Listen to Dr. Sterling's Spirit to Spirit Thursdays 8pm PT on KLIV 1590AM &
                                                                                                    podcasts on
www.kliv.com & the www.wikipedia.org entry for
                                                                                                   "Sterling Harwood"


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 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 is the syllabus for Dr. Harwood's Fall 2014 PHIL 060 course at SJCC?

FAQ4: What is the test bank (that is, the list of all questions eligible so far for quizzes, tests and the final exam) for PHIL 60 Fall 2014 @ EVC?

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 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?


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 is the required ABC format for organizing papers (unless otherwise stated on the syllabus)?

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: For PHIL 10 Summer 2014, what is the list of eligible quiz questions (also known as, the test bank) so far?

FAQ14: For all classes, what are 188 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 25 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?

FAQ21: For all courses, what are a few fantastic quotes to consider using as A-sections in any relevant term paper topic?

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 8 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: For all courses, what are the 8 requirements for earning 3 extra credit points for every American War up to a maximum of 21 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 courses, what videos have we seen in class so far?

FAQ32: For all courses, what are some pros and cons of capital punishment?

FAQ33: For all courses, what are some pros and cons of moral relativism?

FAQ34: For all courses, what are some pros and cons of affirmative action?

FAQ35: For all courses, what is Dr. Harwood's overview of Philosophy of Religion?

FAQ36: For all courses, what are a few statistics to consider using in some C-sections of relevant term paper topics?

FAQ37: For all courses, what are top 10 quotes from Plato that students can use in the A-sections of a term paper they write on Plato?

FAQ38: For all courses, what are the top 10 quotes from Aristotle that students can use in the A-sections of a term paper they write on Aristotle (or pitting Aristotle against another thinker)?

FAQ39: For all courses, 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: For all courses, what are the top 10 quotes of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) to consider using in the A-sections of a paper on Kant (or pitting Kant against another thinker)?

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: For all courses, what are a few fascinating quotes to consider putting into any relevant paper topic?

FAQ47: For all courses, what are some quotes about the meaning of life that students may use in the A-sections of their term papers on the meaning of life?

FAQ48: For all courses, what are Dr. Harwood's top ten quotes by or about Karl Marx for students to consider, including evaluating them in any term paper on Marx? (coming soon)

FAQ49:  For all courses, how can students in all of Dr. Harwood's courses get 3 extra credit points for each items he has on reserve at EVC Library or SJCC Library, except for our required textbook?

FAQ50: For all courses, what are some quotes students may use in their term papers on "Based on the 33 fallacies, the 29 baloney detection kit items in Ch.12 of Sagan's the Demon-Haunted World, and the first 6 of the 7 truth tips, what is the most logical explanation of the many sightings of UFOs and aliens?"

FAQ51: For all courses, what are even more extra credit assignments?

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

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 = cell 687-8199; voicemail only 408-259-7777
fax = 408-273-6442
mailing address =
Dr. Sterling Harwood, Esq.
Law Office of Sterling Harwood
96 N. 3rd Street, Suite 550
San Jose, CA 95112-5519
USA


Dr. Harwood (Dr. H, for short) last revised this website on 9/14/2014 by posting as the answer to FAQ3 the syllabus for PHIL 60 Fall 2014 @ EVC (all sections) and by posting as the answer to FAQ4 the test bank of the first 127 questions eligible for quizzes, tests and the final exam for PHIL 60 Fall 2014 @ EVC (all sections).

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

FAQ3: What is Dr. Harwood's syllabus for PHIL 60 Fall 2014 @ EVC?

FAQ3 on www.sterlingharwood.com: What is Dr. Harwood's syllabus for PHIL 60 Fall 2014 @ EVC, room C204

PHIL 60: Logic and Critical Thinking; Fall 2014; Tu/Th 745-905am section & 145-305pm section; Room  C204

1. INSTRUCTOR: Sterling Harwood, J.D., Ph.D, Attorney at Law. For a deservedly brief bio of Dr. Harwood, see near the end of the syllabus and see the Wikipedia entry for “Sterling Harwood” at 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_Harwood

2. PHONES: 408-259-7777 (home office & 24-hour voicemail; leave all phone messages on this 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, use only if email is down: 408-273-6442 but be sure to phone me and email me as soon as possible to let me know that you have just sent me a fax, since this is an efax (so there is no noise made to alert me to an incoming fax and no tray to look into to see if there is a fax waiting for me).

4. WEBSITE (Homepage): 
www.sterlingharwood.com . This will fill in for our textbook if any of our textbooks arrives late at the campus bookstore, but out textbooks are readily available from amazon.com and other sites. Of course, the amount in the bookstore can change without warning in mere moments, so I advise buying the book there as soon as you can unless you can get a better deal elsewhere. I have several copies of the book by Harwood on reserve but no copies of the Sagan book on reserve. 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, though I grade scantrons only once they are completed at the final exam. 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, as I require you to do by keeping a fully completed backup scantron form at all times after the first class. Never submit your last backup of your work.

5. EMAIL: svharwood1@aol.com (& for backup only: sterling.harwood@evc.edu ). It is an important requirement that you put your name and course number (either PHIL 60am or PHIL 60pm) in the subject line of every email you send to me about our course together.  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, mark your email ‘urgent’ or phone me after emailing me to let me know there's an email from you waiting for me to answer.

6. OFFICE HOURS & OTHER TIMES AVAILABLE: Office hours are by appointment only and the best times are Monday through Friday, especially Friday, 1215-115pm, after 5pm and Saturday afternoons.  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 EVC library, or www.sterlingharwood.com .  For ease and efficiency for you please check those 3 other sources first before calling me, since they usually explain matters in more detail and with more clarity than I can off the cuff or 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 especially after the add period ends I try to reduce somewhat answering procedural questions during valuable class time because we have so much of substance to cover during that time.

7. REQUIRED TEXTBOOK

Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational.  This was recently available in paperback on amazon.com for less than $4 plus $3.99 postage.

Note: I recommend but do not require: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual (Jones & Bartlett/Wadsworth/Cengage Publishers, 1996), about 680 pages.

1.  8. REQUIRED MATERIALS:
a) Students must bring at least 2 blank scantron 882 (the same as 882ES) forms to the final exam;
b) Students must bring at least 1 5”x8” blank index card to every class after 2/2/10.

9. GRADED COURSE ASSIGNMENTS:
1. Class Participation; attendance & speaking; every class = 15% but the total number of acceptable absences without a good excuse is 2 (more than 2 such absences means you will fail the course); tardiness reduces one’s class participation grade in proportion to the amount one’s tardiness I observe (for example, 85 overall minutes of tardiness spread over several classes is equivalent to missing an entire class)
2. Term Paper; ABC format; approved topic; due @ our final exam in hard copy (get a receipt at the final exam) if you have no receipt from me of my receipt of your term paper by email and due by email (without attachment) by 1159pm PT on the day of our final exam; 45%. Receipt required for all submissions!
3. True/False Tests, Exams & Quizzes, all extra credit; every class or almost every class = 40%
Note: since the term paper is worth 45%, failing to submit a term paper (and thus getting not only an F but a zero on the term paper) means getting a failing grade for the course (the remaining 55% is insufficient to get the minimum of 60% to earn at least a D).

10. GRADING CRITERIA: Page 134 of the course catalog lists only letter grades (‘L’) for course grades and makes no provision for any C/NC grading option. 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, Dean Mark Gonzales, 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 course grades using a plus or a minus (for example, 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 avoid grading 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 rather than cut-throat 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. The next section has the college honest policy.

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 if not 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. See pages 167-168 of the course catalog on Student Disciplinary Procedures and Complain/Grievance Policy, which I incorporate by reference here.

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. Class participation is 15% of your course grade. Missing the last 2 classes before Census Day, without letting me know by phone will lead me to line out your name on the Census Roster and that will probably lead admissions and records to drop you from the class. See Class Participation under grading above.

15. WITHDRAWAL/DROP POLICY: The deadline to drop without receiving a ‘W’ is Friday 2/26/10. Monday 2/15/10 is the last day to add via an add code but campus is closed 2/12/10 through 2/15/10 for Presidents’ Day and help is hard or impossible to get on the weekend, too, so my Dean suggests adding as soon as you get any add code from me and in any event by Friday 2/11/10. My Dean requires me to refuse to let any added students back into class without the student showing me a printout of the student’s schedule, printed out from MyWeb. It is the ultimate responsibility of the student formally to drop the class. You should avoid any reliance on the instructor to drop you from a class for non-attendance. At EVC, you may drop by telephone using the StaReg (408-223-0300) 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 the deadline. See your counselor or admissions and records for important details. Be aware of the deadline to drop (in-person) our class with a ‘W’ on your record, which is: Friday 4/23/10. Just telling Dr. Harwood that you want to drop the class does not necessarily drop you from the class; you must take responsibility for meeting the deadlines to drop.

16. GENERAL EDUCATION STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES & LEARNING OBJECTIVES: These apply to EVC general education courses, which includes our course. General education 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 education process by including the following General 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:
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.

Learning objectives include acquiring or improving the ability to: 1) distinguish between formal and informal logic; 2) assess the basic forms of arguments; 3) demonstrate the basic skills in critical thinking through written and oral expression; 4) articulate the basic types of informal fallacies; 5) distinguish the basic misuses and abuses of argument forms and structures; 6) perform the basic operations of formal, sentential and symbolic logic; 7) demonstrate the basic skills in truth function logic; 8) distinguish between logical conditions; 9) describe the basic forms of formal logical fallacies; 10) articulate the basic forms of scientific, causal and statistical fallacies; 11) articulate, communicate, express and present a complete argument on a complex subject matter.

17. COURSE DESCRIPTION & OVERVIEW: Page 134 of the EVC course catalog says:
“This is an introductory course in informal logic and critical reasoning. Students are instructed in the practical applications of inferential, inductive and deductive reasoning, problem analysis/resolution, the logic systems entailed by language, word-functions, definition, and common fallacies of relevance and ambiguity. There is a strong emphasis on written expression and the application of critical thinking akills in a series of composition assignments.”

Here are some more specifics to try to build on the above course description. 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 and problems of chance. Concerning practical applications of reasoning, when exploring reasoning in moral and political philosophy, we plan to examine and apply arguments using 5 sets of moral principles – egalitarianism, libertarianism, utilitarianism, perfectionism (also known as virtue ethics) and prima facie principles – to a wide variety of hot 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, illegal immigration, nuclear power, global warming, acid rain, endangered species, pollution, and much more.

18. MORE THAN 80 APPROVED PAPER TOPICS FROM WHICH YOU NEED CHOOSE ONLY ONE TOPIC: 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 from any published and named writer(s) (wikipedia does not count as published; anonymous quotes do not count as being from named writers) 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. Note that the 33 logical fallacies, 7 truth tips and 5 moral principles are on www.sterlingharwood.com and the 5 moral principles are also in Ch.4 of Harwood.  I hereby approve the following paper (and optional oral presentation) topics: 

1) 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?;
2) Pick any two thinkers listed in the index of Sagan’s required textbook listed above or in Harwood's required textbook listed above – or that you get Dr. Harwood to approve in writing in advance of your work on your paper – and argue (based on the 33 fallacies, 7 truth tips and any applicable moral principle of the 5 moral principles in Ch.4 of Harwood) that one of the two has a position on a philosophical issue that is more defensible than the other;
3) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, is astrology logical?;
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) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, does God exist (that is, which is closer to the truth, atheism or theism)?;
8) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, is causal determinism compatible with human freedom and moral responsibility and, if so, how?;
9) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, which is closer to the truth, empiricism or rationalism?;
10) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, is moral relativism true?;
11) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, is relativism about all human knowledge true?;
12) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, is moral skepticism true?;
13) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, is skepticism about all human knowledge true?;
14) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips,, 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?;
24) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what’s the best logical assessment of the evidence for and against Bigfoot’s existence (including the Bigfoot Museum in Felton, CA and including the alleged existence of similar or identical creatures such as Sasquatch, The Yeti, and The Abominable Snowman)?;
25) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, which is closer to the truth, Darwinism, creationism or Intelligent Design Theory?;
26) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what’s the most logical explanation of the evidence for extraterrestrials piloting UFOs?;
27) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what's the most logical explanation of President Kennedy’s death (including whether there was a conspiracy and whether Oswald was guilty as charged or merely a patsy as he claimed)?;
28) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, 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) Based on the 5 moral principles on www.sterlingharwood.com, is allowing gays in the military moral?;

36) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, is phenomenology logically defensible?;
37) Based on the 5 moral principles on www.sterlingharwood.com, is stem cell research moral?;
38) Based on the 33 fallacies, the 7 truth tips, and any applicable principles of the 5 moral principles in Ch.4 of Harwood, is existentialism logically defensible?;
39) Based on the 33 fallacies, the 7 truth tips, and any applicable parts of the 5 moral principles in Ch.4 of Harwood, 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?;
40) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, 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) Based on the 33 fallacies, the 7 truth tips and the 5 moral principles in Ch.4 of Harwood, what is the meaning of life?;
43) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what's the most logical explanation for reports about Atlantis, including the earliest reports from Plato?;
44) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what’s the most logical explanation of the many disappearances reported in The Bermuda Triangle (aka, The Devil’s Triangle)?;
45) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what’s the most logical explanation of Crop Circles?;
46) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what’s the most logical explanation for the sightings of Chupacabra?;
47) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what’s the best logical assessment of the evidence for and against the New Jersey Devil’s existence?;
48) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what’s the best logical assessment of the evidence for and against the existence of a conspiracy to fake landing Americans on the moon?;
49) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what’s the most logical explanation of the JFK assassination, including whether Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty and whether there was a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy?;
50) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what’s the most logical explanation of the RFK assassination, including whether Sirhan Bishara Sirhan was a Manchurian candidate assassin through hypnosis and whether there was a conspiracy to kill Senator Kennedy?;
51) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, is the Martingale Betting Strategy, or any known variant of it, a logical approach to gambling?;

52) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, was the 2012 presidential campaign in America run logically (were any of the main arguments for any major candidate illogical)?;

53) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, does free will exist in humans?;

54) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what's the most logical explanation for the Elvis sightings after his alleged death in August of 1977?;

55) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what's the most logical explanation for the sightings of The New Jersey Devil?;

56) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips,what's the most logical explanation of zombie sightings, especially in Haiti?;

57) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what's the most logical explanation of The Bell Inequalities in physics?;

58) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, does infinite time exist?;

59) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, does infinite space exist?;

60) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what's the most logical explanation of voodoo?;

61) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what's the most logical explanation of tales of vampires?;

62) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what's the most logical explanation of tales of werewolves?;

63) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, is global warming real or a hoax: what's the most logical explanation for the claims of so many scientists that global warming is real and man-made?;

64) Based on the 5 moral principles in Ch.4 of Harwood, is contraception moral?;

65) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what's the most logical explanation for why some deny the Holocaust?;

66) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what's the most logical explanation of the claim some have made that novelist Stephen King shot musician John Lennon dead?;

67) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what's the most logical explanation of The Fermi Paradox?;

68) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, is there intelligent extraterrestrial life in the universe?;

69) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what's the most logical explanation for sightings and other reports of ghosts (including the U.S.S. Hornet in Alameda, CA, Flight 401, The Winchester Mystery House, The San Jose Toys 'R Us ghost, apparitions, hauntings, spirits, poltergeists, spectres, etc.)?;

70) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what's the most logical explanation for palmistry?;

71) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what's the most logical explanation for numerology?;

72) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what's the most logical explanation for reports of reincarnation or past lives?;

73) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what's the most logical explanation for firewalking?;

74) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what's the most logical explanation for reports of levitation?;

75) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what's the most logical explanation of the mysterious cattle mutilations in the United States?

76) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what's the most logical explanation for the sightings of Mothman?

77) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what's the most logical explanation for the sightings of The Ohio Grassman?

78) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what's the most logical explanation of the mysterious rods (for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_(optics) and https://www.google.com/search?q=mysterious+rods&hl=en&tbo=u&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=JzcLUa_sMsfXigL06oHoCA&ved=0CDgQsAQ&biw=1241&bih=606 )?;

79) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what's the most logical explanation for claims that time travel has occurred (for example, Kennewick Man, the death of a member of the rock group Iron Butterfly, the Bell Inequalities, and John Titor)?

80) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what's the most logical explanation of The Santa Cruz Mystery Spot?

81) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what's the most logical explanation of the mysterious hum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hum)?

82) Based on the 33 fallacies and 7 truth tips, what's the most logical explanation of Mel's Hole (see, for example, the 27-part radio show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRUDvPO4-Hc)?

83) Based on the 33 fallacies, the 7 truth tips and any applicable part of the 5 moral principles in Ch.4 of Harwood, what's the most logical assessment of the arguments on any one of Dr. Harwood's "Spirit to Spirit" radio shows (to listen free and see a list of shows, go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_Harwood )

84) Based on the 5 moral principles principles on www.sterlingharwood.com, should retail sale of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) for human food be legal and, if so, should warning labels be required on such food?

19.EXPECTATIONS: IMPORTANT NOTE: One of the biggest mistakes students make in this class is writing on one of the moral topics above (most notably the ones starting "Based on the 5 moral principles ...") and failing to include any of the 5 moral principles. 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: SAVING YOUR WORK IS REQUIRED: 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. Failing to get the required, signed receipt from me for submitting your term paper and your final exam answers would be a huge mistake. Lacking a receipt means you get no credit for submitting your term paper or your final exam answers if they are lost or stolen or missing when I do the grading of the term papers and final exams. 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.

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 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 any 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 doesn’t matter; color doesn’t matter) and at least 2 blank Scantron 882 forms to every class, starting with our second 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 generally available @ the campus store, Long’s Drugs, Office Depot, Office Max, Staples, etc.
G. I request all students to notify me if they need assistance because of a disability.
H. The required safety issues are identified on pages 172-173 of the EVC course catalog, which I hereby incorporate by reference. Dial 911 for all emergencies. Dial 408-277-5454 if 911 fails to work. Dial 408-270-6468 for nonemergency safety issues and for EVC campus police.

22. EXPECTATIONS & THE BOTTOM LINE: THE 16 BIGGEST MISTAKES STUDENTS MAKE IN THIS COURSE:

#1 Biggest Mistake: 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 – with my signature and the correct date of submission – 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.

2nd Biggest Mistake: 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 (& meeting all other requirements) by the deadline of the end of the final.

3rd Biggest Mistake: Failing to use ABC format for the term paper (and any optional oral presentation). This mistake includes using in your ‘A’ sections in ABC format a quotation that lacks quotation marks or lacks the name of the author of the quote, or that lacks a full citation (following Guideline O on our website) for the quote. You will fail the course if, lacking any good excuse, you fail to submit a term paper without at least 6 quotations in proper ABC format (including at least 6 A-sections with quotations surrounded by quotation marks with the published source cited that includes a named individual person as the author of the quote, and note that much on the internet, such as Wikipedia, does NOT count as a publication; see me and guideline O for details) by the end of the final exam on 5/27/10. Your term paper must be submitted by email without an attachment (just copy and paste your paper written in word into an email, and let me worry about any formatting problems) by 1159pm on 5/27/10 to 
svharwood1@aol.com . Avoid overrelying on email: give me a hardcopy of your paper at the final exam if you have yet to receive an email back from me acknowledging my receipt of your emailed term paper.

4th Biggest Mistake: Failing to save your work, especially failing to keep a backup copy of your scantrons that you submit to Dr. Harwood for grading.

5th Biggest Mistake: Failing to ask me questions in a timely way after reading this syllabus and the FAQs on www.sterlingharwood.com. There are no dumb questions. What would be dumb is to have a question and then not ask it and expect me to be a mindreader and answer your question somehow. The syllabus 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 (written rules are best). 

6th Biggest Mistake: Missing time in class (absences, late arrivals, early exits that are unearned).

7th Biggest Mistake: 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.

8th Biggest Mistake: 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).

9th Biggest Mistake: Combining more than one paper (or presentation) topic in the same assignment.

10th Biggest Mistake: 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.

11th Biggest Mistake: Failing to follow guidelines A & U by using a title and headings, respectively, as signposts to guide the readers of their papers and presentations.

12th Biggest Mistake: 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.

13th Biggest Mistake (4-way tie): 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. 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. Failure to take good notes, since all our tests, quizzes, and exams – including the final exam on 12/12/07 from 915-1040am PT in our usual classroom -- are open note (and open book). Failing to turn off your ringtone on your cellphone or other device. If a student’s device rings, then that signals me to have another quiz. New campus security procedures now suggests I keep my cellphone on during class, so if my cellphone rings, then I plan to write an extra credit quiz on the board as I field the call quickly just to see if it is an emergency.

23. BIO OF INSTRUCTOR: See 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_Harwood . Dr. 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, 1994, now published by Wadsworth Publishing Co., 2000), and co-edited with Michael Gorr, Controversies in Criminal Law (Westview Press, 1992). He is working on a revised edition of his book Judicial Activism. 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 10 years in the Evergreen Valley College/San Jose City College Community College District and has earned Seniority Rehire Preference here. He has taught philosophy full-time for more than 7 years 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 colleges and universities: 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. In the summer of 2007 Dr. Harwood joined the faculty at Lincoln Law School. On Jan. 20 2009 Dr. Harwood started working full-time for President Obama in the Commerce Department.  On June 19, 1999, Dr. Harwood married a vivacious Vietnamese-American lady named Tina Le Harwood.  They have two delightful daughters Heather Harwood (age 13) and Holly Harwood (age 12). The Harwood family is also proud to include a Beagle named Toby. Dr. Harwood has lived in San Jose since August of 1989. The Harwood family lives in San Jose, CA.  Dr. Harwood’s hobbies include being a fan of major league baseball, the NFL, the NBA, the NHL, the highest levels of pro soccer, including The World Cup.

24. COURSE SCHEDULE OF READINGS AND ASSIGNMENTS: Bring at least 3 blank 5x8 inch index cards to every class. I no longer use Scantron forms except for the final exam, so ignore all other references to Scantron forms that I have yet to delete. All quizzes will be for extra credit until the end of the add period. I plan to have a quiz (or extra credit assignment) in every class but all quizzes will be extra credit quizzes until the end of the add period.

NOTE: IF YOU ARE ABSENT ON CENSUS DAY THEN YOUR ATTENDANCE MUST HAVE BEEN OTHERWISE PERFECT TO AVOID THE EXTREMELY SERIOUS RISK OF BEING DROPPED FROM THE COURSE & YOU NEED TO CONTACT ME TO MAKE SURE I AVOID DROPPING YOU DUE TO MISCOMMUNICATION BETWEEN US

All readings are from the required book (Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational) or from sterlingharwood.com

Week 1: Read at least 15 pages per class, including pages 1-60 & the answers to FAQ10 & FAQ 11on sterlingharwood.com
Week 2:: Read at least 15 pages per class, including pages 61-120 & the answer to FAQ10 & FAQ5 on sterlingharwood.com
Week 3: Read at least 15 pages per class, including pages 121-180 & the answer to FAQ10 & FAQ6 on sterlingharwood.com
Week 4: Read at least 15 pages per class, including pages 181-240 & the answer to FAQ10 & FAQ7 on sterlingharwood.com
Week 5: Read at least 15 pages per class, including pages 241-300 & the answer to FAQ10 & FAQ8 on sterlingharwood.com
Week 6: Read at least 15 pages per class, including pages 301-end of the book & the answer to FAQ10 & FAQ9 on sterlingharwood.com

Note: Failure to submit at least 6 ABC sets in your term paper will mean that you receive an ‘F’ for the course.  Failure to attend the last class held before the end of Census Day means your attendance must be otherwise perfect to avoid the risk of being dropped from the class.  Missing 2 classes before the end of Census Day means you will probably be dropped from the course.  If you miss the last class held before the end of Census Day, you must immediately email and reach me by phone to try to avoid being dropped.


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

FAQ4: What is the test bank (that is, the list of all questions eligible so far for quizzes, tests and the final exam) for PHIL 60 Fall 2014 @ EVC?

PHIL 60 Fall 2014 745-905am & 145-305pm sections; EVC Dr. Sterling Harwood Test Bank; Note: bring the test bank, at least three 5"x8" index cards, & the required book by Ariely to every class

        1.     The main point implied by the title of Ariely's book is that we are unpredictable and rational.

        2.     The main point implied by Ariely's book is that we are predictable and irrational.

        3.     The "about the author" section early in Ariely's book says he has a Ph.D. in cognitive psychology.

        4.     The "about the author" section early in Ariely's book says he has a Ph.D. in business administration.

        5.     The "about the author" section early in Ariely's book says he is the James B. Duke Professor of Psychology and Behavioral Economics at Duke University.

        6.     The "about the author" section early in Ariely's book says he is the James Professor of Home Economics at Puke University.

        7.     The sub-title of Ariely's required book is: "Nothing is Hidden"

        8.     The sub-title of Ariely's required book is: "The Hidden Forces That Shake Our Decisions."

        9.     The sub-title of Ariely's required book is: "The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions."

        10. The sub-title of Ariely's required book is: "The Forceful Hides That Shape Our Decisionmaking."

        11. The sub-title of Ariely's required book is: "The Forced Hides That Shape Our Deciders."

        12. In his Introduction, Ariely says an injury led him to irrationality.

        13. In his Introduction, Ariely says many have told him that he has an unusual way of looking at the world.

        14. In his Introduction, Ariely suggests that we often promise ourselves to diet only to have the thought of dieting vanish as soon as the dessert cart rolls by.

        15. In his Introduction, Ariely suggests that we sometimes find ourselves excitedly buying things we don't really need.

        16. In his Introduction, Ariely suggests that we (sometimes at least) still have a headache after taking a one-cent aspirin but that same headache vanishes when the aspirin costs 50 cents.

        17. In his Introduction, Ariely asks: "Do you know why we sometimes find ourselves excitedly buying things we don't really need?"

        18. In his Introduction, Ariely asks: "Do you know why we sometimes find ourselves only calmly buying things we desperately need?"

        19. In his Introduction, Ariely asks: "Do you suggests that we often promise ourselves to diet only to have the thought vanish as soon as the dessert cart rolls by?"

        20. In his Introduction, Ariely asks: "Do you suggests that we almost never promise ourselves to diet only to have the thought vanish as soon as the dessert cart rolls by?"

        21. In his Introduction, Ariely asks: "Do you know why we so often promise ourselves to treat ourselves, only to have the thought vanish as soon as the dessert cart rolls by?"

        22. In his Introduction, Ariely asks: "[Do you know] why honor codes actually increase dishonesty in the workplace?"

        23. In his Introduction, Ariely asks: "[Do you know] why honor codes actually do reduce dishonesty in the workplace?"

        24. In his Introduction, Ariely asks: "Do you know why people who have been asked to recant the Ten Commandments tend to be more honest (at least immediately afterward) than those who haven't?"

        25. In his Introduction, Ariely asks: "Do you know why people who have been asked to recall the Ten Commandments tend to be more honest (at least immediately afterward) than those who haven't?"

        26. In his Introduction, Ariely asks: "Do you know why people who have been asked to recall the Ten Commandments tend to be less honest (at least immediately afterward) than those who haven't?"

        27. In his Introduction, Ariely asks: "Do you know why people who have been asked to recant the Ten Commandments tend to be less honest (at least immediately afterward) than those who haven't?"

        28. In his Introduction, Ariely says: "My goal, by the end of this book, is to help you fundamentally rethink what makes you and the people around you tick."

        29. In his Introduction, Ariely says: "My goal, from the start of this book, is to help you fundamentally rethink what makes ticks tick."

        30. In his Introduction, Ariely says: "My goal, from the middle of this book, is to help you fundamentally rethink what makes you and the ticks around you people."

        31. In his Introduction, Ariely says he hopes to lead you to his goal by focusing on only a narrow range of scientific experiments.

        32. In his Introduction, Ariely says he hopes to lead you to his goal by presenting a wide range of scientific experiments, findings and anecdotes.

        33. In his Introduction, Ariely says the scientific experiments, findings and anecdotes he presents are often quite amusing.

        34. In his Introduction, Ariely says the scientific experiments, findings and anecdotes show how human irrationality is often quite a sad state of affairs.

        35. In his Introduction, Ariely says: "Once you see how systematic certain mistakes are -- how we repeat them again and again -- I think you will begin to learn how to avoid some of them."

        36. In his Introduction, Ariely says: "Once you see how unsystematic certain mistakes are -- how we are surprised by them again and again -- I think you will begin to learn how to trick others with some of them."

        37. In his Introduction, Ariely says his worldview is somewhat unorthodox.

        38. In his Introduction, Ariely suggests he will tell us his research on eating.

        39. In his Introduction, Ariely suggests he will tell us his research on shopping.

        40. In his Introduction, Ariely suggests he will tell us his research on love.

        41. In his Introduction, Ariely suggests he will tell us his research on money.

        42. In his Introduction, Ariely suggests he will tell us his research on procrastination.

        43. In his Introduction, Ariely suggests he will tell us his research on beer.

        44. In his Introduction, Ariely suggests he will tell us his research on honesty.

        45. In his Introduction, Ariely reveals that an accident left 70% of his body covered with third-degree burns.

        46. In his Introduction, Ariely says he spent 3 years in the hospital and emerged into public only occasionally.

        47. In his Introduction, Ariely says that all during his years in the hospital he was unable to talk to any of his nurses there.

        48. In his Inroduction, Ariely says he took a course from professor Frank Hannah.

        49. In his Inroduction, Ariely says he took a course from professor Hanan Frenk.

        50. In his Introduction, Ariely says a course he took at Tel Aviv University was about the physiology of the brain.

        51. In his Introduction, Ariely says he spent 3 months operating on about 50 rats.

        52. In his Introduction, Ariely says that his friend Ron Weisberg helped Ariely with some lab procedures.

        53. In his Introduction, Ariely says that even his friend Ron Weisberg refused to help Ariely with any lab procedures on the rats because Weisberg was a vegetarian and animal lover.

        54. In his Introduction, Ariely reports that in the end his theory of epilepsy was right.

        55. In his Introduction, Ariely reports that in the end his theory of epilepsy was wrong.

        56. In his Introduction, Ariely says he had no new tools to use with his focusing of much of his initial efforts on how we experience pain.

        57. In his Introduction, Ariely asks about pain delivered to a patient over a long period of time such as his bath treatment: "Was it possible to reduce the overall agony of such pain?"

        58. In his Introduction, Ariely says the nurses in the burn unit were kind and generous with one exception.

        59. In his Introduction, Ariely says the nurses in the burn unit were kind and generous without exception.

        60. In his Introduction, Ariely says the nurses in the burn unit were experienced but still lacked the right theory about what would minimize their patients' pain.

        61. In Ch.1, Ariely says there is no truth about relativity.

        62. In Ch.1, Ariely says everything is relative.

        63. In Ch.1, Ariely says everything is relative even when it shouldn't be.

        64. In Ch.1, Ariely discusses the use of a decoy in an ad by The Economist.

        65. In Ch.1, Ariely says most people don't know what they want until they see it in context.

        66. In Ch.1, Ariely says we focus on the absolute advantage of one thing over another but irrationally refuse to estimate value accordingly.

        67. In Ch.1, Ariely says we focus on the relative advantage of one thing over another and estimate value accordingly.

        68. In Ch.1, Ariely says we have an internal value meter that tells us what things are worth.

        69. In Ch.1, Ariely says our internal value meter is unreliable, since it can be fooled by the presence of a decoy.

        70. In Ch.1, Ariely says everything is relative and that's the point.

        71. In Ch.1, Ariely says Gregg Rapp learned that high-priced entrees on the menu boost restaurant revenue even if no one buys them.

        72. In Ch.1, Ariely says Gregg Rapp learned that high-priced entrees on the menu boost restaurant revenue but only if someone buys them.

        73. In Ch.1, Ariely tries to say what changed the minds of students about which subscription to the Economist they would pick and assures us that it was rational.

            74. In Ch.1, Ariely tries to say what changed the minds of students about which subscription to the Economist they would pick and assures us that it was nothing rational.

        75. In Ch.1, Ariely discusses how the mind is wired.

        76. In Ch.1, Ariely says we are always looking at the change around us in relation to others.

        77. In Ch.1, Ariely says we are only sometimes looking at the change around us in relation to others.

        78. In Ch.1, Ariely says we never are looking at the change around us in relation to others.

        79. In Ch.1, Ariely gives examples of what he calls "the decoy effect."

        80. In Ch.1, Ariely gives no examples of what he calls "the decoy effect."

        81. In Ch.1, Ariely says that the decoy effect is the secret agent in more decision than we could imagine.

        82. In Ch.1, Ariely says: "Relativity helps us make decisions in life."

        83. In Ch.1, Ariely says relativity can make us downright miserable.

        84. In Ch.1, Ariely says: "Relativity helps us make decisions against life."

        85. In Ch.1, Ariely says: "Relativity hurts us in making decision in life."

        86. In Ch.1, Ariely says "jealousy and envy spring from comparing our lot in life with that of others."

        87. In Ch.1, Ariely says "by our very nature we are wired to compare."

        88. In Ch.1, Ariely says H. L. Mencken was a 20th-century journalist.

        89. In Ch.1, Ariely says H. L. Mencken was a 20th-century soldier.

        90. In Ch.1, Ariely says H. L. Mencken was a 20th-century physician.

        91. In Ch.1, Ariely says H. L. Mencken was a 20th-century satirist.

        92. In Ch.1, Ariely says H. L. Mencken was a 20th-century social critic.

        93. In Ch.1, Ariely says H. L. Mencken was a 20th-century aviator.

        94. In Ch.1, Ariely says H. L. Mencken was a 20th-century cynic.

        95. In Ch.1, Ariely says H. L. Mencken was a 20th-century freemason.

        96. In Ch.1, Ariely says H. L. Mencken was a 20th-century freethinker.

        97. In Ch.1, Ariely says relativity is a problem.

        98. In Ch.1, Ariely says the good news is that we can sometimes control the "circles" around us, moving to smaller circles that boost our relative happiness.

        99. In Ch.1, Ariely says the bad news is that we often are unable to control the "circles" around us, drifting unhappily from "circle" to "circle."

        100.                    In Ch.1, Ariely says that the rise in executive compensation needed to stop.

        101.                    In Ch.1, Ariely reports that in 1976 the average CEO (Chief Executive Officer) was paid 36 times as much as the average worker.

        102.                    In Ch.1, Ariely reports that in 1993 the average CEO was 131 times as much as the average worker.

        103.                    In Ch.1, Ariely reports that in "Now the average CEO makes about 369 times as much as the average worker -- about three times the salary before executive compensation went public."

        104.                    In Ch.1, Ariely says the Commandment to avoid coveting one's neighbor's belongings might be the toughest Commandment to follow.

        105.                    In Ch.1, Ariely says that the saying "Neither shall you desire your neighbor's house nor field, or male or female slave, or donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor" is one of the 5 pillars of Islam.

        106.                    In Ch.1, Ariely says that the saying "Neither shall you desire your neighbor's house nor field, or male or female slave, or donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor" is one of the 10 Commandments.

        107.                    In Ch.1, Ariely says that the saying "Neither shall you desire your neighbor's house nor field, or male or female slave, or donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor" is one of the items in The Buddha's eightfold path.

