.

327.
In Ch.17 Sagan says if you’re only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you, you never learn anything, and you become a crotchety misanthrope convinced that nonsense is ruling the world.

328.
In Ch.17, Sagan reports that in France there are more astrologers than Roman Catholic clergy.

329. Regarding Ch. 18 of Sagan, Dr. H said in class that he thinks there is a serious typo on page 317 in Sagan, where Dr. H thinks Sagan meant to say that the pro-atheism and pro-polytheistic approach of the pre-Socratics was quashed rather than “quenched” by Plato, Aristotle, and then Christian theologians.

330.
In Ch.18, Sagan denies that the wind makes dust.

331.
In Ch.18 Sagan says Alfred Nobel of Sweden invented gunpowder.

332.
In Ch.18 Sagan says European civilization inundated and destroyed Aztec civilization.

333.
In Ch.18 Sagan says the zero is the key to comfortable arithmetic and therefore to quantitative science.

334.
In Ch.18 Sagan says Germany invented movable type.

335.
In Ch.18 Sagan presents the idea that the wind makes dust because it intends to blow, taking away our footprints.

336.
In Ch.18 Sagan quotes Thomas H. Huxley comparing a “savage” hunter with a “man of science.

337.
In Ch.18 Sagan says Alan Cromer wrote Uncommon Sense: The Heretical Nature of Science (1993).

338.
In Ch.18 Sagan reports that Indian mathematicians invented the zero.

339.
In Ch.18 Sagan reports that modern science has produced a far better calendar in European civilization today than the calendar used in Aztec civilization long ago.

340.
In Ch.18 Sagan says Germany invented the rocket.

341.
In Ch.18 Sagan says the Spanish invented the magnetic compass.

342.
In Ch.18 Sagan says Americans invented the seismograph.

343.
In Ch.18 Sagan says the ancient Egyptians invented the systematic observations and chronicles of the heavens.

344.
In Ch.18 Sagan says Chinese civilization invented movable type, gunpowder, the rocket, the magnetic compass, the seismograph, and systematic observations and chronicles of the heavens.

345.
In Ch.19 Sagan suggests there’s no such thing as a dumb question.

346.
In Ch.19 Sagan quotes Heinrich Heine.

347.
In Ch.19 Sagan says (except for some questions from two-year-olds for example) every question is a cry to understand the world.

348.
In Ch.19 Sagan presents statistics showing that American students are performing better than students from any other nation.

349.
In Ch.19 Sagan says 63% of American adults are unaware that the last dinosaur died before the first human arose.

350.
In Ch.19 Sagan says 75% of American adults do not know that antibiotics kill bacteria but not viruses.

351.
In Ch.19 Sagan says a 1993 poll showed that no more than half the people in China know that the Earth revolves around the Sun once a year.

352.
In Ch.19 Sagan says 57% of American adults do not know that electrons are smaller than atoms.

353.
In Ch.19 Sagan says that something like half of American adults do not know that the Earth goes around the Sun and takes a year to do it.

354.
In Ch.19 Sagan says he can find in his undergraduate classes at Cornell University (an Ivy League University, by the way) bright students who do not know that the stars rise and set at night, or even that the Sun is a star.

355.
In Ch.19, Sagan says there are dumb questions.

356.
In Ch. 20, Sagan co-wrote material with Ann Druyan.

357.
In Ch.20 Sagan denies that George Awad is one of the leading architectural model makers in America.

358.
In Ch.20 Sagan quotes a long passage by Edward Conze about the Buddha.

359.
In Ch.20 Sagan says he was taken as a child to the American Museum of Natural History.

360.
In Ch.20 Sagan says children today are encourage to touch, to poke, to run through a branched contingency tree of questions and answers via computer, or to make funny noises and see what sound waves look like.

361.
In Ch.20 Sagan reports that half the children at the elementary school where his daughter attended in Ithaca, New York (home of Ivy League college Cornell University) live below the poverty line.

362.
In Ch.21 Sagan says the Holy Bible, as countless passages confirmed, condoned slavery.

363.
In Ch.21 Sagan says there was in the antebellum South (the American South before the Civil War, which began in 1861) there was a revealing rule: Slaves were to remain illiterate.