        108.                    In Ch.1, Ariely says that the saying "Neither shall you desire your neighbor's house nor field, or male or female slave, or donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor" is one of the 7 Deadly Sins.

        109.                    In Ch.1, Ariely says that the saying "Neither shall you desire your neighbor's house nor field, or male or female slave, or donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor" is one of the 7 Truth Tips.

        110.                    In Ch.1, Ariely says that the saying "Neither shall you desire your neighbor's house nor field, or male or female slave, or donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor" is one of the 5 moral principles.

        111.                    In Ch.1, Ariely says that the saying "Neither shall you desire your neighbor's house nor field, or male or female slave, or donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor" is one of the 33 fallacies.

        112.                    In Ch.2, Ariely discusses the fallacy of supply and demand.

        113.                    In Ch.2, Ariely says that the law of supply and demand is a law of economics rather than a fallacy.

        114.                     In Ch.2, Ariely says that the price of everything is up in the air.

        115.                    In Ch.2, Ariely reports Mark Twain said that Tom Sawyer "had discovered a great law of human action, namely, that in order to make a man covet a thing, it is only necessary to make the thing difficult to attain."

        116.                    In Ch.2, Ariely reports that prices can become anchors that affect our willingness to pay.

        117.                    In Ch.2, Ariely reports that humans behave in some ways that are similar to baby geese (goslings).

        118.                    In Ch.2, Ariely says 'MSRP' means "Master of Science in Risk Prevention."

        119.                    In Ch.2, Ariely says 'MSRP' means "Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price."

        120.                    In Ch.2, Ariely says 'MSRP' means "Monumental Stupidity Receives Praise."

        121.                    In Ch.2, Ariely says: "Does that [human response to the social security number anchor in pricing] seem rational?  Of course not.  But that's the way we are -- goslings after all."

            122.                    In Ch.2, Ariely says we anchor ourselves to initial prices.

        123.                    In Ch.2, Ariely says "We wanted to find out if the first prices we suggested had served as an anchor ... And indeed they had."

        124.                    In Ch.2, Ariely says self-herding occurs "when we believe something is good (or bad) on the basis of our own previous behavior."

        125.                    In Ch.2, Ariely says "our first decisions translate into long-term habits."

        126.                    In Ch.2, Ariely says herding happens when we adopt a cowboy mentality and act in the marketplace as if it is like The Wild West.

        127.                    In Ch.2, Ariely says herding happens when we assume that something is good (or bad) on the basis of other people's previous behavior, and our own actions follow suit."

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


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


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

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.  The last paragraph of your Introduction must look like this, with the blanks filled in of course to summarize your paper:

In 2C I will argue ___.  In 3C I will argue ___.  In 4C I will argue _____.  In 5C I will argue _____.  In 6C I will argue _____.  In 7C I will argue _____.

Go beyond 7C if you have more than the minimum of 6 ABC sets in your term paper, as you should try to do, following guideline E.  The blanks will be filled in with a summary of your C section that is similar to the heading you will use atop your C-section, following guideline U.

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.  In moral topics (the topics on the syllabus that start with "Based on the 5 moral principles ..."), you must apply all 5 moral principles in every C-section.  Avoid "one and done," which occurs when a student applies only 1 of the 5 moral principles in a C-section and then moves on to another ABC set.  If you apply only 1 or 2 of the 5 moral principles in a C-section, then that is only 20% or 40%, which is an F level of quality.  The 3 most important moral principles to apply are utilitarianism, libertarianism, and egalitarianism, but if you apply only those 3 of the 5, then you can get at most only 60% credit, which is a D- level of quality.  If you apply only 4 of the 5 moral principles in a C-section, then the most credit you can get is 80%, which is a B- level of quality.  To repeat for emphasis: apply all 5 moral principles in every C-section if you write about a moral topic (for example, abortion, affirmative action, euthanasia, gay marriage, gays in the military, gay adoption, stem cell research, cloning, gun control, capital punishment, or any other topic that is listed on the syllabus on in my email approving the topic starting with "Based on the 5 moral principles ...").

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. 
No Internet-only citations are permitted in the A-sections, except for The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and www.sterlingharwood.com (the quotes I say on this site that you can use in A-sections).  See the 5 required pieces of info in the next paragraph.  You must cite a named, individual, non-fictitious person (or set of such persons as co-authors). The name must be sufficiently recognizable to allow identification.  Remember, only information attributable to a named individual nonfictitious person 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 (or set of such persons as co-authors), the URL (universal resource locator; meaning 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 virtues (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 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).


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

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 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).

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

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.

Here's a real example of the fallacy committed:

"This [Windsor v. United States, Supreme Court decision, June 2013] is straight follow, follow the polls.  I don't think it's anything more than that or anything less than that.  I also think it's the right thing because, for that reason." ~ Evan Thomas, Inside Washington (PBS, produced by WUSA), broadcast 7/1/2013.


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 3: I am sure that Karen plays the piano well, since her family is so musical.

Example 4: “Out of touch liberals like Barack Obama say they want a strong economy.  But in everything they do they show they don’t like business very much.  But the economy, of course, is simply the product of all the businesses in the nation added together.  So it’s a bit like saying you like an omelette but you don’t like eggs.” ~ Mitt Romney, victory speech after winning the primaries in Maryland, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia, 4/3/12, broadcast on CNN.

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: “I’m not afraid.  I’m not scared.  Why should I be afraid?  Babies are afraid.  I’m no baby.” ~ Curly Howard, The Three Stooges, “Dizzy Detectives” (1943).  The error is treating "Babies are afraid" (which is generally true or at least often true) as if it is "Only babies are afraid" (which is  clearly false).  Curly's argument would be  valid if he had said  "Only babies are afraid."

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.

Example 6: 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.

Note Libertarianism supports the first premise in Example 5, 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)

"Contradiction should awaken attention, not passion." ~ Proverb, from Penn Jones Jr., Forgive My Grief Vol. 1 (Midlothian Mirror Inc., 1966), p. 7.

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: For PHIL 10 Summer 2014, what is the list of eligible quiz questions (also known as, the test bank) so far?


NOTE: ‘SEP’ means “Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,” which is an online resource for us.  See the link to it at the end of
www.sterlingharwood.com and you can

google “Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy” to get to that site.  ‘Lavine’ means “T. Z. Lavine,” who is the author of one of our required textbooks.  “Dr. H”

is Sterling Harwood, your instructor and author/editor of one of our required textbooks.

1. In Ch.1 of Lavine says Plato never conversed with any students at The Academy

2. In Ch.1 of Lavine suggests that Plato thought virtue is knowledge

3. In Ch.1 of Lavine, Plato says of the ruling class that no one must have any private property 

whatsoever, except what is absolutely necessary

4. In Ch.1 of Lavine, Plato says of the ruling class that no one must have any lodging or storehouse 

at all which is not open to all comers.

5. In Ch.1 of Lavine states Plato is said to be the greatest of Western philosophers

.
6. In Ch.1 of Lavine, Lavine notes that Plato is said to be the father of Western

philosophy..

7. In Ch.1 of Lavine says Plato is said to be the son of  the god Apollo.

8. In Ch.1 of Lavine says Alfred North Whitehead is an American philosopher and mathematician.

9. In Ch.1 of Lavine says Alfred North Whitehead is a British philosopher and mathematician.

10. Ch.1 of Lavine says Alfred North Whitehead said the history of Western philosophy is only a 

series of footnotes to Plato.

11. Ch.1 of Lavine says Plato lived in the second century before Christ.

12. Ch.1 of Lavine reports that Plato was married.

13. Ch.1 of Lavine says Plato lived in the fourth century before Christ.

14. Ch.1 of Lavine says Plato lived in the sixth century before Christ.

15. Ch.1 of Lavine says Socrates died in 399 BC.

16. Ch.1 of Lavine says Socrates died in 39 BC.

17. Ch.1 of Lavine says Plato died at the age of 80.

18. Ch.1 of Lavine says Plato died at the age of 60.

19. Ch.1 of Lavine says Plato died in 348 BC.

20. Ch.1 of Lavine says Plato died in 48 BC.

21. Ch.2 of Lavine says Plato rejected the usefulness of the concept of the Philosopher-King 

because Plato thought democracy was superior to monarchy.

22. Ch.2 of Lavine says Plato developed the theory that not until philosophers became kings or 

kings philosophers, with the same person uniting within himself knowledge and power, would a 

society based upon justice be possible.

23. Ch.2 of Lavine says Plato saw his mission in life was to accomplish this goal: the development 

of a true philosophy and the education of potential philosopher-kings in the Academy.

24. Ch.2 of Lavine says that the Pre-Socratics were not among Plato’s sources.

25. Ch.2 of Lavine says Plato attacked democratically governed cities.

26. Ch.2 of Lavine says Plato’s attacks on democratically governed cities make us uncomfortable.

27. Ch.2 of Lavine says Plato withdrew from public life.

28. Ch.2 of Lavine says that Plato was not a member of the aristocracy.

29. Ch.2 of Lavine says Socrates was not one of Plato’s sources.

30. Ch.2 of Lavine says that Plato illustrates his dualistic theory of reality by his famous allegory of 

the Cave.

31. Ch.2 of Lavine says, describing Plato’s view, that we are unaware that we are living with 

illusion, superficial knowledge, and false and conflicting ideals.

32. Ch.2 of Lavine says, applying Plato’s view to our lives, that our lives are dominated by the 

shadow-play on the wall of our cave made by newspaper headlines, by radio broadcasts, by the

endlessly moving shadows on the television screen, by the echoing voices of opinion makers.

33. Ch.2 of Lavine says that Plato’s Allegory of the Cave may be taken as an at least somewhat 

devastating critique of much of the science of our time, with its emphasis upon that which is known 

by the senses.

34. Ch.2 of Lavine says that Plato rejects the dualistic theory of reality.

35. Ch.2 of Lavine says Plato illustrates his dualistic theory of reality in the Republic.

36. Ch.3 of Lavine says Plato had a theory of forms.

37. Ch.3 of Lavine says Plato had no theory of forms.

38. Ch.3 of Lavine says Plato offers only ethical and political theories but no theory of knowledge in the Republic.

39. Ch.3 of Lavine says Plato feared politicians as skillful image makers.

40. Ch.3 of Lavine says a good example of a mere shadow knowledge of our own constitution occurred in the responses to a recent

questionnaire in which many people rejected as illegal a set of statements which turned out to be the Bill of Rights of the Constitution

of the United States.

41. Ch.3 of Lavine writes that Plato tells us that what can be shown by the senses is only the world of flux.

42. Ch.3 of Lavine writes that Plato tries to give us reasons why the senses can never give us true knowledge.

43. Ch.4 of Lavine says Plato thought the soul was tripartite in nature.

44. Ch.4 of Lavine says Plato discussed justice in Republic.

45. Ch.4 of Lavine says Plato thought there were conflicts within the soul.

46. Ch.4 of Lavine says Plato thought there were no conflicts within the soul, since the soul is eternal.

47. Ch.5 of Lavine says Plato thought pleasure was the highest good for humans.

48. Ch.5 of Lavine says Plato thought that if you pursue pleasure as the highest good, as your moral end, it will prevent your destruction.

49. Ch.5 of Lavine says Plato famously thought that the just man declines to set his house in order.

50. Ch.5 of Lavine says it is a commonplace that for two and a half millennia the Western world has loved and idealized the ancient civilization of Athens.

51. Ch.5 of Lavine suggests that ethics involves the search for the good life.

52. Ch.5 of Lavine says Plato completely ignores political philosophy.

53. Ch.6 of Lavine says the Spartans defeated the Greeks in the Peloponnesian War.

54. Ch.6 of Lavine says the Greeks (Athenians) defeated the Spartans in the Peloponnesian War.

55. Ch.6 of Lavine says the Spartans and Greeks fought to a draw in the Peloponnesian War.

56. Ch.6 of Lavine says the Peloponnesian war ended in 4 BC.

57. Ch.6 of Lavine says the Peloponnesian war ended in 44 BC.

58. Ch.6 of Lavine says the Peloponnesian war ended in 404 BC.

59. Ch.6 of Lavine says the Peloponnesian war ended in 4004 BC.

60. Part Two of Lavine says Descartes’ Meditations has only one meditation.

61. Part Two of Lavine says Descartes’ Meditations has only two meditations.

62. Lavine’s Ch.24 says Blaise Pascal lived 1623-1662.

63. Part Two of Lavine says Descartes’ Meditations has only three meditations.

64. Part Two of Lavine says Descartes’ Meditations has only four meditations.

65. Part Two of Lavine says Descartes’ Meditations has only five meditations.

66. Part Two of Lavine says Descartes’ Meditations has only six meditations.

67. Part Two of Lavine says Descartes’ Meditations has only seven meditations.

68. Part Two of Lavine says Descartes’ Meditations has only eight meditations.

69. Ch.7 of Lavine says Descartes “slept so much.”

70. Ch.7 of Lavine says Descartes rarely slept.

71. Ch.7 of Lavine says Descartes was the father of modern philosophy.

72. Ch.7 of Lavine says Descartes was the originator of modern philosophy.

73. Ch.7 of Lavine says Descartes was France’s greatest philosopher.

74. Ch.7 of Lavine says Descartes apparently felt respect for French society.

75. Ch.7 of Lavine says Descartes apparently felt only contempt for French society.

76. Ch.7 of Lavine says Descartes apparently felt respect for the court of Louis XIII.

77. Ch.7 of Lavine says Descartes apparently felt only contempt for the court of Louis XIII.

78. Ch.7 of Lavine says Descartes apparently felt respect for the clergy of the French Church.

79. Ch.7 of Lavine says Descartes apparently felt only contempt for the clergy of the French Church.

80. Ch.7 of Lavine says Descartes was sharply critical of the Jesuit college he attended.

81. Ch.7 of Lavine says Descartes reported that since childhood he lived in a world of books.

82. Ch.7 of Lavine says Descartes reported that since childhood he lived in a world of action.

83. Ch.8 of Lavine says Descartes gives rationalistic proofs for God’s existence.

84. Ch.8 of Lavine says Descartes gives empiricist proofs for God’s existence.

85. Ch.8 of Lavine says Descartes winds up denying God’s existence.

86. Ch.8 says Descartes is stuck in objectivism.

87. Ch.8 says Descartes is stuck in subjectivism.

88. Ch.8 of Lavine says the Cartesian Circle is the coterie of disciples that proved Descartes avoided error.

89. Ch.8 of Lavine says the Cartesian Circle is what many believe is the most serious criticism of Descartes’ Meditations.

90. Ch.8 of Lavine says few scholars believe that Descartes can avoid a vicious circle in his argument.

91. Ch.9 of Lavine says Descartes thought humans had innate ideas.

92. Ch.9 of Lavine says Descartes had a theory of animals that Darwinism thoroughly agrees with.

93. Ch.9 of Lavine says Descartes had a theory of animals as mechanical clockworks.

94. Ch.9 of Lavine says Descartes is famous for his view that animals are automata.

95. Ch.9 of Lavine says Descartes is infamous for agreeing with Darwinism.

96. Ch.9 of Lavine says Darwin’s theory of evolution opposes Descartes’ theory of animals.

97. Ch.9 of Lavine says Descartes failed to develop a theory of physical and mental substances.

98. Ch.9 of Lavine says Descartes accepted a clockwork universe.

99. Ch.9 of Lavine says Descartes rejected a clockwork universe.

100. Ch.9 of Lavine says Descartes’ theory of the physical universe is called mechanism.

101. Ch.9 of Lavine says Descartes’ theory of the physical universe is called metaphysicalism.

102. Ch.9 of Lavine says Descartes’ theory of the physical universe is called spiritualism.

103. Ch.9 of Lavine says Descartes’ theory of the physical universe is called protomonism.

104. Ch.9 of Lavine says Descartes’ theory of the physical universe is called empiricism.

105. Ch.9 of Lavine says empiricists argue that primary qualities are known only by the senses.

106. Ch.9 of Lavine says empiricists argue that secondary qualities are known only by the senses.

107. Ch.9 of Lavine says qualities such as size, spatial extension, shape and motion are primary qualities.

108. Ch.9 of Lavine says qualities such as size, spatial extension, shape and motion are secondary qualities.

109. Ch.10 of Lavine says Descartes accepts metaphysical dualism.

110. Ch.10 of Lavine says Descartes rejects metaphysical dualism.

111. Ch.10 of Lavine says Descartes accepts mind/body dualism.

112. Ch.10 of Lavine says Descartes rejects mind/body dualism.

113. Ch.10 of Lavine says Descartes thought we lack free will.

114. Ch.10 of Lavine says Descartes thought we have free will.

115. Ch.10 of Lavine reports that Descartes was married.

116. Ch.11 of Lavine reports that Hume was married.

117. Ch.11 of Lavine says A Treatise of Human Nature was Hume’s first philosophical work.

118. Ch.11 of Lavine says A Treatise of Human Nature was Hume’s last philosophical work.

119. Ch.11 of Lavine says A Treatise of Human Nature was Hume’s most significant philosophical work.

120. Ch.11 of Lavine says A Treatise of Human Nature was Hume’s least significant philosophical work.

121. Ch.11 of Lavine says the historical situation of Hume was The Enlightenment.

122. Ch.11 of Lavine says the historical situation of Hume was The Dark Ages.

123. Ch.11 of Lavine says the historical situation of Hume was Ancient Athens.

124. Ch.11 of Lavine says George Berkeley was an Anglican Bishop in Ireland.

125. Ch.11 of Lavine says Locke was a rationalist.

126. Ch.11 of Lavine says Locke was an empiricist.

127. Ch.11 of Lavine says Hume violently opposed Descartes.

128. Ch.11 of Lavine says Hume dealt with Descartes by destroying him.

129. Ch.11 of Lavine says Hume is the most destructive force in the history of Western philosophy.

130. Ch.11 of Lavine reports that the Age of Enlightenment was an age of reason, of optimism.

131. Ch.12 of Lavine says Descartes methodological skepticism seems conservative by comparison with Hume’s skepticism.

132. Ch.12 of Lavine says the outward details of Hume’s life are eventful.

133. Ch.12 of Lavine says the outward details of Hume’s life are uneventful.

134. Ch.13 of Lavine says we should never question whether the sun will rise tomorrow.

135. Ch.13 of Lavine says Hume avoids having an analysis of causality by engaging the spirit world.

136. Ch.13 of Lavine says Hume engages in analyzing causality as involving a necessary connection.

137. Ch.13 of Lavine says Hume’s thought is relevant to psychological laws on the association of ideas.

138. Ch.13 of Lavine says Hume denies a necessary causal connection.

139. Ch.13 of Lavine says Hume affirms a necessary causal connection.

140. Ch.13 of Lavine says Hume distinguishes two kinds of propositions.

141. Ch.13 of Lavine says Hume destroys the traditional distinction between two kinds of propositions: 1) matters of fact; and 2) the relations of ideas.

142. Ch.14 of Lavine says Hume thought reason was a slave to the passions.

143. Ch.14 of Lavine says Hume thought passion was a slave to reason.

144. Ch.14 of Lavine says Hume accepted the idea of the soul.

145. Ch.14 of Lavine says Hume rejected the idea of the soul.

146. Ch.14 of Lavine says Hume accepted the idea of the self.

147. Ch.14 of Lavine says Hume rejected the idea of the self.

148. Ch.14 of Lavine says Hume has no philosophy of religion.

149. Ch.14 of Lavine says Hume attacked rationalistic proofs of God.

150. Ch.14 of Lavine says Hume accepted rationalistic proofs of God.

151. Ch.14 of Lavine says Hume attacked Deism.

152. Ch.14 of Lavine says Hume accepted Deism.

153. Ch.15 of Lavine says a revolution in thought occurred around the time of the French Revolution and the Age of Enlightenment.

154. Ch.15 of Lavine says that the historical situation was that the Enlightenment failed to occur in France.

155. Ch.15 of Lavine says Voltaire lived 1694-1778.

156. Ch.15 of Lavine says Voltaire was the least well-known of the philosophes.

157. Ch.15 of Lavine says Voltaire was the best known of the philosophes.

158. Ch.15 of Lavine says Voltaire was famous for his satire Candide.

159. Ch.15 of Lavine says Diderot was a philosophe.

160. Ch.15 of Lavine says Diderot was a philosopher.

161. Ch.15 of Lavine says Diderot was not a philosophe.

162. Ch.15 of Lavine says Diderot was not a philosopher.

163. Ch.15 of Lavine says Voltaire was the greatest genius of the French Enlightenment.

164. Ch.15 of Lavine says Diderot was the greatest genius of the French Enlightnement.

165. Ch.15 of Lavine says Diderot and D’Alembert co-edited Encyclopedia.

166. Ch.15 of Lavine says Encyclopedia is famous.

167. Ch.15 of Lavine says Encyclopedia propagandized for revolution.

168. Ch.15 of Lavine says Diderot and Voltaire co-edited Encyclopedia.

169. Ch.15 of Lavine says Diderot lived 1913-1984.

170. Ch.15 of Lavine says Diderot lived 1813-1884.

171. Ch.15 of Lavine says Diderot lived 1713-1784.

172. Ch.15 of Lavine says Diderot lived 1613-1684.

173. Ch.15 of Lavine says La Mettrie lived 1909-1951.

174. Ch.15 of Lavine says La Mettrie lived 1809-1851.

175. Ch.15 of Lavine says La Mettrie lived 1709-1751.

176. Ch.15 of Lavine says La Mettrie was a philosophe.

177. Ch.15 of Lavine says Helvetius lived 1915-1971.

178. Ch.15 of Lavine says Helvetius lived 1815-1871.

179. Ch.15 of Lavine says Helvetius lived 1715-1771.

180. Ch.15 of Lavine says Helvetius was a philosophe.

181. Ch.15 of Lavine says Diderot was a novelist.

182. Ch.15 of Lavine says Diderot was an essayist.

183. Ch.15 of Lavine says Diderot was a dramatist.

184. Ch.15 of Lavine says the philosophes were eclectic.

185. Ch.15 of Lavine says the political and philosophical purposes of the philosophes were to reform

or bring down the dominance over France of the Catholic Church and absolute monarchy.

186. Ch.15 of Lavine says Holbach was a philosophe.

187. Ch.15 of Lavine says Holbach lived 1923-1989.

188. Ch.15 of Lavine says Holbach lived 1823-1889.

189. Ch.15 of Lavine says Holbach lived 1723-1789.

190. Ch.15 of Lavine says Holbach lived 1623-1689.

191. Ch.15 of Lavine says the philosphes tried to discover truths about human nature.

192. Ch.15 of Lavine says the philosophes thought institutions based on superstitions must be reformed or eliminated.

193. Ch.15 of Lavine says that by 1793 the French revolution had moved into the phase called The Reign of Terror.

194. Ch.15 of Lavine says the so-called Reign of Terror is a myth that never really occurred in France.

195. Ch.15 of Lavine says The French Revolution involved paradoxes and reversals.

196. Ch.15 of Lavine says the Enlightenment in Germany was a quiet backwater.

197. Ch.15 of Lavine says Immanuel Kant lived 1924-2004.

198. Ch.15 of Lavine says Immanuel Kant lived 1824-1904.

199. Ch.15 of Lavine says Immanuel Kant lived 1724-1804.

200. Ch.15 of Lavine says Immanuel Kant lived 1624-1704.

201. Ch.15 of Lavine says Kant had no theory of knowledge.

202. Ch.15 of Lavine lists Kant’s 12 pure concepts of the understanding.

203. Ch.15 of Lavine says Kant has an answer to Hume.

204. Ch.15 of Lavine says there was a Kantian turn in philosophy.

205. Ch.15 of Lavine says the Kantian turn in philosophy was a turn outward to astronomy and the external world of scientific observation of the universe.

206. Ch.15 of Lavine says the Kantian turn in philosophy was a turn inward to emphasize the role or part played by the human mind.

207. Ch.16 of Lavine discusses Hegel’s view that the real is the rational.

208. Ch.16 of Lavine discusses the Kantian turn in philosophy.

209. Ch.16 of Lavine says Descartes is the supreme example of Continental rationalism.

210. Ch.16 of Lavine says Hegel is the preeminent example of German idealism.

211. Ch.16 of Lavine says Hume is the outstanding example of British empiricism.

212. Ch.16 of Lavine says Hegel lived 1870-1931.

213. Ch.16 of Lavine says Hegel lived 1770-1831.

214. Ch.16 of Lavine says Hegel lived 1670-1731.

215. Ch.16 of Lavine says Hegel lived 1570-1631.

216. Ch.16 of Lavine says Hegel rejected the Theory of Dialectic.

217. Ch.16 of Lavine says Hegel accepted the Theory of Dialectic.

218. Ch.16 of Lavine says Hegel was an atheist.

219. Ch.16 of Lavine says Hegel was a theist.

220. Ch.16 of Lavine says Hegel was a Lutheran.

221. Ch.16 of Lavine lists 5 types of reason.

222. Ch.17 of Lavine says Hegel wrote The Phenomenology of Spirit.

223. Ch.17 of Lavine says The Phenomenology of Spirit is celebrated.

224. Ch.17 of Lavine says Hegel accepted Organicism.

225. Ch.17 of Lavine says Hegel rejected Organicism.

226. Ch.17 of Lavine says Hegel rejected Historicism.

227. Ch.17 of Lavine says Hegel accepted Historicism.

228. Ch.18 of Lavine says The Cunning of Reason is part of Hegel’s philosophy.

229. Ch.18 of Lavine says The Cunning of Reason is an alternative Hegel’s critics developed to his philosophy.

230. Ch.18 of Lavine says Hegel has a Theodicy.

231. Ch. 19 of Lavine says The Owl of Minerva is a part of Hegel’s philosophy.

232. Ch. 19 of Lavine says The Owl of Minerva is a major alternative critics of Hegel developed in response to his philosophy.

232. Ch. 19 of Lavine says The Owl of Minerva is the metaphorical claim that we learn about history, according to Hegel, too late to stop it.

233. Ch.19 of Lavine says Hegel had no political philosophy.

234. Ch.19 of Lavine says Hegel had a political philosophy.

235. Ch.19 of Lavine says Hegel accepted the theory of alienation.T

236. Ch.19 of Lavine says Hegel rejected the theory of alienation.

237. Ch.19 of Lavine says Hegel accepted political individualism.

238. Ch.19 of Lavine says Hegel rejected political individualism.

239. Ch.20 of Lavine says Marx was among The Young Hegelians.

240. Ch.20 of Lavine says that Marx was never among the Young Hegelians.

241. Ch.20 of Lavine says Marxism has power.

242. Ch.20 of Lavine says Marxims has no power.

243. Ch.20 of Lavine says at least 1/3 of all human beings in the world today (she wrote in 1984) call themselves followers of Karl Marx. [Note: this was numbered as the first #244 on a hardcopy handout.]

244. Ch.20 of Lavine says Marx wrote the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts.

245. Ch.20 of Lavine says the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts are also called the 1844 Manuscripts.

246. Ch.20 of Lavine says the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts are also called the Paris Manuscripts.

247. Ch.20 of Lavine reports that in Paris in the Spring and Summer of 1844 there was intense intellectual activity.

248. Ch.20 of Lavine reports that in Paris in the Spring and Summer of 1844 there was a relaxed and lazy time that gave Marx the leisure time he needed to write the Paris Manuscripts.

249. Ch.21 of Lavine raises the issue of whether man is alienated.

250. Ch.21 of Lavine says the issue of whether man is alienated had already been resolved before Marx’s time and so that issue was put to rest before Marx.

251. Ch.21 of Lavine raises the issue of whether there are two Marxisms.

252. Ch.21 of Lavine says Marx thought economics was unimportant.

253. Ch.21 of Lavine discusses the view that Hegel upsdide-down is economics.

254. Ch.21 of Lavine says Marx wrote the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts.

255. Ch.21 of Lavine says The Germany Ideology was from 1846.

256. Ch.21 of Lavine says the two Marxisms present a problem.

257. Ch.21 of Lavine say Engels was the harshest and most consistent critic and opponent of Marx for decades.

258. Ch.22 of Lavine says Marx opposes historical materialism.

259. Ch.22 of Lavine says Marx denies the existence of class conflict.

260. Ch.22 of Lavine distinguishes between historical materialism and mechanistic materialism.

261. Ch.22 of Lavine says Marx dismisses as unimportant the division of labor.

262. Ch.22 of Lavine says the Critique of Political Economy is from 1759.

263. Ch.22 of Lavine says the Critique of Political Economy is from 1959.

264. Ch.22 of Lavine says that for Marx an ideology may be defined as a unsystematic set of initial notions (distinct from full-blown ideas) which is determined by the absence of class conflict and which reflects and promotes the interests of the dominated class.

265. Ch.22 of Lavine says that for Marx an ideology may be defined as a system of ideas which is determined by the absence of class conflict and which reflects and promotes the interests of the dominated class.

266. Ch.22 of Lavine says that for Marx an ideology may be defined as a system of ideas which is determined by class conflict and which reflects and promotes the interests of the dominated class.

267. Ch.22 of Lavine says that for Marx an ideology may be defined as a system of ideas which is determined by class conflict and which reflects and promotes the interests of the dominant class.

268. Ch.22 of Lavine says that Marx lacks a theory of history.

269. Ch.22 of Lavine says Hegel lacks a philosophy of history.

270. Ch.22 of Lavine says that Marx’s theory of history is constructed on the model which Hegel’s philosophy of history provided.

271. Ch.22 of Lavine says that, like Hegel, Marx is committed to historicism.

272. Ch.22 of Lavine says that Hegel is committed to historicism but that Marx is not.

273. Ch.22 of Lavine says that Marx is committed to historicism but that Hegel is not.

274. Ch.22 of Lavine says the theory of revolution is unrelated to Marxism.

275. Ch.22 of Lavine says that Marx has no theory of historical change.

276. Ch.22 of Lavine says that Marx has a theory of historical change but that it cannot be applied.

277. Ch.22 of Lavine discusses the application of Marx’s theory of historical change.

278. Ch.22 of Lavine says Marx ridiculed religion and so made no predictions about future revolutions or the world to come.

279. Ch.22 of Lavine says the Communist Manifesto was from 1748.

280. Ch.22 of Lavine says the Communist Manifesto was from 1848.

281. Ch.22 of Lavine quotes the last words of the Communist Manifesto as “Workers of the world unite!”

282. Ch.23 of Lavine says Marx thought the capitalist class was the most revolutionary class which has existed up to the present time (of Marx).

283. Ch.23 of Lavine says Marx thought there was a bourgeois revolution in production.

284. Ch.23 of Lavine says Marx thought there was a bourgeois destruction of the feudal substructure and superstructure.

285. Ch.23 of Lavine says Marx thought capitalism’s achievements lead to its own destruction.

286. Ch.23 of Lavine says that only by Marxist prevention of capitalist achievements can capitalism be destroyed.

287. Ch.23 of Lavine raises the problem of why one would fight for an inevitable revolution.

288. Ch.23 of Lavine raises the problem of distinguishing truth from propaganda.

289. Ch.23 of Lavine raises the problem of classifying the thinking of the Communist Manifesto as science, philosophy or ideology.

290. Ch.23 of Lavine says that the revolutions of 1848 were no disaster.

291. Ch.23 of Lavine says that the revolutions of 1848 were a disaster.

292. Ch.23 of Lavine discusses Marx’s London years.

293. Ch.23 of Lavine describes the luxurious circumstances under which Marx lived in the great city of London, England.

294. Ch.23 of Lavine says that Marx was exiled to the winter cold of London, Ontario, Canada.

295. Ch.23 of Lavine says that Marx’s personality was passive.

296. Ch.23 of Lavine says that Marx’s personality was aggressive.

297. Ch.23 of Lavine says that Marx’s personality was neither passive nor aggressive.

298. Ch.23 of Lavine says that Marx’s personality was far from domineering.

299. Ch.23 of Lavine says that Marx’s personality was domineering.

300. Ch.23 of Lavine says that Marx’s personality was neither domineering nor far from domineering.

301. Ch.23 of Lavine says that Marx’s personality was far from contemptuous.

302. Ch.23 of Lavine says that Marx’s personality was contemptuous.

303. Ch.23 of Lavine presents the claim of a visitor to Marx’s home during Marx’s London years that Marx received the visitor in a friendly way.

304. Ch.23 of Lavine presents the claim of a visitor to Marx’s home during Marx’s London years that Marx received the visitor in an unfriendly way.

305. Ch.23 of Lavine says that Marx’s personality was neither contemptuous nor far from contemptuous.

306. Ch.23 of Lavine says that Marx’s principal source of income during his London years was from newspaper articles he wrote as a foreign correspondent for the New York Times for about $100 for each published article.

307. Ch.23 of Lavine says that Marx’s principal source of income during his London years was from newspaper articles he

wrote as a foreign correspondent for the New York Daily Tribune for about $10 for each published article.

308. Ch.23 of Lavine presents the claim that Marx during his London years lived in one of the best and most expensive neighborhoods in London.

309. Ch.23 of Lavine presents the claim that Marx during his London years lived in one of the worst and cheapest neighborhoods in London.

310. Ch.23 of Lavine presents the reports of a visitor that during his London years Marx occupied two top floors of a hotel and that there is all the furniture was new.

311. Ch.23 of Lavine presents the reports of a visitor that during his London years Marx occupied two rooms and that there is not

one clean or decent piece of furniture in either room, everything is broken, tattered and torn.

312. Ch.24 of Lavine says existentialism has no forerunners.

313. Ch.24 of Lavine says Soren Kierkegaard lived 1913-1955.

314. Ch.24 of Lavine says Soren Kierkegaard lived 1813-1855.

315. Ch.24 of Lavine says Soren Kierkegaard lived 1713-1755.

316. Ch.24 of Lavine says Soren Kierkegaard lived 1613-1655.

317. Ch.24 of Lavine says a carefree spirit pervades the works of Kierkegaard.

318. Ch.24 of Lavine says anxiety pervades the works of Kierkegaard.

319. Ch.24 of Lavine says Kierkegaard believed existence has meaning.

320. Ch.24 of Lavine says Kierkegaard believed in the meaninglessness of existence.

321. Ch.24 of Lavine suggests Kierkegaard believed human life is not designed for pleasure. [Note: 'not' was added to the hardcopy version, which is corrected here.]