364.
In Ch.21 Sagan reports that African-Americans have made enormous strides in literacy since Emancipation.

365.
In Ch.21 Sagan reports that in 1860 only an estimated 5% of African-Americans could read and write and that by 1890 39% were judged literate by the U.S. census, and by 1969 96% were judged literate.

366.
In Ch.21 Sagan says that between 1940 and 1992, the fraction of African-Amercans who had completed high school soared from 7% to 82%.

367.
In Ch.21 Sagan says his skepticism leads him to believe there is no path to freedom.

368.
In Ch.21 Sagan quotes very early on the Roman philosopher and former slave Epictetus.

369.
In Ch.21 Epictetus says “We must not believe the many, who say that only free people ought to be educated, but we should rather believe the philosophers who say that only the educated are free.

370.
In Ch.21, Sagan co-wrote material with Ann Druyan.

371.
In Ch.22, Sagan suggests that a good first-order model of how commercial and public television programming work is simply this: Money is everything.

372.
In Ch.22, Sagan quotes Henri Poincare about how cruel truth often is.

373.
In Ch.22 Sagan cautions that public television in America is in real danger of losing government support and the content of commercial programming is in the course of a steep, long-term dumbing down.

374.
In Ch.22 Sagan says that In Search of … (a famous TV series from the 70s) frequently takes an intrinsically interesting subject and systematically distorts the evidence.

375.
In Ch.22 Sagan says The X Files (a famous TV series from the 80s and 90s) pays lip service to skeptical examination of the paranormal but is heavily skewed towards the reality of alien abductions, strange powers and government complicity in covering up just about everything interesting.

376.
In Ch.22 Sagan says that in the early 1990s American polls showed that 2/3 of adults didn't know what the "information superhighway" was.

377.
In Ch.22 Sagan says that in the early 1990s American polls showed that 42% of adults didn't know where Japan is.

378.
In Ch.22 Sagan says that in the early 1990s American polls showed that 38% of adults were ignorant of the term 'holocaust.'

379.
In Ch. 23, Sagan says nothing is touching anything.

380.
In Ch.23 Sagan discusses SETI, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

381.
In Ch.23 Sagan quotes Ronald Reagan's campaign saying in 1980 "Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?"

382.
In Ch.23 Sagan quotes George Washington saying "There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature."

383.
In Ch.23 Sagan quotes George Washington saying "Only the military better deserves our patronage more than the promotion of science and literature."

384.
In Ch.23 Sagan says stereotypes abound.

385.
In Ch.23 Sagan says stereotypes are rare.

386.
In Ch.23, Sagan says stereotypes abound.

387.
In Ch.24, Sagan (with Ann Druyan) says politics is not a science.

388.
In Ch.24 Sagan quotes a Latin proverb that says where there is doubt there is unfreedom.

389.
In Ch.24 Sagan discusses science and witchcraft.

390.
In Ch.24 Sagan notes that Linus Pauling has not won two unshared Nobel Prizes.

391.
In Ch.24 Sagan quotes a Latin proverb that says where there is doubt there is paralysis.

392.
In Ch.24, Sagan suggests that advocacy of science and skepticism necessarily leads to all the political or social conclusions he draws.

393.
In Ch.24, Sagan suggests that he advocates science.

394.
In Ch.24, Sagan suggests that he advocates skepticism.

395.
Based on What Sagan says in Ch.24, Sagan would agree that skeptical thinking or critical thinking is invaluable in politics.

396.
In Ch.25 Sagan says real patriots refuse to ask questions.

397.
In Ch.25 Sagan says real patriots ask questions.

398.
In Ch.25 Sagan quotes Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, who says "It is the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error."

399.
In Ch.25, Sagan quotes Supreme Court Justice Black as saying about the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment: “Its first and most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion.”

400.
In Ch.25, Sagan quotes from Clinton Rossiter’s Seedtime of the Republic, 1953, which says: “Under the pressure of the American environment, Christianity grew more humanistic and temperate – more tolerant with the struggle of the sects, more liberal with the growth of optimism and rationalism, more experimental with the rise of science, [and] more individualistic with the advent of democracy.”