322. Ch.24 of Lavine suggests Kierkegaard believed human life is designed for pleasure.

323. According to Ch.24 of Lavine, Kierkegaard says man has made something of himself.

324. According to Ch.24 of Lavine, Kierkegaard says man has not made something of himself.

325. Ch.24 of Lavine says Kierkegaard is not usually regarded as a forerunner of existentialism.

326. Ch.24 of Lavine says Kierkegaard is usually regarded as a forerunner of existentialism.

327. Ch.24 of Lavine says Nietzsche is not usually regarded as a forerunner of existentialism.

328. Ch.24 of Lavine says Nietzsche is usually regarded as a forerunner of existentialism.

329. Ch.24 of Lavine says Kierkegaard had no influence on 20th-Century Existentialism.

330. Ch.24 of Lavine says Nietzsche had no influence on 20th-Century Existentialism.

331. Ch.24 of Lavine says Kierkegaard perceived the Western world to be approaching a time of crisis.

332. Ch.24 of Lavine says Nietzsche perceived the Western world to be approaching a time of crisis.

333. Ch.24 of Lavine says Marx  perceived the Western world to be approaching a time of crisis.

334. Lavine’s Ch.24 says Nietzsche wrote The Joyful Wisdom of 1882.

335. Lavine’s Ch.24 says Existentialism developed in the 20th Century in Germany and France.

336. Lavine’s Ch.24 says the Communist Revolution in Russia happened in 1917.

337. Lavine’s Ch.24 says the Communist Revolution in Russia happened in 1817.

338. Lavine’s Ch.24 says the Communist Revolution in Russia happened in 1717.

339. Lavine’s Ch.24 says Existentialism takes the standpoint which gives priority to existence over essence.

340. Lavine’s Ch.24 says Essentialism is the name existentialists sometimes give to the mode (type) of thinking existentialism opposes.

341. Lavine’s Ch.24 says the young Marx is focused on the concept of economic alienation.

342. Lavine’s Ch.24 says that a theme of Existentialism is anxiety, or a sense of anguish, a generalized uneasiness, a fear or dread that is not directed to any specific object.

343. Lavine’s Ch.24 says that a theme of Existentialism is that man has and should have a carefree spirit of freedom.

344. Lavine’s Ch.24 says that a theme of Existentialism is absurdity.

345. Lavine’s Ch.24 says Blaise Pascal lived 1723-1762.

346. Lavine’s Ch.24 says Blaise Pascal lived 1823-1862.

347. Lavine’s Ch.24 says Blaise Pascal lived 1923-1962.

348. Lavine’s Ch.25 quotes Jean –Paul Sartre as saying he hated his childhood.

349. Lavine’s Ch.25 quotes Jean-Paul Sartre as saying that he hated everything that remains from his childhood.

350. Lavine’s Ch.25 says Sartre was never an existentialist.

351. Lavine’s Ch.25 says Sartre was an existentialist.

352. Lavine’s Ch.25 says Sartre was French.

353. Lavine’s Ch.25 says Sartre wrote The Words.

354. Lavine’s Ch.25 says Martin Heidegger lived 1889-1976.

355. Lavine’s Ch.25 says Martin Heidegger lived 1789-1876.

356. Lavine’s Ch.25 says Edmund Husserl lived 1859-1938.

357. Lavine’s Ch.25 says Edmund Husserl lived 1759-1838.

358. Lavine’s Ch.25 says Heidegger was a German.

359. Lavine’s Ch.25 says Heidegger was an existentialist.

360. Lavine’s Ch.25 says Husserl uses Descartes’s subjectivism.

361. Lavine’s Ch.25 says Sartre takes from Kierkegaard the emphasis on individual conscious existence.

362. Lavine’s Ch.25 says Sartre wrote Nausea.

363. Lavine’s Ch.25 says Camus wrote Nausea.

364. Lavine’s Ch.25 says Nausea was a novel (or fiction).

365. Lavine’s Ch.25 says Nausea was non-fiction.

366. Lavine’s Ch.26 says Sartre wrote the novel The Age of Reason from 1945.

367. Lavine’s Ch.26 says Sartre thought humans are condemned to be free.

368. Lavine’s Ch.26 says Sartre wrote Being and Nothingness.

369. Lavine’s Ch.26 says Sartre wrote the 1944 play No Exit.

370. Lavine’s Ch.26 says Sartre wrote the 1943 play The Flies.

371. Lavine’s Ch.26 says Sartre argues in opposition to Descartes.

372. Lavine’s Ch.26 says Sartre argues in support of Descartes.

373. Lavine’s Ch.26 says Husserl argues in opposition to Descartes.

374. Lavine’s Ch.26 says Husserl argues in support of Descartes.

375. Lavine’s Ch.26 says Sartre believed a man is always free to be a traitor or not.

376. Lavine’s Ch.26 says bad faith is self-deception.

377. Lavine’s Ch.26 says Sartre argues we should adopt bad faith.

378. Lavine’s Ch.27 says Sartre adopts Kant’s general ethics to advise us in all our choices.

379. Lavine’s Ch.27 says Sartre says Kant’s general ethics cannot advise us in all our choices.

380. Lavine’s Ch.27 says Sartre thinks no general ethic can show us what is to be done.

381. Lavine’s Ch.27 says Sartre stands with Nietzsche on Nietzsche’s discover that “God is dead.”

382. Lavine’s Ch.27 says Sartre stands against Nietzsche on Nietzsche’s discover that “God is dead.”

383. Lavine’s Ch.27 says Existentialism is bankrupt of general ethical principles and values.

384. Lavine’s Ch.27 says a criticism of Existentialism is that the only rule it provides is to act authentically and avoid self-deception

and so there is no way of discriminating (differentiating) between one’s freely chosen acts.

385. Lavine’s Ch.27 says a criticism of Sartre’s Existentialism is that it makes ethics impossible because it fails to give us any general rules or principles as the foundation for moral choice.

386. Lavine’s Ch.27 says a criticism of Existentialism is that the only rule it gives is negative.

387. Lavine’s Ch.27 says Sartre thought that in love, as in all human relationships, we end up enslaving the other or being enslaved.

388. Lavine’s Ch.27 says Sartre wrote in 1960 that Marxism is the inescapable philosophy of our time.

389. Lavine’s Ch.28 says Sartre wrote The Critique of Dialectical Reason from 1960.

390. Lavine’s Ch.28 says Sartre wrote Being and Nothingness from 1943.

391. Lavine’s Ch.28 says Sartre conversion to Marxism was famous.

392. Lavine’s Ch.28 says Sartre claims to be following Hegel and Marx.

393. Lavine’s Ch.28 says 1972 is the date of Sartre’s conversion to Marxism.

394. Lavine’s Ch.28 says 1962 is the date of Sartre’s conversion to Marxism.

395. Lavine’s Ch.28 says 1952 is the date of Sartre’s conversion to Marxism.

396. Lavine’s Ch.28 says 1942 is the date of Sartre’s conversion to Marxism.

397. Lavine’s Ch.28 says Sartre became involved in the ultra-left politics of the French Maoists.

398. Lavine’s Ch.28 says Phenomenology was a school of philosophy developed in Germany before World War I.

399. Lavine’s Ch.28 calls Hegel’s The Phenomenology of Spirit a great work.

400. Lavine’s Ch.28 says Husserl accepts Hegel’s cultural and historical relativism of phenomena.

401. Lavine’s Ch.28 says Husserl rejects Hegel’s cultural and historical relativism of phenomena.

402. Lavine’s Ch.28 says the Kantian thing-in-itself by definition remains outside the grasp of the structures of consciousness.

403. Lavine’s Ch.28 says the Kantian thing-in-itself by definition is within the grasp of the structures of consciousness.

404. Lavine’s Ch.28 says a principle of phenomenology is its rejection of empiricism and scientific method, and any philosophy which rests upon them.

405. Lavine’s Ch.28 says a principle of phenomenology is its acceptance of empiricism and scientific method, and some philosophies which rests upon them.

406. Lavine’s Ch.28 says Husserl accepts phenomenology

407. Lavine’s Ch.28 says Husserl rejects phenomenology.

408. Lavine’s Ch.28 says Husserl struggled all his life to restore to philosophy a foundation in certainty – a Cartesian rock such as the Cogito.

409. Lavine’s Ch.28 reports the German word Lebenswelt means ‘life-world.’

410. Lavine’s Ch.28 reports that Husserl thought the Lebenswelt is the foundation of philosophy and all sciences.

411. Lavine’s Ch.28 reports the principal historical source for linguistic philosophy is the empiricism of Hume.

412. Lavine’s Ch.28 reports that Logical Positivism is a form of linguistic philosophy.

413. Lavine’s Ch.28 reports that Analytical Philosophy is a form of linguistic philosophy.

414. Lavine’s Ch.28 says Logical Positivism thinks the meaning of a proposition is identical with its empirical verification.

415. Lavine’s Ch.28 says Logical Positivism thinks philosophy is the activity clarifying language by logical analysis and destroying meaningless propositions.

416. Lavine’s Ch.28 says Analytic Philosophy thinks the meaning of words is from their use in a language game.

417. Lavine’s Ch.28 says Analytic Philosophy thinks philosophy is the activity of analyzing language games to dissolve philosophical problems.

418. From Lavine’s chapters 25 and 28 it is clear that both Heidegger and Wittgenstein were born in 1889.

419. Lavine’s Ch.28 mentions Hitler’s National Socialism.

420. Lavine’s Ch.28 reports that logical positivism is dead.

421. Lavine’s Ch.28 says Wittgenstein lived 1889-1951.

422. Lavine’s Ch.28 says Wittgenstein lived 1789-1951.

423. Lavine’s Ch.28 says Russell attacked German idealism.

424. Lavine’s Ch.28 says German idealism did rise among British philosophers of Russell’s era.

425. Lavine’s Ch.28 says Wittgenstein volunteered for the Austrian Army as soon as World War I broke out.

426. Lavine’s Ch.28 says Wittgenstein published at least two great books, including Philosophical Investigations.

427. Lavine’s Ch.28 quotes Wittgenstein as saying: “Through thought I have become pure and so I can rest my philosophy on the certainty Descartes found.”

428. Lavine’s Ch.28 quotes Wittgenstein as saying: “I am a man and thus in essence a thinking thing, as Plato taught.”

429. Lavine’s Ch.28 quotes Wittgenstein as saying: “How … can I be a logician if I am not yet a man?  Before everything else, I must become pure.”

430. Lavine’s Ch.28 quotes Wittgenstein as feeling that the development of his own ideas in logic was hampered by the fact that his life was “full of the most hateful and petty thoughts and acts.”

431. Lavine’s Ch.28 says Wittgenstein attacked Plato’s theory of forms or essences.

432. Lavine’s Ch.28 says Wittgenstein supported Plato’s theory of forms or essences.

433. Lavine’s Ch.28 says existentialism is compatible with Plato’s theory of forms or essences.

434. Lavine’s Ch.28 says logical positivism has a famous verifiability principle.

435. Lavine’s Ch.28 says logical positivism is famous for opposing the verifiability principle.

436. Lavine’s Ch.28 says Gilbert Ryle is a major figure in analytic philosophy.

437. Lavine’s Ch.28 says Gilbert Ryle is a major opponent of analytic philosophy.

438. Lavine’s Ch.28 says A.J. Ayer is a major figure in analytic philosophy.

439. Lavine’s Ch.28 says A.J. Ayer is a major opponent of analytic philosophy.

440. Lavine’s Ch.28 says John Austin is a major figure in analytic philosophy.

441. Lavine’s Ch.28 says John Austin is a major opponent of analytic philosophy.

442. Lavine’s Ch.28 says Willard Quine is a major figure in analytic philosophy.

443. Lavine’s Ch.28 says John Austin is a major opponent of analytic philosophy.

444. Lavine’s Ch.28 says that the American philosophy of naturalism includes Ralph Waldo Emerson.

445. Lavine’s Ch.28 says that the American philosophy of naturalism includes John Dewey.

446. Lavine’s Ch.28 says that the American philosophy of naturalism includes William James.

447. Lavine’s Ch.28 says that the American philosophy of naturalism includes Charles Peirce.

448. Lavine’s Ch.28 says that the American philosophy of naturalism includes George Herbert Mead.

449. Lavine’s Ch.28 says that the American philosophy of naturalism includes George Santayana.

450. Lavine’s Ch.28 says that philosophy at this time (Lavine’s book was published in 1984) has suppressed its own creativity.

451. Socrates executed himself.

452. Socrates committed suicide.

453. Aspasia of Miletus, a woman, taught Socrates rhetoric.

454. Diotima of Mantinea, a woman, was a teacher of Socrates.

455. Socrates taught Plato.

456. Plato taught Aristotle.

457. Dr. H reported in class that Aristotle taught Alexander the Great.

458. Dr. H reported in class that Alexander the Great commanded an army of about 80,000 men and conquered much territory from ancient Greece to India.

459. Dr. H reported in class that Voltaire’s Candide made fun of the philosopher Leibniz with the character Dr. Pangloss, who glossed over all the problems of evil by insisting that this is the best of all possible worlds.

460. Plato wrote Crito.

 461. Plato wrote Republic.

 462. Socrates wrote Crito.

 463. Socrates wrote Meno.

  464. Socrates wrote nothing.

 465. Plato wrote nothing.

  466. Aristotle wrote nothing.

  467. Aristotle wrote Crito.

 468. Aristotle wrote Nichomachean Ethics.

  469. Aristotle wrote De Anima.

  470. Aristotle wrote The Republic.

  471. Socrates wrote The Republic.

 472. Alexander the Great wrote The Republic.

 473. Dr H reported in class that Aspasia of Miletus wrote The Republic.

 474. Socrates tried to escape from the jail holding him while he awaited execution.

  475. Socrates argued that he owed too little to Athens to have to obey a law requiring an unjust execution and so therefore he should not allow his own execution.

  476. Socrates voluntarily drank the hemlock that killed him.

  477. The hemlock that killed Socrates was forced down Socrates's throat using a funnel.

 478. The hemlock Socrates drank failed to kill him, so he was beheaded.

 479. Socrates never drank hemlock.

 480. Socrates was generally considered ugly.

 481. Socrates was never tried.

 482. Jeremy Bentham lived 1548-1632.

 483. Jeremy Bentham lived 1648-1732.

 484. Jeremy Bentham lived 1748-1832.

 485. Jeremy Bentham lived 1848-1932.

 486. John Stuart Mill lived 1806-1873.

 487. John Stuart Mill lived 1906-1973.

 488. The Buddha lived around 480 BC and lived to be 80 years old.

 489. Confucius lived 551-479 BC.

 490. Mohammed lived around 622 AD.

 491. Kant's moral principle, Craig writes, is closely related to the familiar question "what would happen if everyone did that?"

 492. A sound argument is a valid argument without any false premises.

 493. A valid argument is an argument whose conclusion necessarily follows from the truth of all of its premises.

 494. It is impossible for all of a valid argument’s premises to be true and for the valid argument’s conclusion still to be false.

 495. A sound argument is an invalid argument that can have no more than one false premise.

 496. A syllogism is an argument with exactly two premises and one conclusion.

 497. An argument is made of one conclusion and at least one premise.

 498. Hume lived 1711 to 1776.

 499. Hume lived 1776 to 1831.

 500. Hume accepted empiricism.

501. Hume accepted rationalism.

502. Dr. H says Hume accepted atheism.

503. Dr. H says Hume rejected atheism.

504. Rene Descartes lived 1596-1650.

505. Dr. H reported in class that Descartes was a soldier.

506. Dr. H reported in class that Socrates was a soldier.

507. Dr. H reported in class that Descartes liked to write philosophy while lying in bed.

508. Dr. H reported in class that “what should I do?” corresponds to axiology.

 509. “what should I do?” corresponds to epistemology.

510. “what should I do?” corresponds to ontology.

 511. “what is there?” corresponds to axiology.

 512. “what is there?” corresponds to epistemology.

 513. “what is there?” corresponds to ontology.

 514. “how do we know?” corresponds to axiology.

 515. “how do we know?” corresponds to epistemology.

 516. “how do we know?” corresponds to ontology.

 517. According to a T-shirt that Dr. H wore in class, Plato said “Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.”

518. According to a T-shirt that Dr. H wore in class, Plato said “Wise men talk because they have to say something; fools, because they have something to say.”

519. A T-shirt that Dr. H wore in class illustrated the fallacy of false analogy as follows:“Drink your beer. There are sober people in India.”

520. John Forsythe, narrator of the video Greenpeace’s Greatest Hits reported that “The Penguins have nowhere to run.”

521. John Scottus was a humanist.

522. John Scottus was not a humanist.

523. John Scottus believed no human nature exists.

524. John Scottus believed human nature exists.

525. John Scottus was a Christian.

526. John Scottus was never a Christian.

527. Ayn Rand was a utilitarian.

528. Dr. H reported in class that Ayn Rand was not a utilitarian.

529. Dr. H reports that Ayn Rand was a libertarian even though she denied she was a libertarian.

530. Ayn Rand was not a libertarian.

531. Ayn Rand was an egalitarian.

532. Ayn Rand was not an egalitarian.

533. Ayn Rand believed in objectivism.

534. Ayn Rand is mentioned in the bibliography in the “Approaches to Feminism” essay on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

535. Ayn Rand is omitted in the bibliography in the “Approaches to Feminism” essay on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

536. “Approaches to Feminism” reports that feminist philosophy emerged in the 1960s.

537. “Approaches to Feminism” reports that feminist philosophy emerged in the 1920s.

538. “Approaches to Feminism” reports that feminist philosophy emerged in the 1970s.

539. “Approaches to Feminism” reports that feminist philosophy emerged in the 1990s.

540. According to the SEP essay “Paternalism,” paternalism is the interference of a state or an individual with another person, against

their will, and justified by a claim that the person interfered with will be better off or protected from harm.

541. Dr. H reported in class that libertarianism supports paternalism in the treatment of adults of sound mind in private.

542. Dr. H report ed in class that libertarianism opposes paternalism of adults of sound mind in private.

543. SEP reports that Hume was the last of the great triumvirate of “British empiricists.”

544. SEP reports that Hume was the first of the great triumvirate of “British empiricists.”

545. SEP reports that Hume was in the middle of the great triumvirate of “British empiricists.”

546. SEP calls Hume a master stylist, referring to his style of writing.

547. SEP calls Hume a master stylist, referring to his hairstyling in the age of powdered wigs.

548. SEP calls Hume’s writing ability woeful but worth the drudgery of reading.

549. SEP says Hume cemented his reputation as a religious sceptic and atheist.

550. SEP says Hume never cemented his reputation as a religious sceptic and atheist.

551. SEP says Hume cemented his reputation as a religious sceptic but not as an atheist.

552. SEP says Hume cemented his reputation as a religious believer and theist.

553. SEP says Jean-Paul Sartre called himself an existentialist, a believer in existentialism.

554. Dr. H reported in class that Jean-Paul Sartre lived 1905-1980.

555. SEP says Camus repudiated the label of existentialist.

556. SEP says Camus accepted the label of existentialist.

557. SEP says Heidegger accepted the label of existentialist.

558. SEP says Heidegger repudiated the label of existentialist.

559. SEP says Gabriel Marcel was an existentialist.

560. SEP says Gabriel Marcel was not an existentialist.

561. SEP says Jose Ortega y Gasset was an existentialist.

562. SEP says Jose Ortega y  Gasset was not an existentialist.

563. SEP says Heidegger was an existentialist.

564. SEP says Heidegger was not an existentialist.

565. SEP says Karl Jaspers was an existentialist.

566. Dr. H reported in class that Descartes discussed the changing appearance of wax.

567. Dr. H reported in class that Descartes refused to discuss the example of wax, which is found in French philosophical literature, since Descartes had a phobia about wax.

568. Dr. H reported in class that Descartes discussed the possibility that we are deceived by an evil demon.

569. Dr. H reported in class that Descartes refused to discuss the possibility that we are deceived by an evil demon since Descartes thought such ideas were blasphemy and sacrilegious.

570. Dr. H reported in class that Rene Descartes lived 1596-1650.

571. Dr. H reported in class that Descartes died from an illness evidently contracted when Descartes trudged through the early-morning snow to tutor the Queen of Sweden in math.

572. Dr. H reported in class that Hume respected Descartes and that Hume made a point of traveling to where Descartes worked.

573. Dr. H reported in class that David Hume is his favorite philosopher.

574. Dr. H reported in class that Friedrich Nietzsche said a philosopher is a dangerous explosive.

575. Dr. H reported in class that Friedrich Nietzsche lived 1844-1900.

576. Dr. H reported in class that Berkeley, CA is named after George Berkeley but pronounced differently.

577. Dr. H reported in class that Berkeley was a protestant Bishop in Ireland.

578. Dr. H reported in class that the 3 main British empiricists from 1632 to 1776 were Locke, Berkeley and Hume.

579. Dr. H reported in class that Locke was from England.

580. Dr. H reported in class that Berkeley was from Ireland.

581. Dr. H reported in class that Hume was from Scotland.

582. Dr. H reported in class that Saint Augustine was from Africa.

583. Dr. H reports that Christianity is at least somewhat subject to interpretation as being less optimistic than The Enlightenment due to

The Fall of humans (the story of Adam & Eve) and the view of many Christians that a human is a wretch (for example, see the lyrics of the song “Amazing Grace”).

584. Dr. H reported in class that Alfred North Whitehead said the safest general statement is that Western Philosophy is but a series of footnotes to Plato.

585. Dr. H reported in class that Holbach died the same year that the U.S. Constitution was ratified.

586. Dr. H reported in class that Karl Marx lived 1818-1883.

587. Dr. H said in class that Karl Marx converted from Judaism to become a Lutheran.

588. Dr. H reported in class that a Theodicy is an attempt to solve The Problem of Evil.

589. Dr. H reported in class that The Problem of Evil is a major argument for atheism.

590. Dr. H reported in class that Sartre won the Nobel Prize for literature.

591. Dr. H reported in class that Albert Camus won the Nobel Prize for literature.

592. Dr. H reported in class that Henri Bergson won the Nobel Prize for literature.

593. Dr. H reported in class that Bertrand Russell won the Nobel Prize for literature.

594. Dr. H reported in class that Socrates won the Nobel Prize for literature.

595. Dr. H reported in class that Camus was French.

596. Dr. H reported in class that Camus was British.

597. Dr. H reported in class that Bergson was French.

598. Dr. H reported in class that Camus was British.

599. Dr. H reported in class that Russell was French.

600. Dr. H reported in class that Russell was British.

601. Dr. H reported in class that Socrates was French.

602. Dr. H reported in class that Camus was Greek.

603. Dr. H reported in class that Husserl was a German Czech.

604. Dr. H reported in class that Heidegger was a Nazi.

605. Dr. H reported in class that Heidegger was not a Nazi.

606. Dr. H reported in class that Nietzsche was a Nazi.

607. Dr. H reported in class that Nietzsche was not a Nazi.

608. Dr. H said in class that Plato accepted The Noble Lie.

609. Dr. H reported in class that Sartre was a French, Marxist atheist.

610. Dr. H reported in class that he was born in 1958 and has never been a Marxist and has an essay in our required textbook that criticizes Marxism.

611. Dr. H reported in class that Mao Zedong, Chairman Mao, was an historically famous dictator in China and a communist philosopher and politician.

612. Dr. H reported in class that The Cogito is Descartes’s argument “I think, therefore I am.”

613. Dr. H reported in class that The Cogito is Descartes’s argument “I am but a cog in God’s cosmic wheel, so God exists.”

614. Dr. H reported in class that Bertrand Russell lived 1872-1970.

615. Dr. H reported in class that Bertrand Russell lived 1772-1870.

616. Dr. H reported in class that Santayana is famous for saying that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

617. Dr. H reported in class that the name ‘Plato’ was a nickname for Plato that means ‘broad’ or ‘flat.’

618. Dr. H reported in class that the real name for Plato is Aristocles and that ‘Plato’ is merely a nickname for Aristocles.  

619. Dr. H said in class that his T-shirt reading "I reject your reality and substitute my own" illustrates an attitude associated with relativism.

620. Dr. H said in class that his T-shirt reading "I reject your reality and substitute my own" illustrates an attitude associated with realism.  

621. Dr. H reported in class that Sartre won the Nobel Prize in literature in 1964 but refused the award.

622. Ch.20 of Lavine says only ¼ of all human beings in the world today (she wrote in 1984) call themselves followers of Karl Marx.  [Note: this was originally the first crossed out #243 on a hardcopy handout.]

623. Ch.20 of Lavine says only ½ of all human beings in the world today (she wrote in 1984) call themselves followers of Karl Marx.

624. Ch.1 gives 5 main arguments against moral relativism.

625. Ch.1 gives 6 main arguments against moral relativism.

626. In Ch.1, "'No absolutes exist' contradicts itself" is one of the arguments for moral relativism.

627. In Ch.1, "'No absolutes exist' contradicts itself" is one of the arguments against moral realism.

 628. In Ch.1, Dr. H notes that many joke that "business ethics" is a moron.

 629. In Ch.1, Dr. H notes that many joke that "business ethics" is an oxymoron.

 630. In Ch.1, "Relativism is fairer to historical figures" is one of the arguments for moral realism.

 631. In Ch.1, "Relativism is fairer to historical figures" is one of the arguments against moral relativism.

 632. In Ch.2, Dr. H argues for MacIntyre's Relativistic Communitarianism.

 633. In Ch.2, Dr. H argues against MacIntyre's Relativistic Communitarianism.

 634. In Ch.2, Dr. H quotes John Searle as making a point against realism.

 635. In Ch.2, Dr. H quotes John Searle as making a point for realism.

 636. In Ch.2, Dr. H writes that MacIntyre wrote the book Whose Justice? Which Rationality?

 637.  In Ch.3, Ronald F. Duska answers the question in his title by saying that there is no point to a business ethics course.

638. In Ch.3, Duska argues that the point of a business ethics course is to improve behavior in business.

 639. In Ch.3, Duska argues that the point of a business ethics course is to improve profits in business.

 640. In Ch.3, Duska argues that knowing what's right or wrong is not essential to improved behavior so long as you have your heart in the right place.

 641. In Ch.3, Duska argues that an essential ingredient in improved behavior is knowing what's right or wrong.

 642. In Ch.3, Duska argues that an essential ingredient in improved behavior is being blissfully ignorant.

 643. In Ch.3, Duska concludes "the heart is much more important than the head when it comes to improved ethics."

 644. In Ch.3, Duska argues that ethics can't be taught.

 645. In Ch.3, Duska argues that business ethics courses are unnecessary because executives already know right from wrong.

 646. In Ch.3, Duska argues that ethical knowledge is impossible, so there is nothing to teach in a business ethics course.

 647. In Ch.3, Duska argues that skepticism about ethical knowledge is not part of a pervasive 'relativism' in our society.

 648. In Ch.3, Duska argues that skepticism about ethical knowledge is part of a pervasive 'relativism' in our society.

 649. In Ch.3, Duska argues that the relativism/skepticism he discusses is tenable.

 650. In Ch.3, Duska argues that the relativism/skepticism he discusses is untenable.

 651. In Ch.3, Duska argues that ethical knowledge is possible.

 652. In Ch.3, Duska reports that disreputable business practices have become commonplace.

 653. In Ch.4, Dr. H says the basic value of egalitarianism is, ironically, not equality but revolution instead.

654. In Ch.4, Dr. H says the basic value of egalitarianism is equality.

 655. In Ch.4, Dr. H says that fidelity means to avoid breaking promises.

656. In Ch.4, Dr. H says that the prima facie principle of fidelity means to avoid making promises.

657. In Ch.4, Dr. H says that the prima facie principle of fidelity means a blue tooth application on your blueberry or boysenberry.

658. In Ch.4, Dr. H says that the prima facie principle of veracity means to avoid telling lies.

659. In Ch.4, Dr. H says that the prima facie principle of fair play means to avoid exploiting, cheating or freeloading.

660. Dr. H said in class that one argument for Obama's health care reform is that it plans to curtail freeloading by those

who go years without paying health care insurance premiums and then just show up at an emergency room and expect to be treated without delay.

662. Dr. H said in class that one argument against Obama's health care reform is that many are skeptical that the Congressional Budget

Office's estimate is accurate that Obama's health care reform plan will avoid raising health care costs.

663. In Ch.4, Dr. H says that Utilitarianism has the slogan "Promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people."

 664. In Ch.4, Dr. H says that Utilitarianism has the slogan "Each person counts for one and only one in calculating the maximum amount of happiness."

 665. In Ch.4, Dr. H says that Utilitarianism has only one slogan.

 666. In Ch.4, Dr. H says Utilitarianism has the slogan: "Democracy is the same as utilitarianism due to one man, one vote."

 667. In Ch.4, Dr. H says the prima facie moral principle of reparation means: right your wrongs; repair the damage that's your fault.

 668. In Ch.4, Dr. H says the prima facie principle of gratitude means: return favors and appreciate the good others do for you.

 669. In Ch.4, Dr. H says the prima facie principle of gratitude means: be an ingrate by always expecting others to do for you what you can do for yourself.

 670. In Ch.4, Dr. H says the prima facie principle of gratitude means: grate on others by always demanding the best from

others, always demanding more and insisting that they do more and never admitting that they have helped you.

671. In Ch.4, Dr. H says the prima facie principle of nonmaleficence means: avoid nonmalevolence by focusing on motivation rather than results.

 672. In Ch.4, Dr. H says the prima facie principle of nonmaleficence means: avoid causing pain or suffering.

673. In Ch.4, Dr. H says the prima facie principle of beneficence is the same as benevolence.

674. In Ch.4, Dr. H says the prima facie principle of nonmaleficence is the same as nonmalevolence.

675. In Ch.4, Dr. H says the prima facie principle of beneficence means benefit others and cause them to be happier.

676. In Ch.4, Dr. H says the prima facie principle of beneficence means promote benevolence only by concerning yourself only with motivation rather than caustion.

677. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that egalitarianism says gratitude is unimportant.

678. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that egalitarianism says gratitutde is important.

679. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that egalitarianism says we should treat relevantly similar cases similarly.

680. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that egalitarianism says we should relevantly different cases differently.

 681. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that egalitarianism says that racism is wrong.

 682. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that egalitarianism says that racism is sometimes permissible.

683. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that egalitarianism says that sexism is sometimes permissible.

684. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that egalitarianism says that sexism is wrong.

685. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that egalitarianism says that discrimination is sometimes morally OK.

686. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that egalitarianism says that discrimination is wrong.

687. In Ch.4. 4, Dr. H writes that egalitarianism says we should prevent innocent people from suffering through no fault of their own.

688. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that egalitarianism says we should allow innocent people to suffer through no fault of their own, to be fair to ourselves in this troubled world.

689. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that egalitarianism says exploitation is taking unfair advantage of an innocent person's predicament.

690. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that egalitarianism says exploitation is taking fair advantage of a guilty person's windfall.

691. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that egalitarianism says exploitation is wrong.

692. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that egalitarianism says exploitation is morally OK so long as it is between consenting adults, one of whom wants to be used by the other.

693. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that egalitarianism says the punishment should fit the crime.

694. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that egalitarianism says the punishment should be proportional to the crime.

695. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that egalitarianism says promises should be kept.

696. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that egalitarianism says promises should be kept controversial.

697. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that egalitarianism says merit should be rewarded.

698. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that egalitarianism says merit need not be rewarded because it is up to the free market to decide what to reward.

699. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that reciprocity is important.

700. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that egalitarianism says reciprocity is unimportant, since it is only fair to follow "every man for himself."

701. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that egalitarianism says promises may morally be lying promises, since it is only fair to follow "Ask me no

questions and I'll tell you no lies" and so it is morally OK to lie to someone who asks you to make a promise.

702. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that liberatarianism says government should be minimal.

703. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that libertarianism says anything between consenting adults is morally permissible.

704. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that "anything between consenting adults is morally permissible" means that doing some things to an adult without his consent, such as punishment, is immoral.

705. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that libertarianism says laissez-faire capitalism is morally required.

706. In Ch.4, Dr. H says laissez-faire capitalism includes caveat emptor.

707. In Ch.4, Dr. H says caveat emptor means "empty the cave of terrorists opposed to capitalism."

708. In Ch.4, Dr. H says that libertarianism accepts caveat emptor.

709. In Ch.4, Dr. H says that libertarianism rejects caveat emptor because emptying the cave of terrorists would require

such a large military that it would violate the libertarian rule against having more than minimal government.

710. In Ch.4, Dr. H says caveat emptor means: "Let the terrorists beware."

711. In Ch.4, Dr. H says caveat emptor means: "Let the illegal immigrants beware."

712. In Ch.4, Dr. H says caveat emptor means: "Let the drug dealers beware."

713. In Ch.4, Dr. H says caveat emptor means: "Let the prostitutes beware."

714. In Ch.4, Dr. H says caveat emptor means: "Let the buyer beware."

715. In Ch.4, Dr. H says caveat emptor means: "Let the bonehead beware."

716.  In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that libertarianism says promises must be kept.

717. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that libertarianism says promises need not be kept.

718. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that libertarianism says fraud is wrong.

719. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that libertarianism says fraud is often morally OK because capitalism is "a game played between big boys"

and because anyone defrauded could have avoided the harm from fraud simply by taking out some insurance against fraud.

720. Dr. H said in class that after watching a Frontline show about Alan Greenspan, Dr. H now thinks that there are some significant

libertarianism who think either that fraud is not wrong or at least that government should be so minimal that it should knowingly allow fraud to occur.

721. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that libertarianism says coercion is wrong except to punish criminals, to defend against an immoral attack and to supervise the mentally incompetent.

722. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that libertarianism says coercion is the deprivation of liberty.

723. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that libertarianism says coercion is the doling out of liberty.

724. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that libertarianism says government should be minimal.

725. In class, Dr. H said that libertarianism often use the slogan of Thomas Jefferson that the government that governs best governs least.

726. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that what libertarianism mean by minimal government is that government should be a nightwatcperson limited

to peacekeeping functions (such as those by the police and the military) enforcing libertarian principles with as little force as possible.

727. In class, Dr. H said many libertarians think the USA should have no standing army.

728. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that utilitarianism requires us to maximize happiness for everyone in the long run.

729. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that the basic and only value of utilitarianism is utility.

730. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that utility is also called happiness.

731. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that utility is also called welfare.

732. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that utility is also called well-being.

733. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that utility is also called flourishing.

734. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that libertarianism says that private property is important.

735. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that under libertarianism there would be no welfare state.

736. In Ch.4, Dr. H writes that under libertarianism there would be no government food stamps.

 737. In Ch.5, Dr. H says that Michael Kinsley once worked for Ralph Nader.

 738. In Ch.5, Dr. H says that Michael Kinsley never worked for Ralph Nader.

 739. In Ch.5, Dr. H says that Ralph Nader is a socialist.

  740.  In Ch.5, Dr. H says David Frost is a socialist.

  741. In Ch.5, Dr. H defines socialism as private ownership of the means of production.

  742.  In Ch.5, Dr. H defines socialism as private ownership of the ends of production.

  743.  In Ch.5, Dr. H defines socialism as government ownership of the means of production.

  744.  In Ch.5, Dr. H defines socialism as government ownership of the ends of production.

  745.  In Ch.5, Dr. H gives factories and farms as examples of the means of production.

  746.  In Ch.5, Dr. H gives factories and farms as examples of the ends of production.

  747.  In Ch.5, Dr. H gives factories and farms as examples of socialism, since all factories and farms are socialist.

  748.  In Ch.5, Kinsley says Henry James captured Ralph Nader in his (Henry James's) 1886 novel The Bostonians.

  749.  In Ch.5, Kinsley suggests that Nader is a social reformer.

  750.  In Ch.5, Kinsley suggests that Nader opposes social reform generally.

 751.  In Ch.5, Kinsley says Nader may be softening a little with age.

 752.  In Ch.5, Kinsley says Nader is a normal person.

753.  In Ch.6, Dr. H says that John Stuart Mill was one of the founders of utilitarianism.

754.  In Ch.6, John Stuart Mill makes no argument by analogy.

755.  In Ch.7, Dr. H accepts all 11 objections to utilitarianism.

756.  In Ch.8, John Hospers argues that not everyone is in favor of liberty.

757.  In Ch.9, Hugh LaFollette argues that libertarianism limits liberty.

758. In Ch.10, Benito Mussolini says that fascism is against individualism.

759.  In Ch.11, Feinberg says the egalitarianism is just plain common sense rather than a revolutionary idea in the history of thought.

760.  In Ch.12, the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, from 1948, states that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. 

761.  In Ch.18, Dr. H says that diversity in education and employment was a pro for affirmative action in Powell's reasoning in the Bakke case.

762.  In Ch.19, Michael Kinsley says it is becoming accepted that some other developments of the past fifteen years have turned more liberals into former liberals than the development of affirmative action.

763. In Ch.20,  Dr. H notes that Shelby Steele supports some forms of affirmative action.

764In Ch.21, Dr. H notes that Lisa H. Newton commits no fallacies in her arguments about affirmative action.

765In Ch.23, the Associated Press reports that women and blacks were charged higher prices than those charged for white men for

similar or identical goods or services.

766.  In Ch.26, Marc J. Dollinger suggests that an important method for understanding the ethics of Japanese management is the systematic study of its Confucian traditions and the writing of Confucius.

767.  In Ch.27, Nicholas Schaffner reports that a radio station (KLUE) that was boycotting The Beatles -- over a remark The Beatles' John 

Lennon made about Jesus -- was knocked off the air by lightning during the boycott.

768.  In Ch.28, Phil Rosenthal reports that the rock group Guns N' Roses put on one of its albums a song written by Charles Manson (who had years before been convicted in California of conspiracy to commit murder).

769.  In Ch.29, Ronald Duncan says that merit is always recognized because it's just plain common sense that, as two common sayings go,  "the cream always rises to the top" and "you can't keep a good man down."

770.  In Ch.30, Christina Hoff Sommers questions or rejects the statistic that domestic battery of women rises by 40% on Super Bowl Sunday.

771.  In Ch.31, Anne Fausto-Sterling says Western culture is not committed to the idea that there are only two sexes.

772.  In Ch.32, the Associated Press reports that at least one million babies each year died due to bottle-feeding occurring instead of breast-feeding in the Third World.

773.  In Ch.33, Dr. H notes that manufacterers of breast implants set aside $4.2 billion as a part of a class-action settlement with many women who have suffered as a result of using the implants.

774.  In Ch.34,  Dr. H notes that the magazine Playboy claims to be a feminist publication.

775.  In Ch.35, F. M. Christensen believes that pornography is evil in itself. 

776.  In Ch.36,  Silvers and Harwood report that Mary Beth Whitehead was contractually due to be paid $10,000 for bearing the child of a man who was not her husband.

777.  In Ch.38, William F. Buckley Jr. argues that the Women's Movement has been disastrous.

778.  In Ch.39,  Linda Nicholson quotes Aristotle as saying that the courage of a man is shown in commanding and the courage of a woman is shown in obeying.

779.  In Ch.53, Dr. H argues for inheritance taxes.

780. In Ch.54, Sylvia Nasar reports that Adam Smith said "Greed is good."

781.  In Ch.56, Bertell Ollman says that Karl Marx's study of capitalism was grounded in a philosophy that was materialist.

782. Ch.58, Leslie Stevenson says that Karl Marx lived in London as a rich man.

 783.  In Ch.49,  Sissela Bok says trade secrecy is the most frequent claim made by those who want to protect secrets in business.

784.  In Ch.98, Rush Limbaugh says "there is no reason to believe in global warming."

785. In Ch.102, William Wise documents how the Killer Smog of 1952 killed 4,000 people in London in only 4 days.

786. In Ch.50,  Doug Vaughan says that the CIA has always spied on foreign governments and corporations for the benefit of of U.S.-based companies.

787. In Ch.104, the authors conclude that Silicon Valley is sitting on a toxic time bomb and that

no one knows when it is set to go off, and that certainly not enough is being done to defuse it.

788. In Ch.105, Denis Hayes says commercial nuclear power is viable only under social conditions of absolute stability and predictability

yet the mere existence of fissile materials undermines the security that nuclear technology requires

789. In Ch. 51, Joseph H. Kupfer argues that libertarianism shows that employers in the private sector should be lawfully allowed to

use genetic screening in the workplace without any governmental restrictions

790. In Ch.52, Andrew Sullivan endorses gay radicalism

791In Ch.52, Andrew Sullivan endorses gay radicalism

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

FAQ14: What are 188 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), pp. 28-29.

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 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, 4/22/96, p. 24.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 14

“For as he himself [Hume] realized, the idea that men have no natural need of metaphysical consolation assumes that they find nothing problematic about human nature [emphasis added]. Yet both his Natural History of Religion and Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion argue that the need for religious consolation arises in human history precisely because we are unreconciled to what we are, and seek through religion to explain the pain of our own natures [emphasis added].

Those who see the hand of Providence in the economy of human nature would have to explain [emphasis added], he wrote, why the human species ‘is of all others the most necessitous and the most deficient in bodily advantages; without Cloaths, without Arms, without [end of p. 95] Food and Lodging, without any Convenience of Life, except what they owe to their own skill and industry’. In other species, need is in equilibrium with habitat. The lion’s strength, the lamb’s meekness, are finely adjusted to their respective appetites and habitat, while man’s reach fatally exceeds his grasp.” – Michael Ignatieff, The Needs of Strangers: An Essay on Privacy, Solidarity and the Politics of Being Human (New York: Penguin Books, 1984), pp. 95-96, quoting David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and the Natural History of Religion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), p. 237.

This is the last entry in Ignatieff’s book under the heading of ‘human nature.’ Hume is probably my favorite philosopher. This quote is a splendid springboard to discussing Freud’s view of religion, which seems similar to Hume’s view of religion described above. Human nature seems to have created God in its own image, out of need to explain the pain.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 15: “Bosch’s reflection centered on a problem intrinsic to all Christian metaphysics: whether spiritual need forms part of the natural yearnings of unredeemed human nature [emphasis added]. There had always been two polar positions on this issue – the Pelagian and the Augustinian. The heresy of Pelagius, a late-fourth-century Roman Briton, maintains that human nature was created with a capacity to redeem itself [emphasis added], to merit salvation and Grace by acts of its own will, and that human evil is an encrustation of habit and history which devout men could cleanse away by ascetic practice.” – Michael Ignatieff, The Needs of Strangers: An Essay on Privacy, Solidarity and the Politics of Being Human (New York: Penguin Books, 1984), p. 72.

Brainstorm: this is a splendid springboard for you to discuss your ideas of merit and the major issue of whether human nature is fundamentally good, evil or mixed.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 16:

“The disobedience of the flesh, Augustine wrote, is God’s punishment for man’s disobedience in the Garden. It is not the corruptible flesh that makes the soul sinful; it is the sinful soul that makes the flesh corruptible. Because we desired to know good and evil, we are fated ever after to know our bodies only as evil: to be ashamed of our nakedness, to seek covering, and to understand the good as the unremitting struggle of will against natural desire.



When Jesus was fasting in the desert for forty days and forty nights, the tempter came to him and taunted him: ‘If thou be the son of God, command that these stones be made bread.’ Jesus replied with words which became the foundation of the Christian anthropology of human nature [emphasis added]: ‘It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God’ (Matthew 4.4).” – Michael Ignatieff, The Needs of Strangers: An Essay on Privacy, Solidarity and the Politics of Being Human (New York: Penguin Books, 1984), p. 61.

Brainstorm: Here’s another splendid springboard that might help you improve your thinking on Christianity.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 17: “ Philosophers have called man the political animal, the language maker, the tool maker, the rational animal, even the laughing animal. To define man in this way is to define what it means to be human in terms of the best in us. And the worst? On the heath, where men have only their flesh in common, some men treat the flesh of their brothers as so much meat.



“A language of human needs understands human beings as being naturally insufficient, incomplete, at the mercy of nature and of each other. It is an account that begins with what is absent.

This sense of what it is to be human has its origins in the religious idea of sin. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, human nature was treated not as a fact or as a bundle of potentialities, but as a problem. How, Jews and Christians have asked, is man’s fate as a creature of need to be reconciled with the ideal of the goodness of God? Why is man condemned to scarcity, toil, suffering and death? Why is he a creature of need and not of plenitude, of lack, rather than fullness, of homelessness rather than belonging?

Genesis 3.9-19, the story of Adam’s punishment, identifies man’s fall in his desire to have more than he needs, in the hubris that would not be content with the fullness of Paradise. Every account of human beings as needing creatures since has had to return to Paradise, to the state of nature, to account for this tragic loss of plenitude. If human nature had been content with plenitude, it would have had no history, only the bliss of a permanent present [emphasis added]. Instead, we ate from the tree of knowledge [end of p. 57] and were expelled from the garden. Our nature was forced, by our sin, to have a history, and the history of our needs has been tragic: the toil and suffering of Adam’s curse.



Augustine devoted his attention to one question above all: the nature of sexuality in Paradise. How did Adam and Eve manage to obey the divine commandment to increase and multiply, without themselves committing the sin of lust? The Manichean sect, whose doctrines troubled Augustine in his outh, maintained that evil was incarnated in human desire [compare the four noble truths of Buddhism]; the Platonists likewise believed that the good was present only in the spirit. To reflect upon sex in Paradise [emphasis added], therefore, was to define what attitude a Christian ought to take towards the desires of the body.” – Michael Ignatieff, The Needs of Strangers: An Essay on Privacy, Solidarity and the Politics of Being Human (New York: Penguin Books, 1984), pp. 57-58.

Note that Ignatieff blurs the distinction between human nature and human condition here by stressing the lack or impoverishment we experience.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 18: “A tablet in Winchester Cathedral tells us how portions of that vast and beautiful building had begun to sink alarmingly into the mud of an insecure foundation. The walls sank visibly, and would in time threaten to tumble upon the worshipers. Who, thought the architect, is an expert in mud? … A fundamental overhauling of our international politics is assuredly imperative; but the weakness of human nature needs study, too – bitterness, jealousy, hate, sense of interiority, overweening pride, lust for power over the lives of others, together with the economic and social weaknesses which underlie the political. [emphasis added] Into the mud of [end of p. 3] pathological human relationships the lofty edifice of international understanding has dangerously sunk. Like the architect at Winchester, we shall seek in this volume to find divers, experts in mud, trained in the process of making clean and sound the psychological foundations of the relations of men.” – Gardner Murphy in Gardner Murphy et al., Human Nature and Enduring Peace (Houghton Mifflin Co., 1945), pp. 3-4.

Note to students: This passage suggests that we are getting our hands dirty in exploring all relevant aspects of human nature. Some of the above quote provides a small checklist of vices or weaknesses that you should devote index entries and a paragraph or section to somewhere in your thinking on human nature. You might also have something at the start or end of your term paper that uses the metaphor of mud or getting our hands dirty in the nitty gritty of human nature.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 19: “The most formidable enemy of an enlightened humanism is not science or technology, for as we have seen in the foregoing chapters, they are its spiritual allies. The real antithesis to humanism is much more insidious: it is the current of anti-intellectualism whose force runs as directly counter to humanism as it does to science. An adequate defense against anti-intellectualism in the name of both human ism and science must rest on the understanding of the respective roles of intellect and emotion in the humanistic ideal of personal and social life. Our logical starting oint, therefore, is an analysis of these two factors in human personality.

It is customary to divide human nature into two parts [emphasis added], the cognitive part and the motor-affective part. … [end p. 70] The broad difference between these two groups of mental acts lies in the fact that the one is neutral, whereas the other is partisan. The one is symbolized by the ‘head,’ the other by the ‘heart.’ … For the sake of verbal simplicity the one will be referred to as ‘intellect,’ and the other as ‘emotion.’

The question of anti-intellectualism might be dismissed briefly by claiming that the very statement of the question begs the question. For what faculty is to weight the counterclaims of the intellect and anti-intellect if not the intellect itself? … This ‘cerebro-centric’ predicament does not, however, settle the question.” Ralph Barton Perry, The Humanity of Man (George Braziller, Inc., 1956), pp. 70-71.

You might contrast this bifurcation of human nature with the tripartite division of human nature in Plato and Freud. The old but nice phrasing of the contrast between head and heart should find its way into your thinking somewhere if you haven’t used it already. It’s useful for students first to try to wrap their minds around the distinction with more familiar or simpler language than one finds in Plato or Freud, which one can best consider later.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 20: Use some of many possible quotes from the following book by Gardner Murphy et al. called Human Nature and Enduring Peace (Houghton Mifflin Co., 1945), 475pp. Part 4 of the book has about 4 articles on establishing a world order that may help your thinking on cosmopolitanism, too.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 21: “’… The so-called science of human nature or of the human mind resolves itself into history … But there is one sense in which I should agree that the resolution of a science of mind into history means renouncing part of what a science of mind commonly claims, and I think falsely. The mental scientist, believing in a universal and therefore unalterable truth of his conclusions, thinks that the account he gives of mind holds good of all future stages in mind’s history: he thinks that his science shows what mind will always be, not only what it has been in the past and is now.’ [quoting Collingwood, Idea of History (1946), page unspecified in Nott]

That may or may not be a fair description of a typical psychologist’s attitude to mental process. But it is a valid statement of what the problems are for a philosopher, whether he recognizes them or not. Idealism nowadays, with ‘metaphysics’, is largely ‘out’ and both philosophers and psychologists are chary of treating ‘mind’ and ‘human nature’ as entities. That distrust originated historically, for ourselves, in the Cartesian split between Thought and Extension, Mind and Body or Matter, which resulted in bestowing a preferential ‘reality’ on Matter or Body. Body is what can be dealt with by the methods of physics and mathematics – which have been so much more successful than other studies or speculations in producing and repeating their results.

It is no wonder then that many philosophers should incline towards a behaviouristic psychology – or at least to leaving such concepts as ‘human nature’ and ‘mind’ out of account. But it may be that they resist these concepts because they unconsciously assume that the mechanical and quantifiable provides an absolute standard of ‘reality’; and the ‘body’ – in Cartesian language, Extension – becomes the standard to which what Russell calls ‘mindlike events’ ought to conform or to approximate. And psychology then, as Collingwood among others has proposed, becomes respectable only in so far as it approximates to physical science. [end of p. 39]

Collingwood, while expressly denying that they [‘human nature’ and ‘mind’] are fixed unalterable entities, shows at least that it is possible, indeed necessary, to treat psychological conceptions as human functions. As functions, or activities, mind and human nature must also be seen as in indissoluble, if changing relation with their environment: and also as their own subjective history. It is true, of course, that most psychological schools make some attempt to study their cases historically – we have become what we are. And the philosopher who is historically-minded will reflect on his own mental or subjective history, as well as on the history of his study – his own and other men’s minds. That kind of philosopher will be less inclined to think of philosophy as approximating to a science and more to look on it as a self-reflexive art. Moreover, from that type of philosophical mind an ethical interest seems inseparable.” – Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), pp. 39-40.

This is the last of the index entries under ‘human nature’ in Nott’s book. The last paragraph or so of this quote bears on the major issue of whether human nature is fixed or flexible. I should have noted this for the quote I emailed earlier about Nowell-Smith’s point about how changeable ethics and human nature are. You can argue that her analysis is dated here, since postulating entities such as human nature and mind are no longer ‘out’ or ‘unfashionable’ and philosophers and even scientists no longer seem to be so chary or chary at all in postulating the existence of such entities. This might be one result of the mapping of the Human Genome, which makes understanding human nature as a distinct entity pretty straightforward and scientific.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 22: “We all use the expression [‘human nature’] in both of these ways [described in a quote by Nott elsewhere on this website]. But it matters that we should be clear, in whatever the context may be, which one we mean. Ordinary people in casual discourse when they use the [end of p. 53] expression ‘human nature’ are often vague. Novelist perhaps use it less often but can also be vague when they do. … Mostly these users of the expression, whether casual or specialized, are quick to recognize too what does not come in the category, either because it is extra-human or anti-human.



Their language when it is informative or revealing on however small a scale usually begins with particular people and particular situations: ‘I reckon old Tom Jones shouldn’t have slung his hook like he did. But what with that wife of his he was about at the end of his tether. It’s only human nature.’

Colloquially ‘human nature’, when it means anything, is used as a concrete-universal. …

Like a great many of our concepts and ideas it belongs to practice and use; it is understood without definition in particular situations of communal exchange.



Nowell-Smith allows for ‘psychology’ as part of the matrix of ethics. He also remarks that our psychological understanding is always developing, and then [end of p. 54] deduces that both ‘human nature’ and ethics must change and adapt their meaning. Unfortunately, philosophers, like other specialists and like laymen, are comparatively careless, or at least too easily influenced, about which psychology is the correct one to adopt. That might mean assuming that a really human science is finally attainable. But in practice, as we said, there seem to be too many ‘human sciences’ competing for the right to the human definition.” – Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), pp. 53-55.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 23: “ There is another way in which Nowell-Smith admits or appears to admit that ethical philosophy cannot be exclusive and abstract:
‘… moral theories which attempt to exclude all consideration of human nature as it is do not even begin to be moral theories.’

But ‘human nature’ itself demands semantic analysis of the sort that Nowell-Smith has been giving to words in usage; and historical and practical analysis too. For it has been meant in the past very differently from the ways in which it is now often meant. Moreover, for a long eriod it was defined within fairly narrow limits in a particular way which was also broadly accepted over the known world. Finally, in our own times it is used in at least two ways which are sharply contrasted; the one you adopt will markedly and essentially influence your choice of an ethical philosophy.

When you used the expression ‘human nature’, do you refer to the individual human being, solitary, in his greater or lesser self-awareness, or in his immediate relations, familial or casual? If so, do you imagine this being as recognizable in his appearance and behaviour; unique, yet like other people with whom you are acquainted or familiar? Has he at least the particular reality of a well-known character in a novel?

On the other hand, when you refer to ‘human nature’ do you refer to something both collective and abstract, a kind of Highest Common Factor which isnot descriptive of any particular human being as that one being did, does or might exist in fact or fiction; but which can be identified rather as what has been said or written in the most general way about the typical and common behaviour of Homo Sapiens – ‘Man’?” – Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), p. 53.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 24: “Moreover, since there is no essential human nature, we are what we are, not according to a plan or a pattern, but as turning up in a situation or a series of situations. Nevertheless, even in a series of situations there is often a pattern to be discovered. There are inexorable laws of behaviour which can even be predicted, by Sartre, if by no one else. So we might reasonably call this human nature [emphasis added] too, except that we wear it, crustaceanwise, outside.

The social answer to the moral and humanly prognostic problem posed by this Hobbesian view [emphasis added] must be either an authoritarian or a collectivistic one (these may turn out to be hardly distinguishable). The individual has to be protected in civil society from his natural and reciprocated enmity for his kind. Sartre became a neo-Marxian and goes for the collectivistic solution. In adopting the Marxian view and interpretation of history, although in a much more abstract form, and without the Marxian attention to past and contemporary detail, Sartre produces an odd sort of anthropology, which does not seem more genuinely historical than Freud’s primal patricide, with which doctrine it has some analogy, at least as a structural psychology. Freud diagnosed an Oedipus complex as the nucleus of human sexual guilt and malaise, and speculated that it had a historical cause, an actual aetiology, in murder, by the strong young men, of the old man of the tribe who up till then had monopolized the women [this should get the attention of students = sex and violence]. But that assumes the racial unconscious, and if that is a premises we cannot accept, we need not even begin to accept anything that follows. Sartre does not accept any unconscious process, a fortiori not a racial one, but he feels the same need as Freud to deal in origins, to give an account of the fact that we are social beings, and as far back as anyone can tell have construceted a social life – a fact which, on Sartre’s psycho-ontology of mutual antagonism, is at least odd. The Group arose, according to Sartre, as a defence against [end of p. 124] external terror [emphasis added] from other and presumably still more alien groups. The Group was held together by the oath, which seems to have been not much more than a recognition that I, the individual member, will be worse off outside the Group than in it. That is produced merely as an example of Sartre’s ahistorical attitude. It is important because the arguments which some evolutionists, zoologists and some schools of psychology produce today favour some sort of spontaneous cooperation as natural to living organisms, and particularly to human beings.” – Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), pp. 124-125.

Brainstorm: There are a lot of useful ideas here. There is a link between Hobbes and Sartre, two of your subjects, with which you can agree or disagree with Nott or just introduce for the reader’s consideration. There is a more extensive comparison and contrast between Sartre and Freud that I found very helpful. Further, she ends by suggesting there is scientific evidence in evolutionary theory, zoology and psychology for the natural spontaneous cooperation in humans that Campbell/Schopenhauer noted as a spontaneous metaphysical realization by a human who identifies even with a stranger. Further, her points about terror and the Group seem very relevant and helpful for use in your cosmopolitanism paper/book. The issue of who is better grounded in history and science, Freud or Sartre, seems a good issue for you to discuss more and one Nott raises above.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 25: “One of the important explanations is a dogmatic anti-abstractionism which refuses to allow that some general concepts, for example human nature, have a real descriptive and functional force, and can be and often are used in the common usage of common people in a way that shows that they know what they mean and are speaking within a matrix of diurnal experience. But human nature is a concept with which Sartre will have nothing to do. It is a bourgeois idealist abstraction, like love, etc. [emphasis added] But if human nature describes nothing but an idealist abstraction, where then are we to look for the continuity which constitutes, as most of us are sure, our human being? It may be that the self is learned; it may be a form of habit; but it can be a habit criticised by memory comparing its past with its present, and always trying to extricate itself from falling asleep in unconscious automatisms. If that is not a possibility, where is our choice, our responsibility and our freedom?” – Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), p. 119.

This obviously helps thinking on Sartre. Nott puts her point more boldly than others making the point of Sartre’s rejection of human nature. She puts a key concept in the same category as love, which should connect with students. Nott says more about Sartre elsewhere as I recall. She introduces a new ism. But “a matrix of diurnal experience” from the quote is not likely to connect with many students either. ‘bourgeois’ of course introduces Marxist jargon, but some of that seems unavoidable if one is to explain Sartre’s views.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 26: “To take an extreme example, both Plato and Aristotle started from concrete conceptions of human interest, need and behavior. Moreover, Plato used a form of argument, the maieutic dialogue, which was not only valuable for clarifying misconceptions, contradictions and mis-statements on the spot, but which drew into the discussion of a probable situation, characters of a probable and representative kind.



When I said that Collingwood’s historical idea of philosophy also implied some concept of a human nature and mind, I did not deny that this was in a strictly philosophical and impersonal sense. One thing which is characteristically human about human mind is that it can look before and after – must do so, indeed.” -- Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), p. 43.

Brainstorm: This would be useful in a student paper on Aristotle, who searches for what is distinctively or characteristically human. It also fits well into a student paper on women on human nature.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 27: “The behaviorist allows no room for ‘human nature’ even as a functional concept while he treats human behaviour as an adaptable engineering product. Clearly the behavioristic psychology has no useful bearing on the immediate subject of discussion, the nature and validity of moral judgment considered as essentially dependent on individual freedom and responsibility. If you cannot locate the [end of p. 57] human person, it is impossible to give any idea how he could be responsibly free.” -- Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), pp. 57-58.

Brainstorm: you might take behaviorism’s side here against Nott or use Nott as an ally against behaviorism. I find behaviorism hard to believe and -- ironically -- even harder to use to ground my behavior.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 28: “Obviously it is going to be more difficult in the description of human ‘nature’ or ‘behaviour’ to leave out personal bias, or the more deceptive bias of ‘schools’, let alone to decide among phenomena, what is what. The psychologies in short have not gone through their taxonomical state – they have not arrived at an agreed system of definition so that we know exactly what the terms they use are supposed to refer to. Hence for the most part they badly need a shave with Occam’s razor – they proliferate entities.” – Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), p. 59.

Brainstorm: this might fit into a discussion of science in your chapter on Darwin or in a section/chapter on women on human nature.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 29: “I understand the only basic law of human nature: love walks, money talks.” – from White Hot: The Mysterious Murder of Thelma Todd (1991), starring Loni Anderson, Lawrence Pressman, and Scott Paulin.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 30: "We would surely be something important about our own nature if we refused to face up to the fact that hallucinations are part of being human. However, none of this makes hallucinations part of an external rather than an internal reality. Five to ten percent of us are extremely suggestible, able to move at a command into a deep hypnotic trance. Roughly ten percent of Americans report having seen one or more ghosts. This is more than the number who allegedly remember being abducted by aliens, about the same as the number who've reported seeing one or more UFOs, and less than the number who in the last week of Richard Nixon's Presidency -- before he resigned to avoid impeachement -- thought he was doing a good-to-excellent job as President. At least 1 percent of all of us is schizophrenic. This amounts to over 50 million schizophrenics on the planet, more than the population of, say, England” -- Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (New York: Random House, 1996), p. 107.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 31: “We would surely be something important about our own nature if we refused to face up to the fact that hallucinations are part of being human. However, none of this makes hallucinations part of an external rather than an internal reality. Five to ten percent of us are extremely suggestible, able to move at a command into a deep hypnotic trance. Roughly ten percent of Americans report having seen one or more ghosts. This is more than the number who allegedly remember being abducted by aliens, about the same as the number who've reported seeing one or more UFOs, and less than the number who in the last week of Richard Nixon's Presidency -- before he resigned to avoid impeachement -- thought he was doing a good-to-excellent job as President. At least 1 percent of all of us is schizophrenic. This amounts to over 50 million schizophrenics on the planet, more than the population of, say, England” -- Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (New York: Random House, 1996), p. 107.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 32: "[Alison]Jagger identifies abstract individualism as the theory of human nature which underlies liberal political philosophy. I think we can assume that this theory provides a foundation for ethical theory as well. Abstract individualism is the view that essential human characteristics are properties of individuals and are given independently of the social context. This theory, as Jaggar describes it, is committed to the following claims.
1. Rationality is a mental capacity of individuals rather than groups and is possessed in approximately equal measure by all humans, though this capacity can be more or less developed.
2. Rationality is our most valuable capacity.
3. Each individual is intrinsically valuable because of this ability to reason.
4. Each human's desires can in principle be fulfilled separately from the desires of other humans.
5. People typicallly seek to maximize their individual self-interest.
6. Resources for fulfilling desires are limited.
7. Because of the value of rationality and the existence of scarcity and desires to possess certain goods, autonomy is protected by the good society.
One can argue about whether Jaggar has accurately described liberal political and moral philosophy here, but even if we grant that the picture is overdrawn, a version of it undergirds Kantian and utilitarian moral theories. We can see how this conception supports Kantian ethics with its emphasis on duty. If one is unconnected to others, and basically self-interested, no other motivation to be moral could exist." ~ Rita Catherine Manning, Speaking from the Heart (Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1992), p. 66. Harwood's Helpful Hint: Does Manning's assumption in her second sentence of this quote violate Hume's doctrine concerning the is/ought gap?

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 33: “The revival of barbarism in two world wars has made us bitterly conscious of man’s inhumanity to man. With the memory of its variously motivated horrors, from Hiroshima to Buchenwald, fresh in our minds, it may seem a cynical complacency to speak of the moral nature of man. Some have seen in this dark history evidence that his alleged moral nature is an illusion. Man, they say, is only an intelligent beast. His motivations are little more than hunger, lust, and far. His civilization is merely a cunning way of satisfying his animal wants and pleasantly stimulating his mind. And when it fails him he goes back to the ways of the beast and the barbarian, rendered only more terrible by the knowledge and skill he has acquired. Others, holding a conviction that the Author of man and nature is supremely powerful and good, see in man’s sinfulness a depravity worse than the blind passion of the beast. To them it is a lapse from perfection that his in it something demonic. It betrays a canker in man’s soul that must ultimately defeat his every effort at genuine improvement of the social order. Sensitively sharing in the sense of collective guilt involved in the sins of all, they abase themselves and mankind before the Creator, feeling, paradoxically (for their minds rejoice in paradox), that they honor God by emphasizing the baseness of the creature He has made in His image. Heroically but hopelessly they turn from their [end of p. 3] devotions to the duties of the daily task, to overcome evil and better the lot of their fellows, saddened and hampered, if not dispirited, by the conviction that, since Paradise was lost, man is condemned to the labors of Sisyphus, to roll the stone of progress up the hill, knowing that it will surely roll down again – or roll down another valley, requiring to be rolled up an equally difficult hill.
It is the thesis of this book that both these philosophies of human nature are untrue. … It is the contention of this book that the moral nature of man, if adequately understood, gives grounds not for incautious optimism or for pessimistic despair, but for rational faith and hope.” – A. Campbell Garnett, The Moral Nature of Man: A Critical Evaluation of Ethical Principles (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1952), pp. 3-4.

My brainstorm here is that Garnett’s book is remarkably well-written and remarkably free of the minimizing or dismissing of morality found so often in the 1950s due to the influence of the verificationists, emotivists and many who overemphasized linguistic philosophy. His following of Aristotle's Golden Mean in moderating between the two extremes noted above seems roughly right on whether man is by nature mostly good, mostly bad or mostly mixed. Garnett seems to be somewhere between mostly mixed and mostly good.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 34: “On Westwood Boulevard in Los Angeles, just off the University of California campus, the street is jammed at lunchtime. The tones of all humanity flow past, faces from Santa Monica, Singapore, and Senegal, a stroboscopic stream of light and dar. Notwithstanding such contrasts in appearance, comparisons of our DNA show that human populations are continuous, one blending into the next, like the spectrum of our [end p. 53] skin coloring. We all carry the same genes for skin color, but our genes responded differently to changes in solar intensity as bands of Homo sapiens migrated away from the unrelenting sun of the equator.
Still, it seems to be human nature to assign types to our fellow humans and then make judgments based on those types.” – Jeff Wheelwright, “Finland’s Fascinating Genes,” 26 Discover #4, April 2005, pp. 53-54, emphasis in bold underlining added; italics in original.

My brainstorm here is that the first bit undermines the claim that the IQ difference between black-skinned people and white-skinned people is a genetic difference. The phenotype of skin color involves “the same genes.” So genes for skin color are unable to make the difference, since they are the same. Further, we are unable to correlate genes for black skin with lower IQ scores, since “We all carry the same genes for skin color …” So there is no genetic difference for skin color to allow for different correlations at the genetic level. The correlation is at the level of phenotype rather than genotype.

My further brainstorm is that the last sentence about human nature seems true. Thomas S. Kuhn’s point about how it is our nature to pick out types, which he makes in his books The Essential Tension and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, support the last sentence of the quote above.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 35: “It’s human nature to want to believe.” – Gary Mangiacopra, Cryptozoologist, interviewed on the show “History’s Mysteries: Monsters of the Sea,” hosted by former NBC newsman Arthur Kent, History Channel (2001).

My brainstorm here is that gullibility does seem to be a surprisingly large part of human nature.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 36: “[Hume] asked exactly Atran’s question’concerning the origin of religion in human nature’, and explained the prevalence of religion in terms of how the minds works. On the first page he says you cannot explain it directly by an ‘original instinct or primary impression of nature’ (read innate module, if you will). Instead, his account uses the anthropology of his day – ‘if travelers and historians may be credited’, as he sagely puts it, also on the first page. He deploys his own ideas about the various mental faculties characteristic of the human mind, and also addresses a topic Atran skirst: why polytheism appears to precede theism [sic, monotheism] in history.

I am not foolishly saying that we have made no advance on the Edinburgh Enlightenment, or the deluge of natural histories of man and his habits written around 1750. But Hume was definitely not ‘mindblind’. Atran’s landscape of the mind should be regarded as speculative natural history like that of Buffon and Hume. Present it in terms of modules and evolutionary conjectures if you will, but it remains a descriptive geography of human nature, and not what we have come in the sciences to call an explanatory theory.” – Ian Hacking, “Mindblind,” 26 London Review of Books #20, October 21, 2004, pp. 15-16, p. 16. Hacking concludes his review with the quote above. He’s reviewing Scott Atran, In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion (Oxford UP, 2002); emphasis added in bold.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 37: “Were we totally certain of our survival after death, or of our extinction at death, religion would be functionless [according to Schopenhauer]. Moreover, it is not only in our anxiety to continue existing that we exhibit ourselves as manifestations of Will. We also do so in the way that we devote ourselves to continuing the species; sexual passion overrides all our impulses to avoid suffering and responsibility. Yet the pleasures of passionate love are momentary and vanishing compared with the troubles it brings upon us. We may rationalize our pursuit of various ends and claim to find good in achieving them; the truth is, we are what we are constituted by the blind strivings of Will, and our thinking cannot alter anything about us.

So seriously does Schopenhauer take this that he treats our entire personality as given from the outset. What we are essentially is Will, and unalterable Will. No experience, no reflection, no learning, can alter what we are. Our character is fixed, our motives are determined. It follows that traditional morality and traditional moral philosophy are founded on a mistake, the mistake of supposing that moral lprecepts can alter conduct, whether our own or that of others. What, then, can moral philosophy do? It can explain the moral valuations which we do in fact make by an analysis of human nature.

If we carry through such an analysis, we discover three basic motives in human nature. The first is our old friend self-interest. On this Schopenhauer has little original to say. The second, however, is the fruit of acute observation. It is malice. Schopenhauer observed, as perhaps no previous philosopher or psychologist had done, the gratuitous character of malice. We do not harm others only when and in order that we may benefit ourselves. And when [end of p. 221] others undergo misfortunes our pleasure in their misfortunes is unconnected with any thought of our own self-interest. Ut is pure pleasure: ‘For man is th eonly animal which causes pain to others without any further purpose than just to cause it. Other animals never do it except to satisfy their hunger, or in the rage of combat.’ The appalling record of human life, of the suffering and infliction of pain, is releaved only when the third motive, sympathy or compassion, appears. …

In the moment of compassion we extinguish self-will. We cease to strive for our own existence; we are relieved from the burden of individuality and we cease to be the plaything of Will. …

A first reaction to Schopenhauer must always be perhaps to note the contrast between the brilliance of his observations of human nature (which go far beyond anything I have suggested) and the arbitrary system-building in which those observations are embedded. He stands out among philosophers by his insistence upon the all-pervasive character of pain and suffering in human life to date. But this general pessimism is as unilluminating as it is striking. Because for him these evils arise from existence as such, he is unable to give any accurate account of them in their historical context; all epochs and states of affairs, all societies, and all projects are equally infected by evil. But he provides an important corrective to the easy liberal optimism of so much of nineteenth-century life; and those who reacted against that optimism find Schopenhauer a seminal influence. Certainly he was this upon Nietzsche.” – Alasdair MacIntyre, A Short History of Ethics (New York: Macmillan, 1966), pp. 221-222, emphasis added.