401.
In Ch.25, Sagan writes: “Rights and freedoms: Use ‘em or lose ‘em.”

402.
In Ch.25, Sagan quotes Justice Black in the Supreme Court decision Engel v. Vitale (1962).

403.
In Ch.25, Sagan says that Confucius’ chief failing in life is that he never got to try to construct a model state.

404.
Sagan was an astronomer at Cornell University.

405.
Sagan was an astrologer at Cornell University.

406.
Sagan wrote, in our required book by Sagan, that he believes Bigfoot exists.

407.
Sagan wrote, in our required book by Sagan, that he believes The Loch Ness Monster exists.

408.
Sagan wrote, in our required book by Sagan, that he believes Chupacabra exists.

409.
Sagan wrote, in our required book by Sagan, that extraterrestrials piloting UFOs have visited the earth.

410.
Sagan literally has the last word in the film In Search of Ancient Astronauts, narrated by Rod Serling, creator of the justly famous TV show from the 1960s, The Twilight Zone.

411.
Occam’s Razor is named after William of Occam.

412.
“William of Occam” is also spelled “William of Ockham.”

413.William of Occam lived circa 1288 to circa 1348.

414. William of Occam was a Catholic priest.

415.
William of Occam was excommunicated (excluded) from The Catholic Church.

416.
Occam’s razor requires us to avoid multiplying entities beyond necessity.

417.
Occam’s razor requires us to choose the simplest theory, all other things being equal.

418.
In Ch.25, Sagan says that Confucius’ chief failing in life is that he never got to try to construct a model state.

419.
Confucius rejects the Golden Rule.

420.
Confucius died in 479BC.

421.
Confucius was from Japan.

422.
According to the A&E biography we saw in class, Confucius was ugly and awkward.

423.
Confucius said that a family’s love is a greater gift than gold.

424.
Confucius abandoned his family.

425.
The name of Confucius’s wife is unknown.

426.
According to the A&E biography we saw in class, Confucius said that when people are educated, the distinction between classes disappears.

427.
According to the A&E biography we saw in class, Confucius thought that education is the meaning of life.

428.
According to the A&E biography we saw in class, in Confucius’s school, students from all socioeconomic classes met as equals.

429.
According to the A&E biography we saw in class, Confucius said: Anybody can be a superior man; it is only necessary to decide to be one.

430.
According to the A&E biography on Confucius we saw in class, a superior man thinks of what is right.

431.
According to the A&E biography we saw in class, a superior man demands much of himself.

432.
According to the A&E biography on Confucius we saw in class, a small man demands much of others.

433.
According to the A&E biography we saw in class, Confucius said poor children should be fed at government expense.

434.
According to the A&E biography we saw in class, Confucius said the elderly should be fed at government expense.

435.
According to the A&E biography we saw in class, Confucius said women and men should walk on the opposite sides of the street.

436.
According to the A&E biography we saw in class, Confucius said an oppressive government is much worse than a man-eating tiger.

437.
According to the A&E biography we saw in class, Lao Tse warned Confucius that when you evaluate people critically, you bring danger upon yourself.

438.
According to the A&E biography we saw in class, Lao Tse warned Confucius about Confucius’s ability to evaluate people critically.

439.
According to the A&E biography we saw in class, Confucius escaped more than one assassination attempt.

440.
According to the A&E biography we saw in class, Confucius and his disciples were surrounded by a hostile army until rescued by friendly troops.

441.
According to the A&E biography we saw in class, Confucius took comfort in his books.

442.
According to the A&E biography we saw in class, Confucius never heard the name ‘Confucius.’

443.
According to the A&E biography we saw in class, the son of Confucius was lazy.

444.
According to the A&E biography we saw in class, the son of Confucius despised learning.

445.
According to the A&E biography we saw in class, Confucius shed few tears over the death of his son.

446.
According to the A&E biography we saw in class, only 72 disciples were Confucius’s truly devoted followers.

447.
According to the A&E biography on Confucius we saw in class, an inferior man thinks of what is profitable.

448. more questions are coming soon to a computer screen near you; check back here regularly and often to be prepared

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.

********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Set 2

********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

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