Note: Schopenhauer stakes out interesting positions on the key issues of whether human nature is more good than evil, whether human nature is more rational than emotional/passionate, and whether human nature is more fixed than flexible.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 38: “The simple, central, powerful concept in Rousseau is that of a human nature which is overlaid and distorted by existing social and political institutions, but whose authentic wants and needs [end of p. 183] provide us with a basis for morals and a measure of the corruption of social institutions. His concept of human nature is far more sophisticated than that of other writers who have appealed to an original human nature; for Rousseau does not deny that human nature has a history, that it can be and is often transformed, so that new desires and motives appear. … [N]atural man is moved by self-love, but self-love is not inconsistent with feelings of sympathy and compassion. … Rousseau is well aware of what Hobbes seems not to know, that human desires are elicited by being presented with objects of desire; and natural man is presented with few desirable objects. ‘The only goods he acknowledges in the world are food, a woman, and sleep; the only ills he fears are pain and hunger.’ … Natural man, following his impulses of need and occasional sympathy, is good and not evil. The Christian doctrine of original sin is as false as the Hobbesian doctrine of nature.” – Alasdair MacIntyre, A Short History of Ethics (New York: Macmillan, 1966), pp. 183-184, emphasis added.

The above is well-written and explores the key issues of whether human nature is more fixed or more flexible and whether human nature is more good than evil or vice versa.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 39: “But how do we decide between them [the moral theories of Hobbes, the Greeks and Christianity and various combinations of them]? Clearly to lay down some logical form as the form of the moral judgment and to rule out others as illegitimate would itself be an arbitrary and illegitimate procedure. But what we can do is to note the theory of human nature and of the physical universe presupposed by each different view; and if we do so the superiority of the Greek view – at least in its Aristotelian form – to either of its rivals appears plain – on at least two counts in respect of Christianity, and on at least one as regards the ‘actions whose consequences will be most desirable’ view.” – Alasdair MacIntyre, A Short History of Ethics (New York: Macmillan, 1966), p. 148, emphasis in original except for the bold on ‘human nature’.

I tend to agree that Aristotle’s moral theory beats the moral theories of Hobbes and traditional Christianity. I also agree with we can reduce the arbitrariness of deciding between moral theories if we focus more on more factual or psychological issues such as theories of human nature.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 40: "Those who speak blandly of moral rules as designed to maximize pleasure and minimize pain have apparently never reflected on such questions as whether the pleasure afforded to medieval Christians or modern Germans by persecuting Jews did not perhaps outweigh the pain caused to Jews and therefore justify the persecution. That they did not weigh the merits of this argument is perhaps to their credit morally, but intellectually it means that they have ignored both the possibility of transforming human nature and the means available for criticizing it in the ideals which are implicit not only in the private heroic dreams of individuals, but in the very way actions may be envisaged in a given society." – Alasdair MacIntyre, A Short History of Ethics (New York: Macmillan, 1966), p. 149.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 41: “The behaviorist allows no room for ‘human nature’ even as a functional concept while he treats human behaviour as an adaptable engineering product. Clearly the behavioristic psychology has no useful bearing on the immediate subject of discussion, the nature and validity of moral judgment considered as essentially dependent on individual freedom and responsibility. If you cannot locate the [end of p. 57] human person, it is impossible to give any idea how he could be responsibly free.” -- Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), pp. 57-58.

Brainstorm: you might take behaviorism’s side here against Nott or use Nott as an ally against behaviorism. I find behaviorism hard to believe and -- ironically -- even harder to use to ground my behavior.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 42: “Obviously it is going to be more difficult in the description of human ‘nature’ or ‘behaviour’ to leave out personal bias, or the more deceptive bias of ‘schools’, let alone to decide among phenomena, what is what. The psychologies in short have not gone through their taxonomical state – they have not arrived at an agreed system of definition so that we know exactly what the terms they use are supposed to refer to. Hence for the most part they badly need a shave with Occam’s razor – they proliferate entities.” – Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), p. 59.

Brainstorm: this might fit into a discussion of science in your chapter on Darwin or in a section/chapter on women on human nature.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 43: “One of the important explanations is a dogmatic anti-abstractionism which refuses to allow that some general concepts, for example human nature, have a real descriptive and functional force, and can be and often are used in the common usage of common people in a way that shows that they know what they mean and are speaking within a matrix of diurnal experience. But human nature is a concept with which Sartre will have nothing to do. It is a bourgeois idealist abstraction, like love, etc. [emphasis added] But if human nature describes nothing but an idealist abstraction, where then are we to look for the continuity which constitutes, as most of us are sure, our human being? It may be that the self is learned; it may be a form of habit; but it can be a habit criticised by memory comparing its past with its present, and always trying to extricate itself from falling asleep in unconscious automatisms. If that is not a possibility, where is our choice, our responsibility and our freedom?” – Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), p. 119.

Brainstorm: this obviously fits with your chapter on Sartre and Nott puts her point more boldly than I remember you putting the point of Sartre’s rejection of human nature (see the bold bit above for her bold statement). She puts it in the same category as love, which should connect with students. Nott says more about Sartre elsewhere as I recall, so I may return to this if I can find it. She introduces a new ism for your glossary, though I think you said one reviewer wanted less jargon to make matters less turgid and more accessible to students. “a matrix of diurnal experience” from the quote is not likely to connect with many students either. ‘bourgeois’ of course introduces Marxist jargon, but some of that seems unavoidable if one is to explain Sartre’s views.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 44: “Moreover, since there is no essential human nature, we are what we are, not according to a plan or a pattern, but as turning up in a situation or a series of situations. Nevertheless, even in a series of situations there is often a pattern to be discovered. There are inexorable laws of behaviour which can even be predicted, by Sartre, if by no one else. So we might reasonably call this human nature [emphasis added] too, except that we wear it, crustaceanwise, outside.

The social answer to the moral and humanly prognostic problem posed by this Hobbesian view [emphasis added] must be either an authoritarian or a collectivistic one (these may turn out to be hardly distinguishable). The individual has to be protected in civil society from his natural and reciprocated enmity for his kind. Sartre became a neo-Marxian and goes for the collectivistic solution. In adopting the Marxian view and interpretation of history, although in a much more abstract form, and without the Marxian attention to past and contemporary detail, Sartre produces an odd sort of anthropology, which does not seem more genuinely historical than Freud’s primal patricide, with which doctrine it has some analogy, at least as a structural psychology. Freud diagnosed an Oedipus complex as the nucleus of human sexual guilt and malaise, and speculated that it had a historical cause, an actual aetiology, in murder, by the strong young men, of the old man of the tribe who up till then had monopolized the women [this should get the attention of students = sex and violence]. But that assumes the racial unconscious, and if that is a premises we cannot accept, we need not even begin to accept anything that follows. Sartre does not accept any unconscious process, a fortiori not a racial one, but he feels the same need as Freud to deal in origins, to give an account of the fact that we are social beings, and as far back as anyone can tell have construceted a social life – a fact which, on Sartre’s psycho-ontology of mutual antagonism, is at least odd. The Group arose, according to Sartre, as a defence against [end of p. 124] external terror [emphasis added] from other and presumably still more alien groups. The Group was held together by the oath, which seems to have been not much more than a recognition that I, the individual member, will be worse off outside the Group than in it. That is produced merely as an example of Sartre’s ahistorical attitude. It is important because the arguments which some evolutionists, zoologists and some schools of psychology produce today favour some sort of spontaneous cooperation as natural to living organisms, and particularly to human beings.” – Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), pp. 124-125.

Brainstorm: There are a lot of useful ideas here. There is a link between Hobbes and Sartre, two of your subjects, with which you can agree or disagree with Nott or just introduce for the reader’s consideration. There is a more extensive comparison and contrast between Sartre and Freud that I found very helpful. Further, she ends by suggesting there is scientific evidence in evolutionary theory, zoology and psychology for the natural spontaneous cooperation in humans that Campbell/Schopenhauer noted as a spontaneous metaphysical realization by a human who identifies even with a stranger. Further, her points about terror and the Group seem very relevant and helpful for use in your cosmopolitanism paper/book. The issue of who is better grounded in history and science, Freud or Sartre, seems a good issue for you to discuss more and one Nott raises above.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 45: “There is another way in which Nowell-Smith admits or appears to admit that ethical philosophy cannot be exclusive and abstract:
‘… moral theories which attempt to exclude all consideration of human nature as it is do not even begin to be moral theories.’

But ‘human nature’ itself demands semantic analysis of the sort that Nowell-Smith has been giving to words in usage; and historical and practical analysis too. For it has been meant in the past very differently from the ways in which it is now often meant. Moreover, for a long eriod it was defined within fairly narrow limits in a particular way which was also broadly accepted over the known world. Finally, in our own times it is used in at least two ways which are sharply contrasted; the one you adopt will markedly and essentially influence your choice of an ethical philosophy.

When you used the expression ‘human nature’, do you refer to the individual human being, solitary, in his greater or lesser self-awareness, or in his immediate relations, familial or casual? If so, do you imagine this being as recognizable in his appearance and behaviour; unique, yet like other people with whom you are acquainted or familiar? Has he at least the particular reality of a well-known character in a novel?

On the other hand, when you refer to ‘human nature’ do you refer to something both collective and abstract, a kind of Highest Common Factor which isnot descriptive of any particular human being as that one being did, does or might exist in fact or fiction; but which can be identified rather as what has been said or written in the most general way about the typical and common behaviour of Homo Sapiens – ‘Man’?” – Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), p. 53.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 46: “We all use the expression [‘human nature’] in both of these ways [described in the quote in Brainstorm 45]. But it matters that we should be clear, in whatever the context may be, which one we mean. Ordinary people in casual discourse when they use the [end of p. 53] expression ‘human nature’ are often vague. Novelist perhaps use it less often but can also be vague when they do. … Mostly these users of the expression, whether casual or specialized, are quick to recognize too what does not come in the category, either because it is extra-human or anti-human.



Their language when it is informative or revealing on however small a scale usually begins with particular people and particular situations: ‘I reckon old Tom Jones shouldn’t have slung his hook like he did. But what with that wife of his he was about at the end of his tether. It’s only human nature.’

Colloquially ‘human nature’, when it means anything, is used as a concrete-universal. …

Like a great many of our concepts and ideas it belongs to practice and use; it is understood without definition in particular situations of communal exchange.



Nowell-Smith allows for ‘psychology’ as part of the matrix of ethics. He also remarks that our psychological understanding is always developing, and then [end of p. 54] deduces that both ‘human nature’ and ethics must change and adapt their meaning. Unfortunately, philosophers, like other specialists and like laymen, are comparatively careless, or at least too easily influenced, about which psychology is the correct one to adopt. That might mean assuming that a really human science is finally attainable. But in practice, as we said, there seem to be too many ‘human sciences’ competing for the right to the human definition.” – Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), pp. 53-55.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 47: “’… The so-called science of human nature or of the human mind resolves itself into history … But there is one sense in which I should agree that the resolution of a science of mind into history means renouncing part of what a science of mind commonly claims, and I think falsely. The mental scientist, believing in a universal and therefore unalterable truth of his conclusions, thinks that the account he gives of mind holds good of all future stages in mind’s history: he thinks that his science shows what mind will always be, not only what it has been in the past and is now.’ [quoting Collingwood, Idea of History (1946), page unspecified in Nott]

That may or may not be a fair description of a typical psychologist’s attitude to mental process. But it is a valid statement of what the problems are for a philosopher, whether he recognizes them or not. Idealism nowadays, with ‘metaphysics’, is largely ‘out’ and both philosophers and psychologists are chary of treating ‘mind’ and ‘human nature’ as entities. That distrust originated historically, for ourselves, in the Cartesian split between Thought and Extension, Mind and Body or Matter, which resulted in bestowing a preferential ‘reality’ on Matter or Body. Body is what can be dealt with by the methods of physics and mathematics – which have been so much more successful than other studies or speculations in producing and repeating their results.

It is no wonder then that many philosophers should incline towards a behaviouristic psychology – or at least to leaving such concepts as ‘human nature’ and ‘mind’ out of account. But it may be that they resist these concepts because they unconsciously assume that the mechanical and quantifiable provides an absolute standard of ‘reality’; and the ‘body’ – in Cartesian language, Extension – becomes the standard to which what Russell calls ‘mindlike events’ ought to conform or to approximate. And psychology then, as Collingwood among others has proposed, becomes respectable only in so far as it approximates to physical science. [end of p. 39]

Collingwood, while expressly denying that they [‘human nature’ and ‘mind’] are fixed unalterable entities, shows at least that it is possible, indeed necessary, to treat psychological conceptions as human functions. As functions, or activities, mind and human nature must also be seen as in indissoluble, if changing relation with their environment: and also as their own subjective history. It is true, of course, that most psychological schools make some attempt to study their cases historically – we have become what we are. And the philosopher who is historically-minded will reflect on his own mental or subjective history, as well as on the history of his study – his own and other men’s minds. That kind of philosopher will be less inclined to think of philosophy as approximating to a science and more to look on it as a self-reflexive art. Moreover, from that type of philosophical mind an ethical interest seems inseparable.” – Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), pp. 39-40.

This is the last of the index entries under ‘human nature’ in Nott’s book Philosophy and Human Nature. Brainstorm: the last paragraph or so of this quote bears on the major issue of whether human nature is fixed or flexible. I should have noted this for the quote I emailed earlier about Nowell-Smith’s point about how changeable ethics and human nature are. You can argue that her analysis is dated here, since postulating entities such as human nature and mind are no longer ‘out’ or ‘unfashionable’ and philosophers and even scientists no longer seem to be so chary or chary at all in postulating the existence of such entities. This might be one result of the mapping of the Human Genome, which makes understanding human nature as a distinct entity pretty straightforward and scientific.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 48: “The Light of Human Nature

We want to live in a community of reasonable order and general decency. What does this desire imply? Scholars have not always been as helpful as they might in answering that question. Sociologists and anthropologists have stressed that order is the product of cultural anthropologists have stressed that order is the product of cultural learning, without pausing to ask what it is we are naturally disposed to learn. Economists have rejoiced by saying that we are disposed to learn whatever advances our interests without pausing to ask what constitutes our interests. And despite their differences in approach, they have both supported an environmental determinism and cultural relativism that has certain dangers.

If man is infinitely malleable, he is much at risk from the various despotism of this world as he would be if he were entirely [end of p. 250] shaped by some biochemical process. The anthropologist Robin Fox has put the matter well: ‘If, indeed, everything is learned, then surely men can be taught to live in any kind of society. Man is at the mercy of all the tyrants … who think they know what is best for him. And how can he plead that they are bing inhuman if he doesn’t know what being human is in the first place?’ Despots are quite prepared to use whatever technology will enable them to dominate mankind; if science tells them that biology is nothing and environment everything, then they will put aside their eugenic surgery and selective breeding programs and take up instead the weapons of propaganda, mass advertising, and educational indoctrination. The Nazis left nothing to chance; they used all methods.

Recent Russian history should have put to rest the view that everything is learned and that man is infinitely malleable. During seventy-five years of cruel tyranny when every effort was made to destroy civil society, the Russian people kept civil society alive if not well. The elemental building blocks of that society were not isolated individuals easily trained to embrace any doctrine or adopt any habits; they were families, friends, and intimate groupings in which sentiments of sympathy, reciprocity, and fairness survived and struggled to shape behavior.

Mankind’s moral sense is not a strong beacon light, radiating outward to illuminate in sharp outline all that it touches. It is, rather, a small candle flame, casting vague and multiple shadows, flickering and sputtering in the strong winds of power and passion, greed and ideology. But brought close to the heart and cupped in one’s hands, it dispels the darkness and warms the soul.” – James Q. Wilson, The Moral Sense (The Free Press, 1993), pp. 250-251.

Note to students: My brainstorm here is that you should answer the question that Wilson says scholars have given so little help in answering. See the first three sentences after the heading above. Further, I think you should take a stand on whether human nature includes a moral sense and, if so, how robust or helpful a moral sense human nature provides. Is all of morality learned? Is most morality learned? Do we inherit a moral sense with our human nature?

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 49: “The most formidable enemy of an enlightened humanism is not science or technology, for as we have seen in the foregoing chapters, they are its spiritual allies. The real antithesis to humanism is much more insidious: it is the current of anti-intellectualism whose force runs as directly counter to humanism as it does to science. An adequate defense against anti-intellectualism in the name of both human ism and science must rest on the understanding of the respective roles of intellect and emotion in the humanistic ideal of personal and social life. Our logical starting oint, therefore, is an analysis of these two factors in human personality.

It is customary to divide human nature into two parts [emphasis added], the cognitive part and the motor-affective part. … [end p. 70] The broad difference between these two groups of mental acts lies in the fact that the one is neutral, whereas the other is partisan. The one is symbolized by the ‘head,’ the other by the ‘heart.’ … For the sake of verbal simplicity the one will be referred to as ‘intellect,’ and the other as ‘emotion.’

The question of anti-intellectualism might be dismissed briefly by claiming that the very statement of the question begs the question. For what faculty is to weight the counterclaims of the intellect and anti-intellect if not the intellect itself? … This ‘cerebro-centric’ predicament does not, however, settle the question.” Ralph Barton Perry, The Humanity of Man (George Braziller, Inc., 1956), pp. 70-71.

Note to students: You might contrast this bifurcation of human nature with the tripartite division of human nature in Plato and Freud. The old but nice phrasing of the contrast between head and heart should find its way into your term paper somewhere if you haven’t used it already. It’s useful for students to wrap their minds around the distinction with more familiar or simpler language than one finds in Plato or Freud.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 50: “The word ‘reason’ has in its history been used to mark that element in human thought which is common to all thinking individuals. Theorems in mathematics, and their supporting proofs, and arithmetical calculations, are immediately accessible to everyone everywhere, whatever language they speak, sometimes with a relatively trivial call for translation. It has been generally recognized that to learn mathematics is to learn the clearest methods of reasoning.
There is another and easily distinguishable kind of learning, which begins in early childhood, and to which human beings seem pre-adapted by mechanisms that are so far not understood: this is learning to understand and to speak one’s own language. The stress here is on the possessive ‘one’s own’. Learning one’s own language is precisely and conspicuously to acquire a power that separates one’s own people from the great mass of manking with whom one cannot immediately and easily communicate, unless it be at the chess-board or in some mathematical notation.” – Stuart Hampshire, Innocence and Experience (Harvard University Press, 1989), p. 42

My brainstorm here is that you should say more in your term paper about the skill set of human nature and the skills that healthy humans tend to have that distinguishes them most remarkably from healthy animals of other species. Another brainstorm I have is that you should update the issue of pre-adapted learning by mechanism that Hamphire admitted were so far not understood as of 1989. Do we know any more about them know? Does our learning have any interesting implications?

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 51: “The Great Contemporary Debate on Human Nature

At this point we might ask why, if psychology and democratic theory have in our time so beautifully been able to complement each other, something that had been hoped for since the beginning of the Enlightenment – why has this merger not been hailed and called to everyone’s attention? The reason is already obvious from many of the things we have discussed in this book, things which are bound to make many people very uncomfortable, even angry – as Freud, Laing, and Fromm make them angry. As we saw, one of the most mature findings of modern psychology accuses the parents and society of being the ‘perverters’ of the child – unwitting, well-intentioned, even loving perverters, which is all the more awful to admit. People don’t want to admit that one large source of evil lies in what society has taught them, how they learned to go about their lives, the basic ways they have of approaching the world. It is a fearful burden to admit this, especially if you can’t do anything about it even if you do admit it. Much easier is to seek the source of evil, disharmony, tension, failure, in persons; especially to seek it in the heredity of persons, even in the species. And so we have the great popularity in our time of those who see evil as inborn in man in the form of vicious aggressiveness and the other baboon traits that we discussed …” – Pulitzer Prizewinner Ernest Becker, The Birth and Death of Meaning: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on the Problem of Man, 2nd edition (New York: The Free Press, 1971), p. 164.

My brainstorm: Wow, what a heavy, interesting and useful quote! This quote is useful for the major issue of whether human nature is basically good, evil or mixed. It’s also useful for your chapter on Freud. It’s also useful for the nature/nurture debate. Finally, it’s useful for all discussions you have about the Enlightenment and to all discussions you have about democracy (including the extent to which democracy is a form of politics well-suited to human nature). I would combine the above quote with a discussion of the rapist priests that have been exposed in recent years and with a discussion of the continuing high-level of child abuse, especially child sexual abuse.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 52: “To continue to believe in spite of all evidence to the contrary must meet on all sides with condemnation as a method. For it is a frank glorification of the irrational element in human nature, elevating the influence of emotion above that of candor and intelligence. It is a commonplace – though one always worthy of repetition – that whatever progress has taken place in the development of man, particularly in science and art, has been fostered by the attitude of open-mindedness, the tolerance of new ideas and new forms. [end of p. 49] not to be for the extension of inquiry is to be against it, and to avoid evidence is to stifle it.” – John Herman Randall, Jr. and Justus Buchler, Philosophy: An Introduction (New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc., 1942, reprinted 1956).

My brainstorm: Is there an “irrational element in human nature,” as the quote above assumes? Or is irrationality a corruption of human nature or a deviation away from our nature as rational agents? This goes to the issue of whether human nature is basically good, evil or mixed, since we might associate irrationality with evil. Further, the quote seems to pose a false dilemma in saying that “Not to be for the extension of inquiry is to be against it …” For one could be neutral on the issue. It reminds me of W’s proclamation that those who would not be with us in our fight against terrorism would therefore be against us. Is it really impossible for the Swiss remain neutral, as they often do and did even in WWII? In case some think the first sentence of the quote attacks a straw man, you can note Tertullian’s proclamation that he believed [Christianity] because it was absurd.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 53: “No sooner do we attempt to reason about that which is extra-empirical, i.e., about reality, than we find that we can manufacture arguments for either of two contradictory views with equal plausibility – a fact which proves that all such attempts at knowledge are futile.

The Kantian Contrast of Knowledge and Faith.

But Kant did not let the matter rest there. While he denied the possibility of knowledge about what transcends experience, he held that we could have faith. What is the meaning and justification of faith in this sense? Man, according to Kant’s reasoning, is not merely an animal that knows but one that acts and feels. He has not only scientific but religious and moral capacities. One of his impulses is to seek the truth about experience; but he has other and equally important functions to fulfill – those of duty and conscience and a search for the beautiful. These nonscientific types of experience are the basis of religion, ethics, and aesthetics. How can we understand their occurrence? Only by having faith that God exists, that a moral law governs the universe, and that man is immortal. Where we cannot say anything one way or another on rational grounds, we are justified in interpreting our moral and religious experiences as requiring something more; in fact, we must do so, for our nature demands it. We cannot know the [end of p. 95] higher realities, but we must have faith that there are such, in order to make intelligible what we find in human nature.” – John Herman Randall, Jr. and Justus Buchler, Philosophy: An Introduction (New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc., 1942, reprinted 1956), emphasis added.

My brainstorm: Is human nature essentially religious or inclined toward religion? Atheists Hume and Freud suggest that it is through wish-fulfilment. Kant evidently suggests it is as well, but from the different perspective of theism.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 54: “History And Human Nature



[J. B.] Black views Hume’s attempt to introduce the experimental method of reasoning into moral subjects as an antihistorical project: attempt to isolate the timeless [end of p. 214] laws of human nature, that is, the laws governing the mind and passions. When Hume came to write history, he was conceptually forced by this timeless model of human nature to overlook the uniqueness of historical events and so failed to understand the sort of unity required to account for them. Black quotes, with approval, Leslie Stephen’s judgment that ‘History … was to Hume an undecipherable hieroglyphic.” In this case, he was typical of his age: ‘Hume did not grasp the elements of the problem, because he was dominated, as indeed were all the eighteenth century philosophes, by the belief that human nature was uniformly the same at all times and places. Why trouble to differentiate if there were no differences worth considering?’” – Donald W. Livingston, Hume’s Philosophy of Common Life (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), pp. 214-215.

My brainstorm: Livingston goes on to argue against the interpretation of Hume that appears in the quotes above. This quote or a discussion of its points should help you round out or finish off any discussions of the view of human nature held by the philosophes or the Enlightenment. It also helps get a bit more of Hume into the mix, which we discussed.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 55: “Human Nature as an Ideal

And so we draw the second large circle on our discussion: there is no inherent evil in man that would subvert the ideal of democracy. The phenomenon of aggression in man is not a phylogenetic mystery that has to be approached by studying baboons in their natural habitat; it is as transparent as the problem of neurosis that we discussed in its several aspects. And when you take these aspects one by one, or together, you can see that neurosis for man is unavoidable. Usually the child’s action has been too much blocked, and he is forced to give up large parts of himself to the control of others, their images, their commands. … Or, at the other pole, the child’s action has been made too easy for him, he was not frustrated enough.” – Ernest Becker, The Birth and Death of Meaning: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on the Problem of Man, second edition (New York: The Free Press, 1971, originally 1962), p. 174.

My brainstorm here is that Becker seems to pose a false dilemma. Why can’t the child be frustrated just enough to avoid neurosis. Neurosis does not seem inevitable and Becker seems to oversimplify the cause of neurosis by reducing it to a single scale of childhood frustration. The quotation takes a stand on the major issue of whether or not human nature is inherently evil and raises the issue of the relationship of human nature to democracy, an issue we find in Plato and Hobbes at least. We may find it in Sartre, too. It crops up in Freud in Democracy and its Discontents and Freud also seems to overestimate the inevitability of neurosis.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 56: “The question of the possibility is raised by asking whether there are limits or constraints set by ‘human nature’ on the sorts of social arrangements which can be seen as feasible. … It is this sort of question which commonly underpins commonsense or colloquial remarks about human nature … often used to express a conviction that some feature of human life is inevitable or at least very deep-rooted.” – Jean Crimshaw, Philosophy and Feminist Thinking (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986), p. 104.

My brainstorm here is that appeals to human nature seem to fall into the is/ought gap but may bridge the gap by presupposing “’ought’ implies ‘can’.” If an alleged moral duty requires us to do the impossible in going against human nature too much, then we can conclude that the morality in question ought not to require us to do that impossible feat (that the alleged duty is not a a true duty).

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 57: “No theory of human nature claims, so far as I am aware, that any aspect of human behaviour is totally unalterable. It is important to grasp this, since the debate about ‘human nature’ is not usually one in which a belief in the complete fixity of human behaviour is starkly opposed to a belief in its plasticity or flexibility. It is usually, rather, a debate about what underlies human behaviour.” – Jean Crimshaw, Philosophy and Feminist Thinking (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986), p. 105.

My brainstorm here is that you might take this quote as a cue to do the unusual and present the debate over the flexibility v. fixity of human nature in starker terms. Further, the emphasis she puts on what underlies human nature may be a considerable cue to discuss the nature v. nurture debate.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 58: “Beliefs about the ‘nature’ of women, for example, have been used to justify the view that they should be dominated by and dependent on men. Beliefs about ‘human nature’ have been used to justify racism and racial inequality and oppression. But it is important to note that beliefs in a fundamental or essential ‘human nature’ have not only been used in these sorts of ways; they have sometimes been used, too, in the context of trying to spell out some ideal of human liberation, and of specifying ways in which human potentialities have been stunted or thwarted by certain social arrangements.

In the history of philosophy, the notion of ‘human nature’ has often been a normative one; being fully or truly ‘human’ is seen as a goal to be achieved. Notions of ‘human-ness’ have often been linked to a conception of characteristics that are seen as distinctively or typically human, which differentiate human beings from other species. The enterprise of trying to identify what is truly or distinctively human, and of using this as a way of conceptualizing unrealized human potential and evaluating social arrangements is one that has constantly recurred in [end of p. 106] philosophical and social thought. Commonly, this enterprise has been associated with either or both of two beliefs: first, the belief that distinctively ‘human’ nature can be seen to reside only in those human activities and characteristics for which there is no analogy in other species, and second, that characteristics which are universal and can be understood as the same across all cultures.” – Jean Crimshaw, Philosophy and Feminist Thinking (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986), pp. 106-107.

My brainstorm here is that the quote above raises ideas that let you present the key concept of the is/ought gap to the students reading your term paper. If human nature -- which seems to be an empirical issue of psychology and biology -- is also a normative standard, then the is/ought gap has been bridged successfully. The idea of being human as a goal has spread to popular culture. For example, the character Data in the science fiction TV and film series Star Trek is an android who tries to achieve human status by trying to improve himself. For a good statement of this, see the Paramount film from 2002 called Star Trek: Nemesis, starring Brent Spiner as Data. The film also explores the nature/nurture debate.

Further, you can explore further the issues of racism and sexism raised by the quote above.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 59: “’Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. Such is the first principle of existentialism. It is also what is called subjectivity … if existence really does precede essence, man is responsible for what he is.’ [quoting Jean Paul Sartre, Existentialism (New York: Philosophical Library, 1947), pp. 18-19)]

For Sartre, each individual is what he conceives himself to be. He creates his own essence. There are no values external to man and no fixed human nature which he is obligated to fulfill. Each person both chooses his values and creates an image of himself and humanity. Man’s subjectivity only reemphasizes the dilemma of his aloneness. Each individual is a distinct being, conscious of his own existential plight. It is the present moment which defines life, not any laws of history. Man is free – to be a different person if he wishes. ‘Man … is condemned every moment to invent man.’ [quoting Ibid., p. 28, emphasis in original]” – Paul Kurtz, Philosophical Essays in Pragmatic Naturalism (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1990), p. 145.

My brainstorm is just that the phrasings from Sartre and Kurtz are nice here (including an original source for the classic ‘existence … precede[s] essence’ line in Sartre). It’s relevant for your chapter on Sartre and on the major issue of whether human nature is fixed or flexible (or nonexistent, perhaps conceivable as the far end of the flexible pole on the fixed/flexible spectrum).

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 60: “We are not united in consensus around a particular theory of human nature or man’s ultimate telos, and so our disagreements about certain moral issues have proved especially difficult to resolve, but our disagreement about what human beings are like and what is good for us does not go all the way down. In fact, it ia hrd to see how it could. As I argue in Part 1, if you puch disagreement about some matters down too far, it tends to disappear by becoming merely verbal. Complete disagreement about something leaves us unable to identify a common matter to disagree over. It therefore makes sense to speak of disagreement in morals as much as elsewhere, only if we are prepared to recognize a background of agreement. It would be a mistake, then, to think that our disagreement on the good is total or that the areas of apparently intractable moral disagreement to which MacIntyre calls attention could be the whole story.

This line of reasoning suggests a picture of our society both more complicated and less dismal than MacIntyre’s. Even though we no longer share a single theory of human nature (when did we exactly?) and despite the fact that Aristotelian teleology has long since passed out of philosophical fashion, most of us do agree on the essentials of what might be called the provisional telos of our society.” – Jeffrey Stout, Ethics After Babel: The Languages of Morals and Their Discontents (Boston: Beacon Press, 1988), p. 212, emphasis added to “human nature” but italics in original on ‘telos.’

My brainstorm here is that parts of the above quote would serve well as an epigram for a paper on Aristotle or as a springboard to discussion of Aristotle. Note that Stout’s book was the winner of the 1989 American Academy of Religion Award for Excellence.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 61: “Rorty’s recent writings defend liberal society in a nonstandard, pragmatic way. Rorty does not begin by trying to establish a philosophical foundation, like an individualist theory of human nature or a Kantian critique of practical reason, and then construct upon it an apparatus for resolving disputes by cranking out liberal conclusions. He [Rorty] is apt to be as suspicious of such attempts as any communitarian. But he does not see liberal society as dependent on foundations. Rorty defends liberal society in part by deflecting the demand for foundations and in part by pointing out contingent features of liberal society that make it the best available set of arrangements we can get under the circumstances, at least by our lights.” – Jeffrey Stout, Ethics After Babel: The Languages of Morals and Their Discontents (Boston: Beacon Press, 1988), p. 227, emphasis added.

My brainstorm here is to help understand and classify Rorty, MacIntryre, Sandel and Kant as communitarians generally or liberals generally.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 62: “Furthermore, ‘Hegel’s standpoint,’ according to Marx, ‘is that of modern political economy. He conceives of labour as the essence, the self-confirming essence of man’

‘The outstanding achievement of Hegel’s Phenomenology is, first, that Hegel grasps the self-creation of man as a process, objectification as a transcendence of this alienation, and that he, therefore, grasps the nature of labour, and conceives objective man (true, because real man) as a result of his own labour.

In short, Hegel conceives labour as man’s act of self-creation (though in abstract terms).’

On Marx’s adaptation of the Hegelian problematic, human beings objectify their natural powers and faculties by creating an objective world of material and cultural objects, and in this historical development of material and intellectual production, beings create themselves, create their own historical human natures. While there is a certain basic or essential human nature or, rather, set of natural powers and faculties common to all (normal) persons throughout history, human personality and identity are created by and through the production of systems of physical and cultural objects in each specific historical period and culture.

This creation of historical human nature, of human identity and personality, is, however, dependent upon the creation of cultural objects as much as upon the creation of physical objects.” – R. G. Peffer, Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990), p. 49, italics in original, emphasis added to “human nature” and “human natures.”

My brainstorm here is to try to help you in understanding Marx and Hegel or views related to theirs. You might include some of the above quote or some discussion of its points in any discussion of Aristotle on human powers and capacities or in places where Marx crops up.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 63: “The destiny of man lies in his soul.” – Herodotus, quoted in Alfred Adler, Understanding Human Nature: A Key To Self-Knowledge (Greenwich, CT: Fawcett Publications, Inc., 1927), translated by W. Beran Wolfe, p. 15.

My brainstorm here is that you might follow Adler’s lead by using this quote as an epigram, as Adler does in his Introduction to his book on human nature.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 64: “The science of human nature may not be approached with too much presumption and pride. On the contrary, its understanding stamps those who practice it with a certain modesty. The problem of human nature is one which presents an enormous task, whose solution has been the goal of our culture since time immemorial. It is a science that can not be pursued with the sole purpose of developing occasional experts. Only the understanding of human nature by every human being can be its proper goal. …

Owing to our isolated life none of us knows very much about human nature. In former times it was impossible for human beings to live such isolated lives as they live today. We have from the earliest days of our childhood few connections with humanity. The family isolates us. Our whole way of living inhibits that necessary intimate contact with our fellow men, which is essential for the development of the science and art of knowing human nature. Since we do not find sufficient contact with our fellow men, we become their enemies. Our behavior towards them is often mistaken and our judgments frequently false, simply because we do not adequately understand human nature. It is an oft-repeated truism that human beings walk past, and talk past, ach other, fail to make contacts, because they approach each other as strangers, not only in society, but also in the very narrow circle of the family. There is no more frequent complaint than the complaint of parents that they cannot understand their children, and that of children that they are misunderstood by their parents. Our whole attitude toward our fellow man is dependent upon our understanding of him; an implicit necessity for understanding [end of p.15] him therefore is a fundamental of the social relationship. Human beings would live together more easily if their knowledge of human nature were more satisfactory.” – Alfred Adler, Understanding Human Nature: A Key To Self-Knowledge (Greenwich, CT: Fawcett Publications, Inc., 1927), translated by W. Beran Wolfe, pp. 15-16.

My brainstorm here is that Adler makes an insightful point about how isolation leads to ignorance about human nature. Indeed, the point may be more applicable today than to the time of the writing, 1927. Of course, radio, TV and films developed to make us less isolated in one sense but more isolated in another. Each of us can sit in silence and in the dark at the cinema and that is a form of isolation amidst a crowd. Cell phones and emails and air travel since 1927 make us less isolated, though.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 65: “As Jeffrey Gray, a British pro- [end of p. 42] fessor of psychology, has written, the evidence for genetic control of IQ suggests that to pay people differently for ‘upper-class’ and ‘lower-class’ jobs is ‘a wasteful use of resources in the guise of “incentives” that either tempt people to do what is beyond their powers or reward them more for what they would do anyway.’



So do we have to abolish private enterprise if we are to eliminate undeserved wealth? That suggestion raises issues too large to be discussed here; but it can be said that private enterprise has a habit of reasserting itself under the most inhospitable conditions. As the Russians and East Europeans soon found, communist societies still had their black markets, and if you wanted your plumbing fixed swiftly it was advisable to pay a bit extra on the side. Only a radical change in human nature – a decline in acquisitive and self-centered desires – could overcome the tendency for people to find a way around any system [end of p. 43] that suppresses private enterprise. Since no such change in human nature is in sight, we shall probably continue to pay most to those with inherited abilities, rather than those who have the greatest needs. To hope for something entirely different is unrealistic. To work for wider recognition of the principle of payment according to needs and effort rather than inherited ability is both realistic and, I believe, right.” – Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, second edition (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 42-44.

My brainstorm here is that you should agree with the Singer/Gray premise here of genetic control of IQ and thus should tend to agree with Singer on the anti-utilitarian and anti-egalitarian implications of capitalism. This is obviously an important point for your chapter/section on Marx. It may make for a nice focus at the end of your term paper, too.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 66: “We can also remind ourselves at this point of the contribution of natural law theory (Chapter VII): only principles the implementation of which do not obviously violate the facts of the human condition will be acceptable as moral guides.” – Bernard Mayo, The Philosophy of Right and Wrong (New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986), p. 124.

My brainstorm here is that this fits in with the earlier brainstorms about the is/ought gap and the major issue of whether human nature can serve as an ‘is’ to bridge that gap. Mayo used “human condition” here rather than “human nature” in the quote but the index lists this page under “human nature and condition” and human nature is obviously a key part of the human condition we find ourselves in – we find ourselves with a nature, if we do indeed have a nature – and I think we do have a nature.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 67: “It is not pretended that a moral theory based upon realities of human nature and a study of the specific connections of those realities with those of physical science would do away with moral struggle and defeat. . . . It would not assure us against failure, but it would render failure a source of instruction. . . . Until the integrity of morals with human nature and of both with the environment is recognized, we shall be deprived of the aid of past experience to cope with the most acute and deep problems of life. Accurate and extensive knowledge will continue to operate only in dealing with purely technical problems. The intelligent acknowledgment of the continuity of nature, man and society will alone secure a growth of morals which will be serious without being fanatical, aspiring withoug sentimentality, adapted to reality without conventionality, sensible without taking the form of calculation of profits, idealistic without being romantic.” – John Dewey, Human Nature and Conduct (New York: Henry Holt, 1922), pp. 11-13.

My brainstorm here is that the end of the quote uses nice phrasing and the point of the quote raises the issue of the is/ought gap again – especially with the idea of a “moral theory based upon the realities of human nature …” Dewey also raises here the issue of the relationship between science and morals.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 68: “Talk about humility gives occasion for pride to the proud and humility to the humble. Similarly, skeptical arguments allow the positive to be positive. Few speak humbly of humility, chastely of chastity, dubiously of skepticism. We are nothing but lies, duplicity, contradiction, and we hide and disguise ourselves from ourselves.” – Blaise Pascal, Pensees (New York: Penguin Classics, 1966), p. 240, saying 655.

My brainstorm here is that this quote confirms that Pascal is clearly in the camp saying that human nature is mainly evil. Pascal shows some style and humor here.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 69: “The question cannot even legitimately arise of whether what a man wills corresponds with what is rationally good. Reason, by itself, can make no distinction whatever between what is good and what is not. Reason can only, and within limits, see what is so, and can never declare whether it ought to be so. There is, therefore, a fundamental absurdity in the idea of reason governing the will, and the fact that this idea [end of p. 14] is very old and laden with great tradition makes it no less absurd. What is significant about a man is that he wills certain ends. From one sunrise to the next, this is what gives his life meaning; indeed, it is the very expression of life itself. Human reason is employed almost exclusively in discerning the means whereby those ends, which are the product of the will, can be achieved. It is because of this that human reason and intelligence are rightly thought to confer upon men an advantage over the rest of nature. What Plato and Kant thought of as the moral corruption of human nature is, therefore, human nature itself. Far from this conception of man being the enemy of morals, a kind of human nature that we are somehow called on to transcend, it is precisely because this is what men basically are that any problems of morals arise to begin with. Good and evil are not exactly the products of the will, but they are the reflection of it, for they would not even exist to a mind that was purely and exclusively rational.



To grasp this whole point of view is going to require a considerable readjustment of our philosopohical thinking about morals. The justification of it will consist, in part, of the light it will throw on the errors of our predecessors, many of them great and illustrious, and the opening up of the blind alleys that they have created. The remainder of its justification will consist in the abolishment of mysteries, for many things will be found to make sense, to fall into place, when looked at in this light. This is probably the best kind of intellectual justification that can be given for any point of view, for a complete philosophy somewhat resembles a jigsaw puzzle. When everything fits, we know we have the thing right, and no further question of ‘proof’ can be asked. When, on the other hand, something not only does not fit, but creates numberless new [end of p. 15] problems with every attempt to get it into the picture we may suspect that it does not belong in the scheme at all. And this is surely what is true of many philosophical theories of morals. They more or less answer some immediate question that has been asked; but, as with many of the theories of Plato and Kant, they throw everything else out of kilter, giving birth to numberless new paradoxes that no imagination or wit can resolve, so that the general scheme becomes more disjointed than ever.” – Richard Taylor, from Ch.1 entitled “Ethics and Human Nature,” in Good and Evil: A New Direction (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1970), pp. 14-16, italics in original but bold emphasis on “human nature” added.

My brainstorm here is that Taylor’s book, especially Ch.1, is relevant to your discussions of Plato and Kant. Taylor’s writing style is clear and forceful, which is especially good for students. Adding his book and the other sources in the brainstorm emails will strengthen your bibliography at least and your substantive discussion if you can work them in a bit still. Further, the issue of the relation of reason to will raises issues such as weakness of will and psychological egoism that you should make sure you discuss enough in your term paper, probably in the sections on the ancient Greeks.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 70: “A few years ago, there was a popular song to the effect that we ought to keep on doing ‘what comes naturally.’ This point of view has evidently been prevalent as long as man has existed on our planet. In its most permissive version, it amounts to no more than William Blake’s maxim: ‘Damn braces. Bless relaxes.” …

[T]here are principles of moral conduct that apply to all men.

These universal principles have a realistic basis. Man’s basic nature and environment provide the ultimate standard of right conduct, whether of individuals or states. Human beings have fundamental needs and tendencies; their fulfillment is good; their frustration is evil. To fulfill these requirements of a good life and to harmonize with the basic forces of the universe is the realistic goal of human ideals.

This conception of ethics has certain implications. It implies that nature determines the characteristic tendencies of a species, and that these tendencies require fulfillment if good is to be achieved. A bear, a rabbit, or a human being possesses a certain nature which it shares with others of its kind. The good for a human being is both like and unlike the good for a rabbit or a bear. It is like insofar as man shares in a common animal nature; it is unlike insofar as man is distinguished by human nature.” – Melvin Rader, Ethics and the Human Community (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964), p. 15, italics in original but bold emphasis on “human nature” added.

Note: Is this an example of using human nature to try to bridge the is/ought gap and to establish moral realism? This seems to be an early example (from 1964) of using ‘realism’ or ‘realistic' in the context of moral realism (ethical realism).

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 71: “The final objection to the argument for an obligation to assist is that it sets a standard so high that none but a saint could attain it. This objection comes in at least three versions. The first maintains that, human nature [emphasis added] being what it is, we cannot achieve so high a standard, and since it is absurd to say that we ought to do what we cannot do, we must reject the claim that we ought to give so much.

… [end of p. 242]

Those who put forward the first version of the objection are often influenced by the fact that we have evolved from a natural process in which those with a high degree of concern for their own interests, or the interests of their offspring and kin, can be expected to leave more descendants in future generations, and eventually to completely replace any who are entirely altruistic. Thus the biologist Garrett Hardin has argued, in support of his ‘lifeboat ethics’, that altruism can only exist ‘on a small scale, over the short term, and within small, intimate groups’; while Richard Dawkins has written, in his provocative book The Selfish Gene: ‘Much as we might wish to believe otherwise, universal love and the welfare of the species as a whole are concepts which simply do not make evolutionary sense.’ I have already noted, in discussing the objection that we should first take care of our own, the very strong tendency for partiality in human beings. We naturally have a stronger desire to further our own interests, and those of our close kin, than we have to further the interests of strangers. What this means is that we would be foolish to expect widespread conformity to a standard that demands impartial concern, and for that reason it would scarcely be appropriate or feasible to condemn all those who fail to reach such a standard. Yet to act impartially, though it might be very difficult, is not impossible. The commonly quoted assertion that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ is a reason for rejecting such moral judgments as ‘You ought to have saved all the people from the sinking ship’, when in fact if you had taken one more person into the lifeboat, it would have sunk and you would not have saved any. In that situation, it is absurd to say that you ought to have done what you could not possibly do. When we have money to spend on luxuries and others are starving, however, it is clear that we can all give much more than we do give, and we can therefore all come closer to the impartial standard proposed in this chapter. Nor is there, as we approach closer to this standard, any barrier beyond which we cannot go. For that reason there is no basis for saying that the impartial standard [end of p. 243] is mistaken because ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ and we cannot be impartial.” – Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, second edition (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 242-244.

My brainstorm here is that “’ought’ implies ‘can’” seems to bridge the is/ought gap here. Further, given your interests, you should be interested to discuss Dawkins and Hardin more, if you have discussed them enough already. Note that the impartial standard is a form of egalitarianism that, as such, you would seem to oppose. Finally, I think the idea that we universally have it in our nature to mind our own interests and those of our kin is a major overgeneralization – a bunch of BS really. Look at all the self-destructive, short-term acts of drug abuse, overeating, underexercising, laziness, procrastination, neurosis, psychosis, weakness of will, smoking, anger, revenge, unsafe sex risking AIDS, lust risking divorce, etc. all done at the expense of one’s own long-term interests. Further, look at the fact that even though strangers outnumber our close kin by billions of people, we are far more likely to be murdered by some of our close kin than by any stranger. I hope reading these quotes and/or brainstorms makes you spontaneously react to them in ways that can help you put the finishing touches on your term paper. I’ve tried to get a variety of sources, so that it is more likely that some of them will provoke such thoughts that might warrant inclusion, time permitting.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 72: “[A] justification of ethics in terms of self-interest might work, without defeating its own aim. We can now ask if such a justification exists. There is a daunting list of those who, following Plato’s lead, have offered one: Aristotle, Aquinas, Spinoza, Butler, Hegel, even – for all his strictures about prostituting virtue – Bradley. Like Plato, these philosophers made broad claims about human nature and the conditions under which human beings can be happy. Some were also able to fall back on a belief that virtue will be rewarded and wickedness punished in a life after our bodily death. Philosophers cannot use this argument if they want to carry conviction nowadays; nor can they adopt sweeping psychological theories on the basis of their own general experience of their fellows, as philosophers used to do when psychology was a branch of philosophy.” – Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, second edition (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 326.

My brainstorm here is that you might want to say more about Aquinas, Spinoza, Butler, Hegel, and Bradley. Further, you might react to Singer ruling out of hand any appeals to heavenly rewards, especially given how effective such appeals seem to work with so many suicide bombers and terrorists found among Islamic fanatics. Finally, Adler’s point in earlier Brainstorm 64 reinforces Singer’s point above that philosophers cannot credibly “adopt sweeping psychological theories on the basis of their own general experience of their fellows.”

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 73: “What facts about human nature could show that ethics and self-interest coincide? One theory is that we all have benevolent or sympathetic inclinations that make us concerned about the welfare of others. …

To meet this objection those who would link ethics and happiness must assert that we cannot be happy if these elements of our nature are suppressed. Benevolence and sympathy, they might argue, are tied up with the capacity to take part in friendly or loving relations with others, and there can be no real happiness without such relationships. For the same reason it is necessary to take at least some ethical standards seriously, and to be open and honest n living by them – for a life of deception and dishonesty is a furtive life, in which the possibility of discovery always clouds the horizon. …

These claims about the connection between our character and our prospects of happiness are no more than hypotheses. Attempts to confirm them by detailed research are sparse and inadequate. A.H. Maslow, an American psychologist, asserted that human beings have a need for self-actualisation that involves growing toward courage, kindness, knowledge, love [end of p. 327] honesty, and unselfishness. When we fulfill this need, we feel serene, joyful, filled with zest, sometimes euphoric, and generally heappy. When we act contrary to our need for self-actualisation, we experience anxiety, despair, boredom, shame, emptiness and are generally unable to enjoy ourselves. It would be nice if Maslow should turn out to be right; unfortunately, the data Maslow produced in support of his theory consisted of limited studies of selected people and cannot be considered anything more than suggestive.

Human nature is so diverse that one may doubt if any generalization about the kind of character that leads to happiness could hold for all human beings. What, for instance, of those we call ‘psychopaths’? … At least on the surface, they do not suffer from their condition, and it is not obvioius that it is in their interest to be ‘cured.’” – Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, second edition (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 327-328, italics in original but bold emphasis on “human nature” is added.

My brainstorm here is that Singer makes a good point against many thinkers you consider when Singer suggests that human nature is too diverse to allow the kinds of generalizations a theorist would need to make about human nature in order to use a particular conception of human nature to do the tasks philosophers usually attempt traditionally. You discuss Maslow, so you might wish to use Singer’s overall view of Maslow in order to put Maslow in context or present a view limiting or criticizing Maslow’s view.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 74: “Bourgeois society is ‘inhuman’ or a form of ‘inhumanity’ because it does not allow for the majority of its members to be treated as human beings should be treated. It does not allow people to realize the positive aspects of their human nature: sociability and free, conscious creative activity. Marx argues in The Holy Family that humanity is ‘abstracted’ from the proletariat and that ‘man has lost himself in the proletariat’ precisely because the proletarian’s ‘species-being’ is not allowed to flourish. The resulting poverty, misery, and abasement of the proletariat ‘arouse man’s indignation.’” – R. G. Peffer, Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990), p. 57, italics in original.

My brainstorm here is that this is another instance where a major philosopher uses the facts of human nature to try to bridge the is/ought gap, though nothing is said here about how we determine which aspects of human nature are positive. So that is really doing the work to avoid the is/ought gap by having an ought+is/ought move instead. This passage identifies the positive aspects of human nature according to Peffer’s understanding of Marx at least. Other quotes from Peffer suggest Marx has an at least partly normative sense of human nature, but here Peffer refers to the positive aspects of human nature, as if human nature has negative aspects as well and as if human nature is being used as a merely descriptive, non-normative concept (and thus allowing both positive and negative aspects).

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 75: “While the concept of alienation is rarely seen in most of his later works, it is utilized extensively in the Grundrisse. As in the Paris Manuscripts, Marx’s theory of alienation of humanity-in-capitalist-society can be divided here into the categories of alienation of the product of production, alienation of the activity of production, alienation of the individual from other individuals, and alienation of the individual from his or her own self and/or his or her own (human) nature. …

Similarly, ‘The universal nature of production creates an alienation of the individual from himself and others,’ and thus contravenes the value of human community. The condition of alienation in capitalism also works against the self-realization of individuals. Capitalism prevents people from developing and realizing their individual talents and capacities spontaneously and cooperatively and becoming all-around, well-developed person because [end of p. 66]

Universal prostitution appears as a necessary phase of the development of the social character of personal talents, abilities, capacities, and activities. This could be more delicately expressed as the general condition of serviceability and usefulness. It is the bringing to a common level of different things, which is the significance that already Shakespeare gave to money. [quoting Karl Marx, The Grundrisse (David McClellan, ed.) New York: Harper & Row, 1971, p. 66.]" -- R. G. Peffer, Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990), pp. 66-67, italics in original, bold emphasis added.

My brainstorm is that you might discuss this reductionism of capitalism, how it tries to reduce so many different things to a least common denominator of money and crass commercialism, something W tried to distance himself from in a recent speech clarifying what he means by the liberty he wants for the Islamic world we are battling in now. You should take every opportunity you can to discuss Shakespeare, who is among the most insightful on the topic of human nature.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 76: “We have all met such a lot of people that we feel sure that we [end of p. 34] know something about human nature, even if the people we have met in Senior Common Rooms have had rather little of it.” – F. E. Sparshott, An Enquiry into Goodness (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1958), pp. 34-35, italics in original.

My brainstorm here is that you should add Sparshott’s book to your bibliography on human nature, since it has index entries with 7 pages indexed to “human nature.” Further, Sparshott’s point here echoes Rene Descartes’ familiar quotation stating that nothing seems as fairly and equally distributed as good sense since everyone, even those hardest to please in other ways, is satisfied that he or she has enough good sense.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 77: “As long as men have speculated about the nature of politics, it has been common to relate it to the nature of man. Most of the speculators have had no doubt that man had a ‘nature’ and therefore believed certain generalizations could be made about the way men tended to behave under certain conditions. Some to be sure focused upon the differences among kinds of human nature whether of gold, of silver, or of bronze; but even Plato and Nietzsche (if the juxtaposition may be forgiven) assumed a common substratum.” – J. Roland Pennock, from ‘Introduction,’ in J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds., Human Nature in Politics (New York: New York University Press, 1977), p. 1.

My brainstorm here is that you should add this book to the bibliography of your term paper, if you have not done so already. You can use part of the quote above to show how Sartre is in the minority on the issue of whether human nature exists.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 78: “In particular, he [Edward O. Wilson] defends the hypothesis that human beings, as a result of natural selection, are genetically determined to be altruistic in the sense of being disposed to help other people even when they do not think it is to their long-run advantage. … What is wrong with the ‘innate/acquired’ dichotomy is that nothing is wholly innate or ‘from nature’ and nothing is wholly acquired or ‘from nurture’: Behavior as well as bodily structures are always jointly affected by both genes and environment. This means that similar genes may have different behavioral effects in different cultures, just as in similar environments different genes may produce different effects.” – Andrew Oldenquist, Moral Philosophy: Text and Readings, 2nd edition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1978), p. 76. This page is indexed under the heading “human nature.”

My brainstorm here is that Wilson seems to have an explanation for altruism that differs sharply with the explanation offered by Schopenhauer and Joseph Campbell. Wilson thinks the explanation is genetic (and thus presumably operating on the level of the species rather than at the level of the individual) whereas Schopenhauer and Campbell think the altruism is part of a metaphysical realization (which presumably is not genetic) that takes place at the individual level. So you might discuss Wilson after the spot where you discuss the example Campell gives to illustrate Schopenhauer’s point about the metaphysical realization leading to altruism (the example of the cop helping someone going over the rail in Hawaii, if my memory serves). Further, if this process of metaphysical realism is rational, then it may serve as a rational bridge of the is/ought gap: the altruistic person makes the metaphysical realization (is) and then rationally decides that he/she ought to act altruistically (ought).

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 79: “At any rate, I would call attention to the fact that the decision theorists’ definition [of ‘rational’] is hardly a mere account of the accepted English usage, which is far too vague to fit their definition. Professor Patrick Suppes, in a paper in The Journal of Philosophy in 1961 (p. 607), remarked that the disagreements in decision theory show that [end of p. 267] we ‘do not yet understand what we mean by rationality,’ or, as he put it in the very next sentence, ‘it turns out to be extremely difficult to characterize what we intuitively would want to mean by a rational choice among alternative courses of action.’ I find these statements puzzling …” – Richard Brandt, “The Concept of Rationality in Ethical and Political Theory,” in J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds., Human Nature in Politics (New York: New York University Press, 1977), pp. 267-268.

My brainstorm here is that Suppes’s admissions seem scandalous. It’s a scandal that our state of knowledge about such a basic term as late as 1961 was so poor. You might put Suppes’s admission in your discussion of rationality in your section on Aristotle.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 80: “Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal.” – Aristotle, Politics I,2 (1253a), quoted in Lisa H. Newton, “The Political Animal,” in J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds., Human Nature in Politics (New York: New York University Press, 1977), p. 142.

My brainstorm here is that you should be sure not to reduce your coverage of this famous quote of Aristotle’s in making the reductions that I think you said were requested for the chapter on Aristotle. Further, you might link any alleged political nature of human nature with the idea in E. O. Wilson that human nature is altruistic. The altruistic sympathy, compassion or sociability of humans may be what gives rise to the state. Are we by nature built to be governed and to act in groups? If so, that might explain why human individuals are generally not especially large, fast, strong or acute in senses compared with many other animals.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 81: “What I am maintaining is that cutting off your legs, blinding yourself, or killing yourself in the most painful way possible simply because you desire to do so, is to act irrationally. If taken as basic, that is, not as the result of considerations of other consequences, such desires are irrational. What Brandt has realized [in the article I cited in Brainstorm 79] is the standard philosophical account of rationality provides no sure way of labeling such desires as irrational. By the standard account of rationality, the only way one can label such a desire as irrational is to show that it conflicts with other more important desires. That is, the standard account does not deal with the rationality of a desire on its own: only its relationship to other desires can make it irrational.” – Bernard Gert, “Irrational Desires,” in J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds., Human Nature in Politics (New York: New York University Press, 1977), 287.

My brainstorm here is that this issue of intrinsic versus merely instrumental rationality can lead you into a discussion of the rationality of ends in Kant or a deeper discussion of rationality in Aristotle.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 82: “My point is that even idealists must be realists about what human nature might achieve in the conditions of organismic life on this planet; but my conclusion is that we can’t rest content with this. We are after all striving organisms who must follow out the directives of our aspirations. And one of our central, historical and human aspirations is to help bring to birth a better world by pursuing the ideal of democracy; the empirical data of a mature psychology tell us that this pursuit is logical.” – Ernest Becker, The Birth and Death of Meaning: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on the Problem of Man, 2nd edition (New York: The Free Press, 1971), p. 179.

My brainstorm here is to disagree with Becker. He’s wrong to use ‘must’ in the second sentence above, since we have a choice to avoid following the directives of our aspirations. Indeed, this may be the most distinctive feature of human nature, our conscience with its ability to subject our instincts, drives, and strivings to critical scrutiny and to then follow only the ones that survive our critical thinking about them. Becker has a way with words, though.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 83: “And we can understand why the theory of democracy has not yet found a graceful merger with the best of modern psychology: there are too many people today who will not admit the fruit of this psychology. This has given rise to a great debate between two approaches to man: on the one hand, those who see evil in society, and who call the other side cynics, opportunist, and antihumanists; and the other, those who see the evil in man, in evolution, and who call the other side romantics, wishful dreamers. Imagine, they say, claiming that the child is born neutral and potentially good, when all around us we see the most horrendous forms of evil: murder, rape of women and children, delight in blood, pleasure in another’s suffering, in piles of corpses of children of the ‘enemy,’ and on and on. … And the ‘romantics’ tell us that man has no innate aggression: this is an argument with fools or with those who find comfort in self-delusion. So, with apparent good reason, say the empirical realists.

The curious thing about this bitter argument in the contemporary theory of human nature, is that it never need have taken place. The ‘romantics’ – at least those whose work is worth reading – never claimed that aggression was not a fact of human life. They didn’t look at reality wishfully or self-deludingly: they saw aggression everywhere anyone else saw it. In fact, they saw it even where others did not. … [C]learing up this problem is one of the urgent tasks for a rounded view of man.” – Ernest Becker, The Birth and Death of Meaning: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on the Problem of Man, 2nd edition (New York: The Free Press, 1971), p. 165.

My brainstorm here is that you might expand your discussion of the nature versus nurture debate, which Becker puts in terms of romantics and realists. This quote also bears on the issue of whether human nature is mainly good, mainly evil or mainly mixed. Further, this quote bears on the issue of whether human nature is fixed or flexible, since our genes seem harder to alter, with current technology at least, than our social conditions. [Note to revise later: Compare this to old quote 53.]

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 84: “Yet, the problem remains of how to explain the real aggression that we see [end of p. 165] all around us? On the most elemental level we get a picture like this: a human organism in its skin that has to get along in the world, and that does this by taking what it needs from the environment. It uses energetic initiative, manipulates, incorporates, destroys or banishes objects, and expresses anger in response to frustrations; these are all part of an organism’s way of surviving whether it has an innate destructive drive or not. It has to reject and blot out invading microorganisms or larger dangerous objects; it has to incorporate food – animals and plants – digesting an assimilating them; male animals have to penetrate forcefully the female, among humans rupturing the hymen, and so on. Aggression is a condition of life, each life aggresses on nature, tears what it needs out of the world. This aggression in the service of the sustenance of life is rarely a matter of argument; some might prefer not to call it aggression but rather organismic self-affirmation or some such neutral idea, but whatever we call it, it shows itself as a powerful force, and it damages the world around one. Some quiet peoples who seek minimum interference by the organism with the world around it avoid eating meat, or killing insects – the Jains of India even wearing a veil so as not to accidentally inhale an insect, and sweeping the street in front of them as they walk, so as not to inadvertently crush any. But even Jains crunch leaves and mash fragile plant stalks – which are surely alive and (who knows?) might even feel pain, as we mused in Chapter Four; when I once baited a vegetarian with these thoughts he answered: ‘Well, at least plants don’t make any noise when you kill them.’” – Ernest Becker, The Birth and Death of Meaning: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on the Problem of Man, 2nd edition (New York: The Free Press, 1971), pp. 165-166.

My brainstorm here is that you might discuss the more neutral issue of whether human nature is aggressive, or how aggressive it is compared to how altruistic some think it is. This might be a good substitute or supplement for some discussion of whether human nature is mainly good, mainly evil or mainly mixed. Becker seems to think that human nature is biologically and genetically aggressive but not in any evil way, and that evil seems to come mainly from nurture, the human condition, the environment rather than human nature. Becker gets support on some issues from Joseph Campbell who says in his book and video series The Power of Myth that life feeds on death, which is one point Becker makes in the quote above. Campbell also discusses the Jains. I find the idea that plants feels pain implausible in the extreme, despite books like The Secret Life of Plants, since there seems no evolutionary reason for immobile plants to feel pain; for the plants in pain cannot fight or flee fast enough in response to pain. Further, there seem to be no structures resembling a brain or nervous system in plants, only xylem and phloem, which makes plants out to be glorified pumps with photosynthesis as an additional source of food. It would make more sense for faster moving plants (beyond slow geotropism and heliotropism) like Venus Fly Traps to feel pain in order to get stimulus response movements fast enough to catch a fly, which is fast. I like the joke at the expense of the vegetarian. I suggest that you find a way to include it, since you should include humor at every reasonable opportunity, especially with such a serious if not somber topic as human nature.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 85: “Not only should one be cautious in applying the findings of so difficult a science [psychology] to the complexities of everyday life, to which the indefinite adjustments of practical reason may be thought a safter guide than the specialized clarities of scientific research, but there is a constant danger that a psychologist working in a single society will mistake what he finds universal there for what is inseparable from human nature, whereas it may be a socially determined peculiarity of that society. It is easier to recognize this danger than to obviate it. The psychologist may then have great difficulty in making what would be his great contribution to ethics by isolating what is unalterable in human nature.” – F. E. Sparshott, An Enquiry into Goodness (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1958), p. 45.

My brainstorm here is that this is applicable to Freud and the other psychologists in my brainstorms and your term paper. Sparshott’s caution seems a good one here, suggesting that there is an edge to the nurture side of the nurture v. nature debate that psychologists often overlook.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 86: “If no lawgiver [such as God] is supposed, but instead the prescriptions of the ‘natural law’ are derived from a study of ‘human nature,’ being considered either inborn behaviour patterns which cannot be violated without distress or necessary conditions of human happiness, then the authority of the ‘law’ derives not from its legal status but from the manifest unreasonableness and unnaturalness (hence disadvantageiousness) of acting otherwise. It is then no true law, but merely lawlike: a general counsel of prudence. However, if we follow A. L. Goodhart in regarding as a law any rule recognized (whether by those who enforce it or by those who obey it) as obligatory, we may describe as a ‘natural law’ any rule which all [end of p. 189] men recognize as obligatory, no matter what authority or reason, if any, for obedience may be suggested. Its legal status would then depend upon the fact of its recognition, its naturalness upon its connection with ‘human nature’ in the way already suggested. It seems doubtful whether the necessary c onsensus exists or is obtainable.” – F. E. Sparshott, An Enquiry into Goodness (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1958), pp. 189-190.

My brainstorm here is that you might spend more space discussing human nature and natural law. Further, you can clarify more what each major author means, and what you mean, by human nature by saying if you consider human nature inborn behavior patterns which cannot be violated without distress or necessary conditions of human happiness or something else again. You might explore the extent to which human nature is one given to the rule of law. The classic The Island of Dr. Moreau explores the difference between human nature and merely animal nature by postulating conscious obedience to law as the key difference. You might explore this literary example.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 87: “One must suppose that there is some invariant element in human nature, since human babies usually grow up to be human adults but chimpanzees never do; but whether man as such has any inescapable needs other than those for a certain amount of food and drink and warmth is an open question. Although one may suspect, for example, that all men need some symbolic and ritual apparatus for ordering experience, and some sexual gratification or substitute therefore, such suspicions are virtually impossible to confirm: cultures already known to be viable show such diversity that it is hard to say what limits there may be to what is workable. The universal needs of mankind, then, though theoretically capable of providing a criterion whose satisfactoriness could not be doubted, are not in practice a useful basis for judgement. …

The need for health and for whatever is necessary to sustain strength must be supposed common to all men, and hence part of ‘human nature’; and failure to satisfy this need must to some extent condemn a society. [end of p. 267]



A more positive interpretation of the ‘demands of human nature’ is that in terms of ‘self-fulfilment,’ ‘scope for the development of the personality,’ ‘realization of all man’s potentialities’ or some such phrase. This usually turns out to be the praise of institutional complexity, and is usually thought of as being unfavourable to preliterate societies, which seem to the literate to be simple and primitive. One does feel that life would be poorer without all those symphony concerts and cocktail lounges; but the appeal of such a comparison is primarily emotional; while one pictures vividly what one would miss by going to Melanesia, one is prevented by inexperience frompicturing what one would gain.” – F. E. Sparshott, An Enquiry into Goodness (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1958), pp. 267-268.

My brainstorm here is that you might use the bit of humor about the cocktail lounges. Further, his point about the chimps seems so simplistic but may just mean that human nature must be at least partly genetic. What needs we have beyond the biological needs from out genetic structure seem to fill out the picture. Some try to define human nature in terms of capacities, but here Sparshott suggests we should define the rest of human nature in terms of needs instead of capacities (such as the faculty of reason, as Aristotle used). Maybe we should use them all, genes, capacities and needs. On needs, remember the book The Needs of Strangers that I sent to you in the mail. I was impressed by it. He's a fine writer, and a prolific one.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 88: “It is easy to show that the ego ideal answers to everything that is expected of the higher nature of man. As a substitute for a longing for the father, it contains the germ from which all religions have evolved. The self-judgement which declares that the ego falls short of its ideal produces the religious sense of humility to [end of p. 281] which the believer appeals in his longing. As a child grows up, the role of father is carried on by teachers and others in authority; their injunctions and prohibitions remain powerful in the ego ideal and continue, in the form of conscience, to exercise the moral censorship. The tension between the demands of conscience and the actual performances of the ego is experienced as a sense of guilt. Social feelings rest on identifications with other people, on the basis of having the same ego ideal.

Religion, morality, and a social sense – the chief elements in the higher side of man – were originally one and the same thing. According to the hypothesis which I put forward in Totem and Taboo they were acquired phylogentically out of the father-complex: religion and moral restraint through the process of mastering the Oedipus complex itself, and social feeling through the necessity for overcoming the rivalry that then remained between the members of the younger generation. The male sex seems to have taken the lead in all these moral acquisitions; and they seem to have then been transmitted to women by cross-inheritance. Even to-day the social feelings arise in the individual as a superstructure built upon impulses of jealous rivalry against his brothers and sisters. Since the hostility cannot be satisfied, an identification with the former rival develops. The study of mild cases of homosexuality confirms the suspicion that in this instance, too, the identification is a substitute for an affectionate object-choice which has taken the place of the aggressive, hostile attitude …” – Sigmund Freud, in Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, ed., Freud on Women: A Reader (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1990), pp. 281-282.

My brainstorm here is that this passage should be a springboard to improving your discussion of Freud. It also suggests that his conception of human nature is somewhat normative or includes a moral element, since he speaks of man’s higher nature. Combine this with the death wish, man’s evil nature, etc.

HUMAN NATURE 89: “But Corwin’s Law was established in advice he gave a budding speaker: ‘Never make people laugh. If you would succeed in life, you must be solemn, solemn as an ass. All the great monuments are built over solemn asses.” – Thomas Corwin, quoted by American politican Clayton Fritchey, “A Politician Must Watch His Wit,” New York Times Magazine, July 3, 1960, quoted in David S. Shrager and Elizabeth Frost, eds., The Quotable Lawyer (New York: Facts on File, 1986), p. 130.

My brainstorm here is that you should include Corwin’s Law because it is really funny, even though I disagree with the substance; for I recommend adding good-natured humor in philosophy at every reasonable opportunity. I agree with the great comedian John Cleese that one can be serious without being somber (and without be as solemn as an ass). Humor is well-appreciated in politics, too, since monuments are (and will continue to be) erected to Ronald Reagan, who is famous for his excellent, Irish sense of humor. The same goes for Reagan’s fellow Irishman ‘Tip’ O’Neil.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 90: “Every law which the state enacts indicates a fact in human nature.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson, ‘History,’ Essays, 1899, quoted in David S. Shrager and Elizabeth Frost, eds., The Quotable Lawyer (New York: Facts on File, 1986), p. 129.

My brainstorm here is that I should tell you that this and Brainstorm 89 appear in the section entitled “Human Nature,” section 63, of the book cited above by Shrager and Frost. I tend to agree with Emerson here, since I think laws are designed to deal with perceived needs or desires of the people involved or the lobbying interests. Laws are significant human creations and thus indicate something significant about the human who create them. This assumes legal positivism, but legal positivism’s main rival -- natural law -- would seem to be even more closely tied to human nature.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 91: “Nature never deceives us; it is always we who deceive ourselves.” – Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Emile, 1762, 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.

My brainstorm is that Rousseau is being silly here. Nature deceives us on a regular basis, from optical illusions like an oar seemingly bent in water to the camouflage of many animals, etc. Even the sense of how much time has passed seems to be a matter of nature deceiving us with good times seeming to pass quickly, and bad times seeming to drag, rather than a matter of self-deception. You can also use this quote to discredit Rousseau’s idea of the Noble Savage, since it seems inconsistent with it. It is not noble of the savage to deceive himself, though perhaps Rousseau would make the implausible claim that the noble savage is never deceived at all.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 92: "No man is so exquisitely honest or upright in living but that ten times in his life he might not lawfully be hanged.” – Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1588, 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.

My brainstorm here is that this is obvious overstatement by the Frenchman, but it’s hyperbole to good effect. It bears on the issue of whether human nature is mainly good, mainly evil, or mainly mixed. You should explore more the issue of whether every human has his/her price. Plato’s Ring of Gyges is a good case in point. So you could discuss explore this issue more in your section on Plato or Aristotle.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 93: “Those who fear men like laws.” – Marquis de Vauvenargues, French moralist, Reflexions, 1746, 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.

My brainstorm here is that I appreciate the Marquis’s brevity here. It would be nice for you to include quotations from a variety of times and nations/cultures. So this and brainstorm 92 should help you get more French thought into your survey of many theories of human nature. Again, this French quote – like the one in Brainstorm 92 -- favors the evil side in the debate over whether human nature is mainly evil, good or mixed.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 94: “For behaviour, men learn it, as they take diseases, one of another.” – Francis Bacon, The Advancement of Learning, 1605, 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.

My brainstorm here is that Bacon seems on the side of nurture in the nature/nurture debate. Of course, Bacon probably knew little or nothing of genetic diseases, so his analogy between behavior and diseases seems dated.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 95: “Man may be a little lower than the angels, but he has not yet shaken off the brute. … His path is strewn with carnage, murder lurks always not far beneath, to break out from time to time, peace resolution to the contrary notwithstanding.” – Learned Hand, “Democracy! Its Presumptions and Realities,” 1 Federal Bar Association Journal 2 (1932), 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.

My brainstorm here is that Hand seems to be on the mixed side of the debate over whether human nature is mainly good, bad or mixed.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 96: "I wish I loved my fellow men more than I do, but to love one's neighbor as oneself, taken literally, would mean to realize all his impulses as one's own, which no one can, and which I humbly think would not be desirable if one could." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., 1841-1935, quoted in Harry C. Shriver, ed., Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: His Book Notices and Uncollected Letters and Papers, 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.

My brainstorm here is that Holmes seems to disagree with both Christianity and utilitarianism here in rejecting “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” Holmes seems to be a utilitarian. See, H. L. Pohlman, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and Utilitarian Jurisprudence (Harvard University Press, 1984).

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 97: “Possibly gaiety is the miasmic mist of misery.” – Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., 1841-1935, quoted in Mark De Wolfe Howe, Holmes-Pollock Letters, 1946, 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.

My brainstorm here is that this is a nice bit of humor and alliteration by Holmes. Good show, Holmes.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 98: “Neither Law nor Human Nature is an exact science.” – George W. Keeton, ed., Harris’s Hints on Advocacy, 1943, 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.

My brainstorm here is that Keeton seems right here. I enjoyed his book Venturing to Do Justice on Harvard University Press. Keeton’s point here seems to support the mixed side of the debate over whether human nature is mainly good, bad or mixed.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 99: “…[Government employees] are subject to that very human weakness, especially displayed in Washington, which leads men to ‘crook the pregnant hinges of the knee where thrift may follow fawning.’” – Robert H. Jackson, Frazier v. United States, 335 U.S. 497, 515 (1948), 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.

My brainstorm here is that I need help understanding Jackson. Maybe you get the uncited allusion to the quote within the quote but it eludes me at the moment. Anyway, without getting the allusion I seem not to be getting Jackson’s point. Well, I’m guessing that Jackson is making the point that human nature is profligate rather than thrifty. That’s another measure of or spectrum on which to measure human nature. He seems to be saying that it is human nature to be weak of will rather than disciplined and thrifty in one’s spending.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 100: “Never advise anyone to go to war or to marry.” – Spanish proverb, quoted in Lewis C. Henry, ed., Best Quotations for All Occasions (New York: Permabooks, 1948), p. 4.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 101: “There are men of whom we can never believe evil without having seen it. Yet there are few in whom we should be surprised to see it.” – La Rochefoucauld, Maximes, 1665, quoted in David S. Shrager and Elizabeth Frost, eds., The Quotable Lawyer (New York: Facts on File, 1986), p. 105.

My brainstorm here is that the quote supports the mainly evil side in the debate on whether human nature is mainly evil, mainly good or mainly evil.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 102: “There is in many, if not in all men, a constant inward struggle between the principles of good and evil; and because a man has grossly fallen, and at the time of his fall added the guilt of hypocrisy to another sort of immorality, it is not necessary, therefore, to believe that his whole life has been false, or that all the good which he ever professed was insincere or unreal.” – Roundell Palmer, 1st earl of Selborne, British jurist; lord chancellor; Symington v. Symington (1875), L.R. 2 Sc. & D. 428, quoted in David S. Shrager and Elizabeth Frost, eds., The Quotable Lawyer (New York: Facts on File, 1986), p. 105.

My brainstorm here is that this quote might help on the issue of whether human nature is mainly evil, mainly good or mainly mixed, since it seems to favor mainly mixed due to the constant struggle between good and evil in the nature of man. This citation is indexed under 'human nature,' as was the quote for Brainstorm 101 and all the Brainstorm quotes from the human nature section of the book cited above.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 103 “It is a sin to believe evil of others, but it is seldom a mistake.” – H. L. Mencken, A Book of Burlesques, 1916, quoted in David S. Shrager and Elizabeth Frost, eds., The Quotable Lawyer (New York: Facts on File, 1986), p. 105.

My brainstorm here is that Mencken often has quotable quotes, though not all of them are politically correct nowadays. Anyway, this quote is not indexed under human nature in the book above but it could have been, since it is on the mainly evil side of the debate over whether human nature is mainly evil, mainly good or mainly mixed. Putting Mencken in your work might heighten interest, since Mencken is somewhat infamous.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 104: “A related objection raised by Elizabeth Wolgast, among others, interprets the original position [of Rawls] as making a metaphysical claim about our essential nature. Since the original position requires that we imagine ourselves to be ignorant of virtually all of our particular traits, this is seen to imply the view that none of those traits are [sic, is] essential to who we are. … Fortunately, the original position need not be interpreted as implying anything about our essential nature.” – James Sterba, Contemporary Social and Political Philosophy (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1995), p. 21.

My brainstorm here is that Sterba seems right, since Rawls wrote an essay with “Political Not Metaphysical” in it. I think it appeared in Philosophy and Public Affairs and in his recent book collecting his essays. This quote is a springboard to discuss Rawls more, if you wish, and it is a chance to include another point from a woman philosopher, Elizabeth Wolgast, which would be useful.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 105: “Second, the Welfare Liberal Conception of Justice does not require that one endorse a completely ahistorical conception of human nature. Welfare liberals can certainly admit that human nature manifests itself in different ways in different social conditions. As Rawls has put it (1978: 55),

everyone recognizes that the institutional form of society affects its members and determines in large part the kind of persons they want to be as well as the kind of persons they are. The social structure also limits peoples’ ambitions and hopes in different ways; for they will with reason view themselves in part according to their position in it and take account of the means and opportunities they can realistically expect. So an economic regime, say, is not only an institutional scheme for satisfying existing desires and aspirations but a way of fashioning desires and aspirations in the future. More generally, the basic structure shapes the way the social system produces and reproduces over time a certain form of culture shared by persons with certain conceptions of their good.” – James Sterba, How To Make People Just: A Practical Reconciliation of Alternative Conceptions of Justice (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1988), p. 70.

My brainstorm here is that your term paper should have more discussion of this contemporary debate over human nature and liberalism. It’s an important issue and it has generated a significant literature.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 106: “A more specific problem is that capitalism does not seem to be a fetter on the growth of productive power. Further, we must doubt that communism is the ultimate release Marx described. Marx argued that communism would be such a release because it resolves the contradictions of capitalism, but this ignores the possibility of communism bringing its own distinctive fetters with it. For [end of p. 123] example, we might think that democracy and collective control may inhibit growth through the unadventurous and unimaginative rule of th emajority and the dead hand of the bureaucracy. Similarly, the removal of stimulus (of need or greed) may render us degenerate, unconcerned with more power over nature. It may be, then, that communism cannot play the role Marx allocated it. And Marx’s grounds for doing so are not compelling. Fundamentally he relies on an ungrounded belief in the perfectibility of human nature under communism, a belief relying more on quasi-Hegelian philosophy of mind than on anthropology.” – Alan Brown, Modern Political Philosophy: Theories of the Just Society (New York: Penguin Books, 1986), pp. 123-124.

My brainstorm here is tht this might add a bit to your discussion of Marx and that this book should appear in your bibliography, since it has two longer discussions of human nature and 9 other pages on human nature listed in its index.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 107: “Albeit in barest outline, we now have eudaimonism’s conception of personhood in our hands, and it will be useful to begin to see what light it casts into shadowed regions of practicallife. Deep within the antagonisms, frustrations, cruelties, and thwartings that taint life’s unfolding in the world, the keenly focused investigative eye detects a common denominator in one hallmark of human nature – its duplicity.” – David L. Norton, Personal Destinies: A Philosophy of Ethical Individualism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), p. 27.

My brainstorm here is that the second sentence of this quote is an especially quotable quote, since I find it well-worded and a bit surprising at the end. Further, it is relevant for discussion of whether human nature is mainly good, mainly evil or mainly mixed, since the quote seems to put Norton in the mainly evil or mainly mixed camp. Furthermore, Norton’s book should ideally appear in your bibliography, since it has one 3-page discussion listed in its index under human nature.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 108: “The popular view of the sexual instinct is beautifully reflected in the poetic fable which tells how the original human beings were cut up into two halves – man and woman – and how these are always striving to unite again in love. It comes as a great surprise therefore to learn that there are men whose sexual object is a man and not a woman, and women whose sexual object is a woman and not a man. People of this kind are described as having ‘contrary sexual feelings’, or better, as being ‘inverts’, and the fact is described as ‘inversion’. The number of such people is very considerable, though there are difficulties in establishing it precisely.” – Sigmund Freud, in Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, ed., Freud on Women: A Reader (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1990), p. 90.

My brainstorm here is that you might include this bit of poetry about human nature, and perhaps some of Freud’s remarks on homosexuality, too.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 109: “Freud’s assessment of causality was careful. First he rejected the idea that inversion [homosexuality] was a form of degeneracy, because it was so obvious that many – if not most – inverts functioned at a superior level intellectually, particularly in societies where inversion was not considered pathological. Then he indicated that only in absolute inverts can a constitutional or innate factor be argued as crucial, but even in these cases, it is likely that the inmate factor is one common to all people, not just to inverts – namely, bisexuality.” – Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, in Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, ed., Freud on Women: A Reader (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1990), p. 91.

My brainstorm here is that students might find it interesting to learn that Freud thought bisexuality was common to all people, and thus evidently part of human nature, and that Freud and Young-Bruehl find it so obvious that so many homosexuals function at a superior level intellectually. This is likely to spark some debate and critical thinking.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 110: “It is popularly believed that a human being is either a man or a woman. Science, however, knows of cases in which the sexual characters are obscured, and in which it is consequently difficult to determine the sex. This arises in the first instance in the field of anatomy. The genitals of the individuals concerned combine male and female characteristics. (This condition is known as hermaphroditism.) In rare cases both kinds of sexual apparatus are found side by side fully developed (true hermaphroditism); but far more frequently both sets of organs are found in an atrophied condition.

The importance of these abnormalities lies in the unexpected fact that they facilitate our understanding of normal development. For it appears that a certain degree of anatomical hermaphroditism occurs normally. In every normal male or female individual, traces are found of the apparatus of the opposite sex. These either persist without function as rudimentary organs or become modified and take on other functions.

These long-familiar facts of anatomy lead us to suppose that an originally bisexual physical disposition has, in the course of evolution, become modified into a unisexual one, leaving behind only a few traces of the sex that has become atrophied.” – Sigmund Freud, in Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, ed., Freud on Women: A Reader (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1990), p. 91.

My brainstorm here is that this is a new ism to include – hermaphroditism. Further, I think many students will find Freuds remarks here of significant interest. Freud sees a role for evolution in changing normal human nature from bisexual to unisexual. Hey, it might encourage some students doubtful of evolution's existence to accept evolution if the alternative is to accept the bisexuality of their human nature.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 111: “It is an instructive fact that under the influence of seduction children can become polymorphously perverse, and can be led into all possible kinds of sexual irregularities. This shows that an aptitude for them in innately present in their disposition. There is consequently little resistance towards carrying them out, since the mental dams against sexual excesses – shame, disgust and morality – have either not yet been constructed at all or are only in [the] course of construction, according to the age of the child. In this respect children behave in the same kind of way as an average uncultivated woman in whom the same polymorphously perverse disposition persists. Under ordinary conditions she may remain normal sexually, but if she is led on by a clever seducer she will find every sort of perversion to her taste, and will retain them as part of her own sexual activities. Prostitutes exploit the same polymorphous, that is, infantile, disposition for the purposes of their profession; and, considering the immense number of women who are prostitutes or who must be supposed to have an aptitude for prostitution without becoming engaged in it, it becomes impossible not to recognize that this same disposition to pervrsions of every kind is a general and fundamental human characteristic.” – Sigmund Freud, in Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, ed., Freud on Women: A Reader (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1990), p. 119, ‘the’ in square brackets added by Harwood.

My brainstorm is: Wow, Freud is making quite a few interesting and sweeping generalizations here. He seems to imply above that a serious aptitude of prostitution and perversity is part of human nature.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 112: "It is commonly assumed that Freud counted masochism among the defining characteristics of femininity, ‘an expression of feminine nature,’ as he indeed wrote toward the beginning of this 1924 essay [“The Economic Problem of Masochism”].” – Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, in Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, ed., Freud on Women: A Reader (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1990), p. 283.

My brainstorm is that you should make sure you discuss this claim of Freud’s, which is bound to be controversial and interesting.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 113: “The female sex, too, develops an Oedipus complex, a super-ego and a latency period. May we also attribute a phallic organization and a castration complex to it? The answer is in the affirmative; but these things cannot be the same as they are in boys. Here the feminist demand for equal rights for the sexes does not take us far, for the morphological distinction is bound to find expression in differences of psychical development. ‘Anatomy is Destiny’, to vary a saying of Napoleon’s. The little girl’s clitoris behaves just like a penis to begin with; but, when she makes a comparison with a playfellow of the other sex, she perceives that she has ‘come off badly’ and she feels this as a wrong done to her and as a ground for inferiority.” – Sigmund Freud, in Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, ed., Freud on Women: A Reader (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1990), p. 299.

My brainstorm here is that we have more controversial and fascinating ideas from Freud here to discuss. What makes it all the more amazing is that he’s writing in 1934, in his essay “The Dissolution of the Oedipus Complex.” He uses at least two phrases that seem very modern: “the feminist demand for equal rights” and “‘Anatomy is Destiny.’”

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 114: “I cannot evade the notion (though I hesitate to give it expression) that for women the level of what is ethically normal is different from what it is in men. Their super-ego is never so inexorable, so impersonal, so independent of its emotional origins as we require it to be in men. Character-traits which critics of every epoch have brought up against women – that they show less sense of justice than men, that they are less ready to submit to the great exigencies of life, that they are more often influenced in their judgements by feelings of affection or hostility – all these would be amply accounted for by the modification in the formation of their super-ego which we have inferred above. We must not allow ourselves to be deflected from such conclusions by the denials of the feminists, who are anxious to force us to regard the two sexes as completely equal in position and worth; but we shall, of course, willingly agree that the majority of men are also far behind the masculine ideal and that all human individuals, as a result of their bisexual disposition and of cross-inheritance, combine in themselves both masculine and feminine characteristics, so that pure masculinity and feminity remain theoretical constructions of uncertain content.” – Sigmund Freud, in Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, ed., Freud on Women: A Reader (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1990), p. 314.

My brainstorm here is that Freud again provides a quotable quote and a fertile ground for much discussion here.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 115: “If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” – Alexander Solzhenitsyn, quoted in Connie Zweig and Jeremiah Abrams, eds., Meeting the Shadow: The Hidden Power of the Dark Side of Human Nature (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1991), p. v.

My brainstorm here is that this is an especially quotable quote. Further, it may apply to your cosmopolitanism paper, too. The quote is relevant putting Solzhenitsyn on the side of mainly mixed in the debate over whether human nature is mainly good, mainly evil, or mainly mixed. Finally, the book cited above should appear in your bibliography. You might use the quote above in your discussion of Marx and the USSR, including the idea of the New Soviet Man.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 116: “People won’t do for themselves what government will do for them; that’s human nature.” – Tucker Carlson, speaking about the prescription medicine bill signed into law by President George W. Bush recently, on the TV show “Tucker Carlson Unfiltered” (PBS), broadcast 7/18/04.

My brainstorm here is that Carlson’s conservative view might help with a discussion of the issue of whether human nature is lazy or greedy, especially concerning politics.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 117: “Plato explicitly rejected conventional morality … and Kant’s own view here points in the same direction. … [end of p. 8]

Since Kant has previously said that happiness will follow from the moral perfection of humanity, whereas now it is said to be the result of a perfect constitution and its corresponding laws, we can infer that the moral perfection of humanity and, hence, the moral society will develop within the framework of the state. Thus, the thesis that the conscience within us will rule the world when the moral society is realized means not that the state will be abolished, but that it will lose its repressive character. Another conclusion that emerges is that the duty to promote the highest good encompasses the duty to realize the perfect state. This conclusion is supported by Kant’s further considerations of Plato.

Kant continues his criticism of the opponents of Plato with the contention that any appeal to adverse experience as a basis for claiming that visions of a perfect state have no practical value is misplaced, because such adverse experience would not have occurred in the first place if pure ideas had been used to make the laws. Kant turns the tables in similar fashion on those opponents who argue that present imperfect political institutions are the inevitable and unchangeable product of a flawed human nature. He argues that the real explanation for political imperfection is ‘the neglect of the pure ideas in the making the laws’ (ibid.). The interesting suggestion here is that what appears as a flawed human nature is itself in large measure the product of faulty political structures. This leads Kant to develop the radical claim that the more legislation and government harmonize with the idea of a perfect constitution the rarer punishment will become, and he argues that it is, therefore, rational to maintain, with Plato, that in a perfect state no punishment will be necessary. This radical claim – wrong ascribed to Plato – shows again that Kant perceptively held that certain sociopolitical conditions block moral progress. It also shows that the duty to seek the highest good includes the duty to pursue the perfect state, and, indeed, Kant asserts here that it is a duty of humanity to bring existing legal institutions as close as possible to the ideal. To what degree this can be accomplished cannot be said in advance …

The merit of Plato’s work, Kant proceeds to argue, is that it demonstrates that ideas originate not in empirical reality but in [end of p. 9] reason. This is of crucial importance, since ‘[n]othing is more reprehensible than to derive the laws prescribing what ought to be done from what is done, or to impose upon them the limits by which the latter is circumscribed’ (313; 259). Kant’s ethics, then, makes its own progressive nature a question of principle.” – Harry van der Linden, Kantian Ethics and Socialism (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co., 1988), pp. 8-10, emphasis added in bold.

My brainstorm here is that this quote seems relevant for both your human nature book and your cosmopolitan paper. A Plato/Kant team is interesting and hard to beat. Van der Linden’s remarks here seem to contradict his remarks I quoted in cosmopolitan comment 7, where he says that Kant’s politics on cosmopolitanism seem not to grow out of Kant’s ethics.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 118: “The implicit ‘realism’ of ordinary moral language, like that of the ordinary language of colour, was therefore a serious error. Hobbes indeed usually treated this error as the major difficulty in the way of a peaceful life, rather than (as is often supposed) viewing the clash of naked self-interest as the fundamental problem in human social existence.

The account of the passions which Hobbes gave, after all, treated them as broadly beneficial: what men feel strongly about or desire strongly is what helps them to survive and they cannot for long want a state of affairs in which their survival is endangered. Such a view was common ground between Hobbes and many of his contemporaries, including Descartes: all argued that the traditional idea that reason should control the passions was an error, and that (properly understood) our emotions would guide us in the right direction. Men, on Hobbes’s account, do not want to harm other men for the sake of harming them; they wish for power over them, it is true, but power only to secure their own preservation. The common idea that Hobbes was in some sense ‘pessimistic’ about human nature is wide of the mark, for his natural men (rather like Grotius’s) were in principle stand-offish toward one another rather than inherently belligerent.” – Richard Tuck, Hobbes: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 65, emphasis added in bold but italics are in original.

My brainstorm here is that contrarian Tuck is surprisingly going against the mainstream of interpreting Hobbes on two points: 1) that Hobbes thought a linguistic error of ordinary language (rather than clashing self-interest) was the major obstacle to peaceful living; and 2) that Hobbes was not in any way pessimistic about human nature. I find 1) even harder to believe than 2), but Tuck has a very respected reputation. Check to see if you are going with the flow of mainstream interpretation of Hobbes and thus run afoul of Tuck here. You might adjudicate issue 2) at least. Tuck’s quote affects how one would classify Hobbes if you classify Hobbes on the issue of whether human nature is mainly good, mainly evil or mainly mixed.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 119: “The Development of Roman Ethics

From what has been said above it should be clear that the Romans, quite apart from Greek philosophy, had a strong, though unsystematic, set of ethical concepts. The traditional emphasis on virtus, while rendered problematic by its link to public recognition, made Romans familiar with Stoicism receptive to the doctrine that ethical virtue is sufficient by itself to constitute the summum bonum. In Stoicism fame, wealth, and noble birth count as ‘preferable’ but as completely nonessential to human flourishing. Thus Stoic ethics could serve as a means of justifying part of the pre-philosophical values, while also providing reasons for rejecting their dependence on external success and approval. In addition, the Stoics had developed a doctrine of ‘proper functions’ (kathekonta), which served as moral rules for determining how people should act in specific circumstances. These were grounded in a ‘reasonable’ understanding of human nature from self-regarding and from other-regarding perspectives. Independently of Stoicism, the Romans had a concept that they called officium. The term, like its English derivative ‘office,’ signifies a person’s functions or roles and the conduct appropriate to the execution of these. Romans who encountered Stoicism could readily adapt the Stoic concept of ‘proper functions’ to their traditional view of propriety in the fulfillment of offices they had undertaken.

In his De officiis (On Duties), which has already been mentioned, Cicero seeks to do three things: first, he expounds a series of appropriate actions, grounding these in the four cardinal virtues – wisdom, temperance, courage, and justice – which are represented as the perfections of human nature. Second, he argues that genuine conflict between morality and expediency is impossible. Third, he explores and disposes of apparent conflicts of this kind.” – A. A. Long, “Roman Ethics,” in Lawrence C. Becker and Charlotte B. Becker, eds., A History of Western Ethics (New York: Garland Publishing, 1992), p. 36, emphasis added in bold but italics are in original.

My brainstorm here is that grounding duties in a reasonable understanding of human nature is an attempt to bridge the is/ought gap. This book has 5 pages indexed under “human nature,” and so you might include it in your bibliography.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 120: “As Stoics they take moral rules to be grounded in human nature, but it is not what they say about thes rules that is chiefly interesting, but the questions, answers, objections and illustrations they attach to these.” – A. A. Long, “Roman Ethics,” in Lawrence C. Becker and Charlotte B. Becker, eds., A History of Western Ethics (New York: Garland Publishing, 1992), p. 42.

My brainstorm is, again, the grounding of moral rules in human nature would be a bridge to the is/ought gap.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 121: “Marx’s professed thoroughgoing naturalism blocks any appeal to religious, metaphysical or teleological principles transcending human life; and yet the moral vision that inspires both his polemic and his advocacy of revolution requires some sort of grounding if it is to withstand critical scrutiny. The only recourse available to him for this purpose would appear to be to appeal to considerations pertaining to our fundamental human nature; but in view of his own criticisms of this notion, this recourse would not seem to be a very promising one for him.” – Richard Schacht, “Nineteenth-Century Continental Ethics,” in Lawrence C. Becker and Charlotte B. Becker, eds., A History of Western Ethics (New York: Garland Publishing, 1992), p. 112, emphasis added in bold.

My brainstorm is that here’s another knock on Marx you might add, suggesting he is saddled with a contradiction. This quote adds another ism to touch base with in your analysis: Marx’s naturalism.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 122: “[M]ost people remain more committed to their own ambitions than to the public interest, and ‘never do anything good except by necessity’ …” – Quentin Skinner, Machiavelli: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 76.

My brainstorm here is that this quote may help classify Machiavelli on issues of human nature such as the extent to which human nature verifies psychological egoism, claims that humans are by nature aggressive, and claims that human nature is mainly mixed or mainly evil or mainly good.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 123: “Civilized ages inherit the human nature which was victorious in barbarous ages, and that nature is, in many respects, not at all suited to civilized circumstances.” – Bagehot, quoted in W. H. Auden and Louis Kronenberger, eds., The Viking Book of Aphorisms: A Personal Selection (New York: Compass Books, 1966), p. 232.

My brainstorm here is that Bagehot seems to to be on the flexible side of the debate over whether human nature is mainly fixed or mainly flexible. Since this quote concerns barbarism and civilization, it might also serve you in your cosmopolitan paper.n

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 124: “If literature is to be made a study of human nature, you cannot have a Christian literature. It is a contradiction in terms to attempt a sinless literature of sinful man.” – Newman, quoted in W. H. Auden and Louis Kronenberger, eds., The Viking Book of Aphorisms: A Personal Selection (New York: Compass Books, 1966), p. 275.

My brainstorm here is that Newman seems wrong. I see no contradiction and he fails to show it. It puts him on the mainly mixed or mainly evil side of the debate over the goodness of human nature. The Newman is presumably Cardinal Newman rather than Alfred E. Newman of Mad Magazine (What, me worry?). ;o)

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 125: “Human nature is so well disposed toward those in interesting situations, that a young person who either marries or dies, is sure to be kindly spoken of.” – Jane Austen, quoted in W. H. Auden and Louis Kronenberger, eds., The Viking Book of Aphorisms: A Personal Selection (New York: Compass Books, 1966), p. 379.

Further, her quote reminds me some other quotes in FAQ14. It also reminds me of the famous Woody Allen quote: "Marriage is the death of hope." Here it is again, another comparison marriage with a matter of life and death (war).

This quote is funny in comparing war to marriage, and it has special relevance after Spain’s recent election results and its aftermath, the withdrawal of Spain from W’s Coalition of the Willing.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 126: “Everyone has a theory of human nature. Everyone has to anticipate the behavior of others, and that means we all need theories about what makes people tick. A tacit theory of human nature – that behavior is caused by thoughts and feelings – is embedded in the very way we think about people. …

Our theory of human nature is the wellspring of much of our lives. We consult it when we want to persuade or threaten, inform or deceive. It advises us on how to nurture our marriages, bring up our children, and control our own behavior. … Rival theories of human nature are entwined in different ways of life and different political systems, and have been a source of much conflict over the course of history.

For millennia, the major theories of human nature have come from religion. The Judeo-Christian tradition, for example, offers explanations for much of the subject matter now studied by biology and psychology. Humans are made in the image of God and are unrelated to animals. Women are derivative of men and destined to be ruled by them. The mind is an immaterial substance: it has powers possessed by no purely physical structure, and can continue to exist when the body dies. The mind is made up of several components, including a moral sense, an ability to love, a capacity for reason that recognizes whether an act conforms to ideals of goodness, and a decision [end of p. 1] factulty that chooses how to behave. Although the decision faculty is not bound by the laws of cause and effect, it has an innate tendency to choose sin. …

The Judeo-Christian conception is still the most popular theory of human nature in the United States. According to recent polls, 76 percent of Americans believe in the biblical account of creation, 79 percent believe that the miracles in the Bible actually took place, 76 percent believe in angels, the devil, and other immaterial souls, 67 percent believe they will exist in some form after their death, and only 15 percent believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on Earth. Politicians on the right embrace the religious theory explicitly, and no mainstream politician would dare contradict it in public. But the modern sciences of cosmology, geology, biology, and archaeology have made it impossible for a scientifically literate person to believe that the biblical story of creation actually took place. As a result, the Judeo-Christian theory of human nature is no longer explicitly avowed by most academics, journalists, social analysts, and other intellectually engaged people.

Nonetheless, every society must operate with a theory of human nature, and our intellectual mainstream is committed to antoher one. The theory is seldom articulated or overtly embraced, but it lies at the heart of a vast number of beliefs and policies. Bertran Russell wrote, ‘Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day.’” – Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (New York: Viking, 2002), pp. 1-2.

My brainstorm here is that this is an important book for you to read, if you have yet to do so. It has 509 pages packed with relevant ideas. It praises The Bell Curve. It has some nice jacket blurbs like “The best book on human nature that I or anyone else will ever read. Truly a magnificent job – Matt Ridley, author of Genome.” I’ve read only about 10% of the book but I’ve been impressed so far at how the author makes some good points about Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke. Philosophers are cited throughout. If you’d like to borrow this book, just let me know.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 127: “Human nature is gentleness.” – The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet, speech at the Royal Albert Hall, London, England, in Ethics for the New Millennium (New York: Mystic Fire Video, 1999).

My brainstorm here is that the Dalai Lama is probably being seriously overoptimistic. He rejects the idea that man is by nature more aggressive than gentle. He says in the same talk that it is important to keep an optimistic outlook, with which I generally agree. Still, there’s seems to be much aggressiveness that he doesn’t recognize. Further, I think I see a contradiction in his Buddhism, since he wants us to have: 1) compassion for all living things, yet 2) avoid attachments. I conceive of compassion as a form of attachment and hence see a contradiction here.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 128: “Our nature consists in movement; absolute rest is death.” – Blaise Pascal, Pensees (New York: Penguin Classics), p. 238, saying 641.

My brainstorm is that human nature seems a mixed bag here. This quote seems to go against the Dalai Lama’s suggestion that human nature is gentleness. Movement suggests more than gentle movement but some aggressiveness. Many humans are lazy. Many more take narcotic or tranquilizing drugs and so their movement is to take drugs to sedate themselves with valium, heroin, alcohol, etc. Our species seems to keep moving with science, technology and exploration but individual humans seem much more of a mixed bag.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 129: “Mitton sees quite well that nature is corrupt and that men are opposed to integrity, but he does not know why they can fly no higher.” – Blaise Pascal, Pensees (New York: Penguin Classics, 1966), p. 238, saying 642.

My brainstorm here is that this quote is relevant for the key issue of whether human nature is mainly good, mainly evil or mainly mixed. The quote seems to put Pascal squarely in the camp of claiming human nature is mainly evil.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 130: “This book is about the moral, emotional, and political colorings of the concept of human nature in modern life. I will retrace the history that led people to see human nature as a dangerous idea, and I will try to unsnarl the moral and political rat’s nests that have entangled the idea along the way. Though no book on human nature can hope to be uncontroversial, I did not write it to be yet another ‘explosive’ book, as dust jackets tend to say. I am not, as many people assume, countering an extreme ‘nurture’ position with an extreme ‘nature’ position, with the truth lying somewhere in between. In some cases, an extreme environmentalist explanation is correct: which language you speak is an obvious example, and differences among races and ethnic groups in test scores may be another. In other cases, such as certain inherited neurological disorders, an extreme hereditarian explanation is correct. In most cases the correct explanation will invoke a complex interaction between heredity and environment: culture is crucial, but culture could not exist without mental [end of p. viii] faculties that allow humans to create and learn culture to begin with. My goal in this book is not to argue that genes are everything and culture is nothing – no one believes that – but to explore why the extreme position (that culture is everything) is so often seen as moderate, and the moderate position is seen as extreme.” – Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (New York: Viking, 2002), pp. viii-ix.

My brainstorm here is that you should discuss, or discuss more, the claim that human nature is a dangerous idea. What are the dangers and how do they arise? How severe are these dangers and can we contain them reasonably well?

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 131: “Nor does acknowledging human nature have the political implications so many fear. It does not, for example, require one to abandon feminism, or to accept current levels of inequality or violence, or to treat morality as a fiction. For the most part I will try not to advocate particular policies or to advance the agenda of the political left or right. I believe that controversies about policy almost always involve tradeoffs between competing values, and that science is equipped to identify the tradeoffs but not to resolve them. Many of these tradeoffs, I will show, arise from features of human nature, and by clarifying them I hope to make our collective choices, whatever they are, better informed. If I am an advocate, it is for discoveries about human nature that have been ignored or suppressed in modern discussions of human affairs.

Why is it important to sort this all out? The refusal to acknowledge human nature is like the Victorians’ embarrassment about sex, only worse: it distorts our science and scholarship, our public discourse, and our day-to-day lives. Logicians tells us that a single contradiction can corrupt a set of statements and allow falsehoods to proliferate through it. The dogma that human nature does not exist, in the face of evidence from science and common sense that it does, is just such a corrupting influence.” – Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (New York: Viking, 2002), p. ix.

My brainstorm here is that you should say more about how the very existence of human nature is ignored or suppressed, for example in existentialism and perhaps in feminism, and then say more about how such ignorance and suppression distorts the areas Pinker mentions above. Doing this at the very start or the very end of your term paper seems to make the most sense.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 132: “The taboo on human nature has not just put blinkers on researchers but turned any discussion of it into a heresy that must be stamped out. Many writers are so desperate to discredit any suggestion of an innate human constitution that they have thrown logic and civility out the window. Elementary distinctions – ‘some’ versus ‘all,’ ‘probable’ versus ‘always,’ ‘is’ versus ‘ought’ – are eagerly flouted to paint human nature as an extremist doctrine and thereby steer readers away from it. The analysis of ideas is commonly replaced by political smears and personal attacks. This poisoning of the intellectual atmosphere has left us unequipped to analyze pressing issues about human nature just as new scientific discoveries are making them acute.
The denial of human nature has spread beyond the academy and has led to a disconnect between intellectual life and common sense. I first had the idea of writing this book when I started a collection of astonishing claims from pundits and social critics about the malleability of the human psyche: that little boys quarrel and fight because they are encouraged to do so; that children enjoy sweets because their parents use them as a reward for eating vegetables; that teenagers get the idea to compete in looks and fashion from spelling bees and academic prizes; that men think the goal of sex is an orgasm because of the way they were socialized. The problem is not just that these claims are preposterous but that the writers did not acknowledge they wre saying things that common sense might call into question. This is the mentality of a cult, in which fantastical beliefs are flaunted as proof of one’s piety. That mentality cannot coexist with an esteem for the truth, and I believe it is responsible for some of the unfortunate trends in recent intellectual life. One trend is a stated contempt among many scholars for the concepts of truth, logic, and evidence. Another is a hypocritical divide between what intellectuals say in public and what they really believe. A third is the inevitable reaction: a culture of “politically incorrect” shock jocks who revel in anti-intellectualism and bigotry, emboldened by the knowledge that the intellectual establishment has forfeited claims to credibility in the eyes of the public.” – Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (New York: Viking, 2002), p. x.

My brainstorm here is that this quote or a trimmed version of it would be a fine springboard for you to opine on the contemporary intellectual climate. The examples from Pinker’s collection of astounding claims about human nature are pretty humorous. Please add humor every reasonable chance you get. ;o)

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 133: “Though it is a scene [from Isaac Bashevis Singer’s Enemies, A Love Story] of considerable sadness, it has a streak of sly humor, as we watch these pathetic souls forgo their chance to savor a moment of rare good fortune and slip instead into petty quarreling. And Singer’s biggest joke is on us. Dramatic conventions, and a belief in cosmic justice, lead us to expect that suffering has ennobled these characters and that we are about to witness a scene of great drama and pathos. Instead we are shown what we ought to have expected all along: real human beings with all their follies. Nor is the episode a display of cynicism or misanthropy: we are not surprised when later in the story Herman and Tamara share moments of tenderness, or that a wise Tamara will offer him his only chance at redemption. It is a scene that has the voice of the species in it: that infuriating, endearing, mysterious, predictable, and eternally fascinating thing we call human nature.” – Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (New York: Viking, 2002), p. 435.

My brainstorm is that this quote is how Pinker ends his book. How can human nature be mysterious after he writes about it for 435 pages and after he concludes that it is ‘predictable’ above?

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 134: “Before this last step, namely, the joining of the states, is taken, in other words, the half-way mark of mankind’s development is reached; human nature is enduring the worst hardships under the guise of external welfare and Rousseau was not so very wrong when he preferred the condition of savages; [for it is to be preferred], provided one omits this last stage which our species will have to reach.” – Immanuel Kant, from “Idea for a Universal History with Cosmopolitan Intent,” [1784] in Carl J. Friedrich, ed., The Philosophy of Kant (New York: The Modern Library, 1949), p. 126, emphasis in bold added, words in square brackets originally in Friedrich’s edition.

My brainstorm here is that this quote is relevant for your human nature book and your cosmo paper. I seem to recall that you do take issue with it. I disagree with Kant here, since I would not prefer the condition of the savages even if we lacked the culmination of history for our species that Kant assumes, and Kant’s assumption is of course very improbable from a secular perspective.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 135: “Our human nature has this aspect that it cannot be indifferent to even the most remote epoch at which our species may arrive if only that epoch may be expected with certainty.” – Immanuel Kant, from “Idea for a Universal History with Cosmopolitan Intent,” [1784] in Carl J. Friedrich, ed., The Philosophy of Kant (New York: The Modern Library, 1949), p. 127, emphasis in bold added.

My brainstorm here is that this quote is relevant for your term paper on human nature and your paper on cosmopolitanism. Further, this quote reminds me of the Woody Allen joke about eternity and Tom Nagel’s response to that joke. The Woody Allen joke is something like: what difference does it make what shirt I wear today when I realize that an eternity of oblivion waits for me at the end of my life. Nagel’s response to thoughts like Allen’s is, as I recall, is that it doesn’t matter that it doesn’t matter. In other words, just as it doesn’t matter nearly an eternity from now what we do today, neither does it matter today what doesn’t matter nearly an eternity from now. Both are equally far apart in time and hence rendered essentially irrelevant to each other. So even the certainty Kant relies on here seems insufficient to make it matter to us now what happens in “the most remote epoch” as far as Nagel seems to imply. Never pass up a reasonable opportunity to include a joke in your term paper. You might find more accurate versions of Allen’s joke, since I’m relying on memory and couldn’t find any reference to Allen in Nagel’s Mortal Questions, What Does It All Mean? (which lacks an index) or The View from Nowhere. Nagel’s response to thoughts like Allen’s appears in the first paragraph of Ch. 10 of his What Does It All Mean? and goes on from there. The ideas Nagel discusses there seem at odds with Kant’s quote above.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 136: “You can’t change human nature” and “We’re not going to change human nature anytime soon.” It’s not that we’re not rational. We are rational. But reason has limits.” – Robert McNamara, from the film ‘The Fog of War’ (2003), which won the Academy Award for best documentary.

This is a fantastically great film. I highly recommend that you view it, if you haven’t seen it. Even if you have seen it, it does reward repeated viewing.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 137: “Since human nature is part of cosmic nature, the law which governs the cosmos, that of the divine Logos, provides the law to which human action ought to be conformed. At once an obvious question arises. Since human life proceeds eternally through an eternally predetermined cycle, how can human beings fail to conform to the cosmic law? What alternatives have they? The Stoic answer is that men as rational beings can become conscious of the laws to which they necessarily conform, and that virtue consists in conscious assent to, vice in dissent from, the inevitable order of things.” – Alasdair MacIntyre, A Short History of Ethics (New York: Macmillan, 1966), p. 105.

This book has 5 other indexed pages that discuss human nature. MacIntyre seems merely to be describing Stoicism above rather than committing himself to any view of his own on the underlying subject. Compare Joseph Campbell’s view that Buddhism morally requires us to engage in joyful participation in the sorrows of the world, which are inevitable. Campbell makes this point in his book and video series The Power of Myth.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 138: "The criticism of our desires and their rational remolding have no place in the Hobbesian system. It follows that, inevitably, our desires are for one individual object after another; and thus desires cannot include the desire for a certain kind of life, the desire that our desires should be of a certain kind.

Nonetheless, we owe to Hobbes a great lesson. This is that a theory of morals is inseparable from a theory of human nature. Just because Hobbes commits himself to a conception of a timeless human nature he commits himself to an unhistorical answer to the question of what had destroyed political order in England in the 1640’s, replacing it by the question of what social and political order as such consist in. … He discusses freedom of the will only in order to stress that all human acts are determined, and he discusses political freedom only within the limits allowed by the limitless power of the sovereign. … It is remarkable that Hobbes should be as impressed as he was by the fact of civil war and as unimpressed as he was by the declared and avowed aims of those who fought that war. But he was unimpressed and he was so because his theory of motives led him to suppose that high-minded ideals were necessarily but a mask for the drive to domination.” – Alasdair MacIntyre, A Short History of Ethics (New York: Macmillan, 1966), p. 139.

Note to students: I suggest that you add MacIntyre’s book to your bibliography. The above is a nice point he makes about Hobbes, one of philosophers featured prominently in your term paper. The point above might allow a significant link between Hobbes and Nietzsche (will to power) or Freud (death wish or unconscious aggression) regarding the drive to domination mentioned above.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 139: "'There's been a lot of changes in the league, but the only thing, to me, that hasn't changed is human nature,' Gibbs says. 'Some people are motivated by money, some people are motivated by fear, some are motivated by getting a little sugar. Some are not going to be good team people. Some are self-centered. Human nature, that's going to be part of the game plan until the Lord comes here again.'" From http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/sports/article.adp?id=20050621071709990010, posted on aol 6/21/05 @ 701am.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 140: "It is a generally accepted view that the perfect good is self-sufficient. By self-sufficient we mean not what is sufficient for oneself alone living a solitary life, but something that includes parents, wife and children, friends and fellow-citizens in general; for man is by nature a social being. ... A self-sufficient thing, then, we take to be one which by itself makes life desirable and in no way deficient; and we believe that happiness is such a thing." -- Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, translated by J.A.K. Thomson, from Aristotle, "Happiness and the Virtues," in Christina Sommers and Fred Sommers, ed., Vice and Virtue in Everyday Life, 6th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 2004), pp. 214-215.

Note to students: Do you agree with Aristotle that man is a social animal? Is man an antisocial animal? Can man take or leave society, making a free choice to participate in society or reject it?

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 141: "Life on this plane is not too high for the divine element in human nature. But such a life will be too high for human attainment; for any man who lives it will do so not as a human being but in virtue of something divine within him, and in proportion as this divine element is superior to the composite being, so will its activity be superior to that of the other kind of virtue." -- Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, translated by J.A.K. Thomson, from Aristotle, "Happiness and the Virtues," in Christina Sommers and Fred Sommers, ed., Vice and Virtue in Everyday Life, 6th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 2004), p. 222.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 142: "They seemed to have trusted altogether to the old familiar instruments, praise and pleasure, especially of pain, might be created, and might produce desires and aversions capable of lasting undiminished to the end of life. But there must always be something artificial and casual in association thus produced. The pains and pleasures thus forcibly associated with tings are not connected with them by any natural tie; and it is therefore I thought, essential to the durability of these associations, that they should have become so intense and inveterate as to be practically indissoluble before the habitual exercise of the power of analysis had commenced. ... Analytic habits may thus even strengthen the associations between causes and effects, means and ends, but tend altogether to weaken those which are, to speak familiarly, a mere matter of feeling. ... These were the laws of human nature, by which, as it seemed to me, I had been brought to my present state [of persistent unhappiness]." -- John Stuart Mill, Autobiography, Chapter 5, appearing as "A Crisis in My Mental Life," in Christina Sommers and Fred Sommers, ed., Vice and Virtue in Everyday Life, 6th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 2004), p. 407.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 143: "The limitations and restraints of civil government, and a legal
constitution, may be defended either from reason, which reflecting on the great frailty and corruption of human nature, teaches that no man can be trusted with unlimited authority; or from experience and history, which inform us of the enormous abuses that ambition, in every age and country, has been found to make of so imprudent a confidence." -- David Hume, 1748

Note to students: This is relevant to the issue of whether human nature is basically good, basically bad, or basically a mixed bag. Hume seems to agree generally with the negative views of human nature by Machiavelli and Kant, though Hume seems to avoid being as negative as those two great thinkers.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 144: "As opposed to knowledge concerning nature, the validity of laws has no a priori guarantee in the realm of praxis. On the contrary, here [in Immanuel Kant's ethics] we only find imperatives to which we ought to adhere in so far as we understand ourselves as rational beings, but which human nature does not readily obey by itself as it vacillates between sensory impulses and rational determination. Only the 'holy will' of a god that acts solely from reason would be above the moral 'ought' and the obliging aspect of rational motivation." ~ Rudiger Bubner, Introduction, German Idealist Philosophy (New York: Penguin Books, 1997), p. 8.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 145: "Kant set forth the thesis that while human nature in our species has remained constant over time, humanity has made process [sic, progress] through its moral institutions." ~ Louis P. Pojman, Terrorism, Human Rights, and the Case for World Government (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2006), p. 62.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 146: "Human nature is ambiguous and very complicated, so that utopian community of peace and plenty will continue to remain a long-term goal. We will probably always need law and government to enforce the law. But we would come closer to universal peace and justice if we all become world citizens instead of merely Americans, Russians, Mexicans, Canadians, British, French, or Chinese." ~ Louis P. Pojman, Terrorism, Human Rights, and the Case for World Government (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006), p. 56.

Note to students: Do you agree with Dr. Pojman that we should become citizens of the world rather than "merely Americans" etc.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 147: "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Who can know it?" ~ Jeremiah 17:9 (Jeremiah, chapter 17, verse 9, Old Testament Bible, King James Version).

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 148: "So our moral reactions in this domain have two facets, as it were. On one side, they are almost like instincts, comparable to our love of sweet things, or our aversion to nauseous substances, or our fear of falling; on the other, they seem to involve claims, implicit or explicit, about the nature and status of human beings. From this second side, a moral reaction is an assent to, an affirmation of, a given ontology of the human.
An important strand of modern naturalist consciousness has tried to hive this second side off and declare it dispensable or irrelevant to morality. The motives are multiple: partly distrust of all such ontological accounts because of the use to which some of them have been put, e.g., justifying restrictions or exclusions of heretics or allegedly lower beings. And this distrust is strenthened where a prmimitivist sense that unspoiled human nature respects life by instinct reigns. But it is partly also the great epistemological cloud under which all such accounts lie for those who have followed empiricist or rationalist theories of knowledge, inspired by the success of modern natural science." Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (Princeton University Press, 1989), p. 5.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 149: “No distinct part of the soul has been allotted by philosophical theory to the mastery of languages. A relevant philosophy here is that of Vico, whose ‘New Science’ of philosophy, as he conceived it, was the historical study of human nature, and of human knowledge, largely through the development of language in individual minds and in history. This historical study of human nature and knowledge was designed to replace the dominant Cartesian study of human knowledge by inquiry into the rational foundations of knowledge, foundations that do not come to be and pass away, as the forms of language do. … In short, philology embraced the whole of the humanities, as conceived in a contemporary university; and Vico argued against Descartes that these historical studies could provide a greater certainty than is possible in the natural sciences.
Vico’s theory of knowledge takes historical knowledge as the paradigm of secure knowledge rather than mathematics and the natural sciences. Vico’s principle of ranking is the verum factum principle: truth resides in what we have made. God made the natural world, and he possess the certain truth about it, but we do not and will not. Human beings made their own history and their own cultures, and they can recapture, and represent to themselves, exactly what they made. In developing this epistemology, Vico puts alongside the faculty of intellect the faculty of imagination, which Descartes and Spinoza had made the typical source of illusion and error.” – Stuart Hampshire, Innocence and Experience (Harvard University Press, 1989), p. 45.

Note to students: My brainstorm here is that your term paper would profit from more mention of the Vico/Descartes debate over epistemology (and history versus math as the paradigm of knowledge). My other brainstorm here is that you should discuss history a bit more or a bit more prominently, by quoting what seems to be a flaw in human nature: our tendency to fail to learn from history. Quote George Santayana’s “Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it” and I like to paraphrase Hegel’s long quote about history in Bartlett’s familiar quotations as “We learn from history that we don’t learn from history.”

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 150: "Human beings do not only exist but are also capable of conscious rumination about existence -- which constitutes both our dignity and misery. Once a crack starts to open up in a life which runs along the tracks of custom, the dark abyss begins to threaten our existence. Human beings are not sufficiently cunning to be able to conceal their true selves to the end; nor are they strong enough to endure such darkness." ~ Tetsuaki Kotoh, "Language and Silence: Self-Inquiry in Heidegger and Zen," in Graham Parkes, ed., Heidegger and Asian Thought (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1987), p. 202.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 151: "The sympathy and frustration shown by Miki towards Heidegger's philosophy were expressed in an amplified fashion in the response that the ounger Japanese generation showed towards the political and social situation after the defeat in the war. That is, on the one hand they were interested in the nonrational anxiety fundamentally inherent in human nature. On the other hand, they took the attitude of discovering a challenge in the political situation where people's lives were oppressed. A truly human way of life lies in the pursuit of actual truth (shinjitsu) in both one's inner and outer world. Therein we can find a reason why Sartre's claim that 'existentialism is a humanism' gained explosive poularity after the war [World War II]. Although this sort of response was a tendency common to the advanced nations of Europe and America, after the seventies Sartre's popularity dwindled. This is not because we have found an answer. It simply means that the crisis has become chronic. We probably cannot expect an answer from politics." ~ Yasuo Yuasa, "Modern Japanese Philosophy and Heidegger," in Graham Parkes, ed., Heidegger and Asian Thought (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1987), p. 163.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 152: "The fundamental goal of Heidegger's philospohy was to open up this kind of new horizon. Consequently, the goal for the path of his thinking, if seen in light of the turn from the earlier period to the later period, was to stand on the horizon that overcomes the Christian tradition in which man had been grasped as 'the image of God,' and in terms of the recognition of 'the superiority of man over nature.' Moreover, Heidegger senses that the thinking pattern of 'man as superior in nature' had already begun surfacing in Plato and Aristotle, wherein we can probably find the reason why his concern shifted to the Presocratic Greeks." ~ Yasua Yuasa, "Modern Japanese Philosophy and Heidegger," in Graham Parkes, ed., Heidegger and Asian Thought (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1987), pp. 173-174.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 153: "I do not think there are any plain moral facts out there in the world, nor any truths independent of language, nor any neutral ground on which to stand and argue that either torture or kindness are preferable to the other. So I want to offer a different reading of Orwell. ... In the view of 1984 that I am offering, rwell has no answer to O'Brien, and is not interested in giving one. Like Nietzsche, O'Brien regards the whole idea of being 'answerd,' of exchanging ideas, of reasoning together, as a symptom of weakness ... [Orwell]does not view O'Brien as crazy, misguided, seduced by a mistaken theory, or blind to the moral facts. ... I take Orsell's claim that there is no such thing as inner freedom, no such thing as an 'autonomous individual,' to be the one made by historicist, including Marxist, critics of 'liberal individualism.' This is that there is nothing deep inside each of us, no common human nature, no built-in human solidarity, to use as a moral reference point. There is nothing to people except what has been socialized into them." ~ Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity (Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 176-177.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 154: "The problem is that [Baron d'] Holdbach needs the reductive view as much as he needs morality. His whole strategy against relgion and traditional metaphysics depends on denying the supposed qualitative distinction between human desire and the brute movements of inanimate nature, which are outside the purview of judgements of right. And yet he needs just as much a certain horizon of moral understanding, if this picture of suffering and desiring human nature is going to move us to benevolent action -- to relieving the pain, righting the inustice, rearing the fabric of felicity -- as a noble cause, one that lays a claim on us as humans." ~ Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (Princeton University Press, 1989), p. 333.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 155: "... Hume has in any case an a priori reason for disbelieving in God's moral attributes. On his moral theory, moral attributes are derived from human nature, and only make sense in relation to it -- our ideas of moral goodness are necessarily ideas of human goodness, and could not conceivably be applied to a non-human, infinite being. Indeed, in a letter to Francis Hutcheson, with whose moral theory his own had much in common, he criticises him for inconsistency in supposing that moral attributes could be applied to the Deity." ~ Bernard Williams, The Sense of the Past: Essays in the History of Philosophy, (Princeton University Press, 2006) p. 272.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 156: "There is a great uniformity among the actions of men, in all nations and ages, and that human nature remains still the same, in its principles and operations. The same events follow from the same causes. Ambition, avarice, self-love, vanity, friendship, generosity, public spirit; these passions, mixed in various degrees, and distributed through society, have been, from the beginning of the world, and still are, the source of all the actions and enterprises which have ever been observed among mankind. ... [History's] chief use is only to discover the constant and universal principles of human nature, by showing men in all varieties of circumstances and situations, and furnishing us with materials, from which we may form our observations, and become acquainted with the regular springs of human action and behavior." ~ David Hume, Essays, Moral, Political and Literary, quoted in Louis P. Pojman, Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, 2nd ed. (Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1995), p. 40.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 157: "For Hobbes [British philosopher Thomas Hobbes 1588-1679] every act we perform, though ostensibly kind or altruistic, is actually self-serving. Thus my donation to chairty is actually a means of enjoying my power. An accurate account of human action, including morality, must, he argues, acknowledge our essential selfishness. In Leviathan he wonders how we might behave in a state of nature before the formation of any government. He recognizes that we are essentially equal, mentally and physically: even the weakest -- suitably -- has the strength to kill the strongest." ~ Raymond Wacks, Philosophy of Law: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 6.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 158: "Hume [Scottish philosopher David Hume 1711-1776] sought to show that facts about the world or human nature cannot be used to determine what ought [emphasis on 'ought' in original] to be done or not done." ~ Raymond Wacks, Philosophy of Law: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 10.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 159: "For Aquinas [St. Thomas Aquinas, Catholic theologian and philosopher, 1225-1274], to discover what is morally right is to ask, not what is in accordance with human nature, but what is reasonable [emphasis in original on 'reasonable']." ~ Raymond Wacks, Philosophy of Law: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 17.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 160: "[Myron Magnet:] The reason we have society is that, as [Thomas] Jefferson put it, it's a great reflection on human nature: that if men really could live together in harmony without government, without social order, they would have been doing it for all these milennia that there have been men. It was, finally, a very fundamental error that the hippies and those around them made in the 60s: if we would all just live naturally, everything would be fine. [Peter Coyote, narrator:] Along with its holier-than-thou self-image, the movement was losing its heroes. On April 17, 1970, Paul McCartney announced that the Beatles, the band that helped bring hippie values to the world, was calling it quits." ~ from "Hippies," The History Channel, (c) 2007 A&E Television Networks.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 161: "[T]he notion of a moral consensus, based on a common human nature, underlies all of Dewey's writings about ethics." ~ Martin Gardner, The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener (Quill, 1983), p. 92.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 162: "Are there standards in ethics, norms for right and wrong, that apply everywhere, at all times and places, because they derive from the needs of a common human nature? This question, clearly more important than the previous chapter's question about aesthetic standards, is intimately connected with difficult problems over which philosophers are as much divided today as they were in ancient times. Nevertheless, I believe the answer is yes ..." ~ Martin Gardner, The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener (Quill, 1983), p. 85.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 163: "Suppose a nihilist wants to trigger a nuclear holocaust that will destroy humanity. You try to reason with him. He insists tha the human race is not worth preserving, that it should go the way of the dinosaurs, that the universe would be better off if the human race were to vanish. Is it not obvious that there is no way to confront him with scientific evidence that will refute his belief, or with any rational arguments he will find persuasive? In this sense the emotivists are clearly right. A disciple of Dewey can only insist that anyone holding a belief so contrary to human nature must be mad." ~ Martin Gardner, The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener (Quill, 1983), p. 93.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 164: "Though I sympathize with the postmodern rejection of essentialist theories of human nature, I do not agree that there is nothing beyond mere historically conditioned, relatively pervasive human traits. The truth lies somewhere in between. While conceptions of human nature are too often overgeneralizations made on the basis of one's situated experience, one needn't reject the very possibility of finding sufficiently general human characteristics and experiences. Since there are such sufficiently general characteristics and experiences, we need not reject conceptions of human nature as providing a foundation for morality, though we do need to examine such conceptions." ~ Rita Catherine Manning, Speaking from the Heart (Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1992), pp. 65-66.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 165: "Conceptions of human nature generate a picture of the good life. The good life involves overcoming human nature, liberating human nature, or a combination of both: overcoming what is base and liberating what is pure. In this way, conceptions of human nature inform morality." ~ Rita Catherine Manning, Speaking from the Heart (Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1992), p. 66.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 166: "Many have argued that liberal ethical theories and political philosophies have assumed an unflattering and inaccurate picture of human nature. [Karl] Marx, for example, criticizes the 'individualistic monad' lurking behind defenses of rights." ~ Rita Catherine Manning, Speaking from the Heart (Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1992), p. 66.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 167: "Human nature is good." ~ Mencius, quoted in Leslie Stevenson, ed., The Study of Human Nature, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 23.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 168: "Ancient Chinese thought seems to have been more human centered and less obviously religious than that of the Middle East or India. The widsom of Confucius (551-479 B.C.E) as recorded or interpreted in the 'Analects,' consists mostly of practical precepts about human relations, ethics, and politics, with only a little about underlying human nature, or about the metaphysical background mysteriously called 'Heaven.'" ~ Leslie Stevenson, in Leslie Stevenson, ed., The Study of Human Nature, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 22.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 169: "I could not publish this book [Sociobiology: The New Synthesis] without including humans. After all, we are, no matter how highly evolved we are, animals. And we have remarkable similarities in many ways to our closest living relatives, the monkies and the apes. What I didn't realize at the time was this is a no-no because most of the social scientists had already come to an agreement -- incorrect, as it turns out -- that the human brain is a blank slate, that human behavior including social behavior is determined by the accidents of cultural evolution and by learning alone and that there was no such thing for the most part as human nature, that instincts do not exist except in the most basic, primitive manner, and the human brain is absolutely unique in this respect. That was the dogma." ~ Edward O. Wilson, interviewed in "Lord of the Ants," Nova (PBS), original air date May 20, 2008.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 170: "Back in the '70s the received wisdom was that human behavior was a product of how we were reared, a purely environmental phenomenon. To suggest it was in some way genetically programmed was heresy." ~ Narrator, "Lord of the Ants," Nova (PBS), original air date May 20, 2008.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 171: "Cannibalism, abhorrent and appalling, seems beyond comprehension. And yet cannibalism is now, and always has been, a part of human nature. It lurks in that dark corner of humanity marked ‘unexplained.’" ~ Bill Kurtis, narrator, "Cannibals," The Unexplained, Biography Channel, original air date 1/23/1997.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 172: "It is human nature to reserve a special dislike for those whose lives are a rebuke to our own." ~ Roger Ebert, "Pundits Go Astray Taking Aim At JFK," Universal Press Syndicate, January 15, 1992, reprinted in JfK: The Documented Screenplay (Applause Books, 1992), pp. 419-421, p. 420.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 173: "The picture of human nature in No Country for Old Men is by contrast so bleak I wonder if it must provide for some a reassuring explanation for our defeatism and apathy in the face of atrocity." ~ Jonathan Rosenbaum, "All the Pretty Carnage," Chicago Reader, 11/8/2007, http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/moviereviews/2007/071108/, last visited 8/10/08.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 174: “[A]ll practical suggestions about how we ought to live, depend on some belief about what human nature is like.” ~ Mary Midgley, Beast and Man: The Roots of Human Nature (Ithaca, NY, 1978), p. 166.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 175: "Man's natural feelings and dispositions are the root of government and the source of rules of proper conduct ([in Chinese:] li)and music. Therefore as we investigate the matter, we find that rules of proper conduct are employed to check the excesses of dispositions and feelings and that music is used to regulate them. In man's natural dispositions there are qualities of humbleness, modesty, deference, and compliance. In men's natural feelings there are the qualities of likes and dislikes , pleasure and anger, and sorrow and joy. Hence music has been created to enable their feeling of reverence to be expressed everywhere. Natural dispositions and natural feelings are therefore the reason why systems of rules of proper conduct and music have been created." ~ Wang Chung (27-100? A.D.), On Original Nature, quoted in Wing-tsit Chan, trans., A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1963), p. 293.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 176: "What I call Externalism, as the term suggests, construes the connection between morality and human nature as essentially an external affair. On this view, morality is in some sense alien to human nature. The very existence of morality, consequently, points to certain problematic aspects of man's basic motivation structure. As opposed to this view, what I call Internalism construes the connection as an intimate and internal one. On this view, morality is in some sense inherent in human nature. More fully, there are in man's basic nature certain feelings and dispositions, which, if unimpeded in their expression and development, will attain fulfillment in human conduct." ~ A. S. Cua, "Morality and Human Nature," Philosophy East and West: A Quarterly of Asian and Comparative Thought, Vol. XXXII, No. 3 (July 1982), p. 280.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 177: "[E]xactly what Mencius means by his theory of human nature is not clear. Many different views on his theory have been offered and, in addition, the theory itself has been translated in many different versions, each version having different nuances and even different meanings. The theory is said to be:
a. that man is by nature good, or
b. that human nature is good, or
c. that human nature is originally/naturally good, or
d. that all men have good nature." ~ Philip Ho Hwang, "What is Mencius' Theory of Human Nature," Philosophy East and West: A Quarterly of Asian and Comparative Thought, Vol. XXIX, No. 2 (April 1979), p. 201.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 178: "How could there be so much evil in the world? Knowing humanity, I wonder why there is not more of it." ~ Woody Allen, from 'Hannah and Her Sisters,' a feature film from 1986.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 179: “It’s not simply … outdated metaphysics if the Church speaks of the nature of the human person as a man and a woman, and asks that this order of creation be respected.” ~ Pope Benedict XVI, December 22, 2008, quoted in The London Times and on Special Report with Brit Hume, Fox News Channel, 12/23/2008.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 180: “Like many stories of modern behavioral science, this one begins with Margaret Mead.  Mead was one of the greatest of all social scientists … [S]he could have been cited, for instance, for her almost single-handed formulation of our present, flexible concept of human nature … [S]he established a concept of human differences as more flexible, more malleable, more buffeted by the winds of life experience – as delivered by our very different cultures – than anybody had then thought possible.  And this concept has stood the test of tie.” ~ Melvin Konner, The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit, (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1982), p. 107.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 181: “The purpose of a man is to love a woman and the purpose of a woman is love a man.”~ from "Game of Love" by Wayne Fontana & the Minders © 1965.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 182: “Well, I, I think that it would be a little ridiculous for me to say that I don’t care what people think.  I think it’s, it’s human nature to care what others think.” ~ Jenna Jameson, porn star, actress and author, interviewed by William Shatner on Shatner’s Raw Nerve, first aired 2/24/2009.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 183: “People talk about The Holocaust as the greatest example of inhumane times.  But my guess is even at Auschwitz people were telling jokes, as they were.  It’s human nature to find light in darkness somehow.” ~ Jon Stewart, from “Jon Stewart,” Biography, first aired 11/7/2007.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 184: “Our human nature is to push into places that we don’t know about.” ~ from “Extreme Cave Diving,” Nova, National Geographic Channel (NGC), first aired 2/9/2010.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 185: “It is the nature of man, Athenians said, to take power wherever he can.  The strong do what they like and the weak accept what they have to accept.” ~ Bettany Hughes, from Athens: The Dawn of Democracy, first aired 11/19/2007, Public Broadcasting System (PBS), Lion Television © 2007.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 186: “The normalcy bias causes smart people

to underestimate the possibility of a disaster and its effects.  In short: People 

believe that since something has never happened before … it never will.  We

are all guilty of it … it’s just human nature.” ~ Porter Stansberry,

http://www.stansberryresearch.com/pro/1011PSIENDVD/OPSIM205/PR

retrieved 2/14/11.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 187: "[C]onservative intellectuals actually are more in touch with human nature.  They have a more accurate view of human nature.  We need structure.  We need families.  We need groups.  It's OK to have memberships and rivalries.  All that stuff is OK so long as it doesn't cross the threshold into Manicheism.  So I think it would be very difficult to run a good society without resting much on loyalty, authority and sanctity.  I think you need to use those. . . . You have to have consequences following bad behavior.  That is as basic an aspect of system design as any.  And that's one where conservatives see it much more clearly than liberals." ~ Jonathan Haidt, social psychologist interviewed by Bill Moyers, Moyers & Company, PBS-TV, first aired 2/3/2012.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 188: “All salesmen are psychologists.  They have to be.  They have to know human nature in order to sell.” ~ Roger Moore, actor playing The Saint, “The Man Who Liked Toys,” The Saint, first aired 11/26/1964.

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


FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Set 3

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

FAQ15: For all courses, what are 25 arguments on gun control that students may use in a paper on gun control?

GUN CONTROL QUOTE 1: "One tempting way to intervene between the manufacturer and the criminal end-user is to raise the price of weapons entering the market, perhaps by taxing handguns heavily." James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, "The Great American Gun War: Some Policy Implications of the Felon Study," in Lee Nisbet, ed., The Gun Control Debate, 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 113.

GUN CONTROL QUOTE 2: "[G]un ownership among the law-abiding poses no direct risk of crime or violence in the community. Thus the only justification for disarming the majority of the population is for the sake of denying violence prone persons easy access (presumably mostly through theft) to firearms owned by the law-abiding. In effect, the justification runs this way: we must deny guns to 99 percent of the population who will never commit a serious act of violence in their lives in order to produce some marginal reduction in the ease of access to guns among the 1 percent who will commit such an act." Gary Kleck, "The Relationship Between Gun Ownership Levels and Rates of Violence in the United States," in Lee Nisbet, ed., The Gun Control Debate (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 128.

GUN CONTROL QUOTE 3: "Burglary is the most common type of intrusion of the home and causes the greatest property loss, but it rarely threatens the homeowner's life. The burglar typically seeks to commit his crime without being discovered, if possible by entering a home that is not occupied. Consequently, he is more likely to steal the home-defense firearm than be driven off by it." Matthew G. Yeager with Joseph D. Alviani and Nancy Loving, "How Well Does the Handgun Protect You and Your Family?" in Lee Nisbet, ed., The Gun Control Debate, 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 216.

GUN CONTROL QUOTE 4: "With some 20,000 firearms regulations now on the books, why does the clamor continue for even more laws? The answer is obvious: none of the laws so far enacted has significantly reduced the rate of criminal violence." James D. Wright, "Second Thoughts About Gun Control," in Lee Nisbet, ed., The Gun Control Debate, 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 96. Do not quote the following in any A-section. Note: Test the validity of this argument by asking if you can imagine a case where the premises are true but the conclusion is false. Can you imagine how there can be 20,000 firearms regulations, clamor for more gun control, and yet at least some of the firearms regulations have significantly reduced the rate of criminal violence? Even if this argument is invalid, is it strong? When we clamor for more of something we already have much of, do we imply that it is probably undesirable?

GUN CONTROL QUOTE 5: "Most of the published estimates are produced by the advocates, and thus are not to be trusted." James D. Wright, "Second Thoughts About Gun Control," in Lee Nisbet, ed., The Gun Control Debate, 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 96.

GUN CONTROL QUOTE 6: "As long as there are any handguns around (and even 'ban handguns' advocates make an exception for police or military handguns) they will obviously be available to anyone at some price. Given Cook's data, the average street thug would come out ahead even if he spent several hundred -- perhaps even a few thousand -- on a suitable weapon. At those prices, demand will always create its own supply just as there will always be cocaine available to anyone willing to pay a thousand dollars to obtain [it]." James D. Wright, "Second Thoughts About Gun Control," in Lee Nisbet, ed., The Gun Control Debate, 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 99. Do not quote the following in any A-section. Is cocaine always available to anyone willing to pay a thousand dollars for it? What about someone locked in the best brig the U.S. Marines have? Does this quote commit the fallacy of false dilemma?

GUN CONTROL QUOTE 7: "Most of the gun-owning felons in our sample grew up around guns, were introduced to guns at an early stage, and had owned and used guns ever since." James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, "The Great American Gun War: Some Policy Implications of the Felon Study," in Lee Nisbet, ed., The Gun Control Debate, 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 118. Do not quote the following in your A-section. Does 'Most' help make this a strong argument?

GUN CONTROL QUOTE 8: "If robbers were deprived of guns, there would be a reduction in robberies against commercial places and other well-defended victims. In general, a reduction in gun availability would change the distribution of violent crimes, with greater concentration on vulnerable victims." Philip J. Cook, "The Effect of Gun Availability on Violent Crime Patterns," in Lee Nisbet, ed., The Gun Control Debate, 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 138. Do not quote the following in any A-section. Does this argument commit the fallacy of appealing to pity? Does this argument pose a false dilemma, since even if robbers were not deprived of guns, they would prefer a more vulnerable victim to a less vulnerable victim (all else being equal at least)?

GUN CONTROL QUOTE 9: "Defining 'well regulated'[:] Bill Traill (Letters, June 23) argues that since newspaper licensing would not be allowed under the First Amendment, gun licensing should not be allowed under the Second. That would be a valid argument only if the First Amendment read, "A well regulated media, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the press, shall not be infringed. "It is not by happenstance that the term 'well regulated' appears at the start of this amendment and that the Second Amendment is [the] only place in the Bill of Rights where that phrase appears. The founding fathers carefully deliberated and debated over every single word. Justifiably, they were just as afraid of an armed citizenry as they were of an armed government.” ~ Mark Maslowski of Ben Lomond, CA, from The San Jose Mercury News, June 26, 2001, p.7B.

GUN CONTROL QUOTE 10: "The availability of a handgun and the taking of a self-defense measure during an aggravated assault dramatically increased the likelihood of a fatality." Matthew G. Yeager with Joseph D. Alviani and Nancy Loving, "How Well Does the Handgun Protect You and Your Family?" in Lee Nisbet, ed., The Gun Control Debate, 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 215. Do not quote the following in any A-section. Is this an enthymeme with the unstated premise "Fatalities are bad"?

GUN CONTROL QUOTE 11: "'Schoolyard Killing' [:] I was appalled but not surprised that your May 5 [1999] account of a murderous attack on children in Costa Mesa was relegated to Page 3B. Can you deny that if the man had used a firearm in his attack on children that it would have been front page news? I would like an explanation of why an attack on innocent children with a car as the weapon is less important than a similar attack with a firearm.Given the fact that there are millions of cars and firearms, and that cars are readily available, it would appear that the threats of cars and firearms are equivalent. I suspect that you chose not to publicize the Costa Mesa attack because it demonstrates that our problem is not with any particular piece of technology, but rather the fact that our society produces people who think that committing murder is an appropriate way to express their frustrations with life. This is a much more ocmplex and important issue than your usual reflexive call for more 'gun control,' and you are doing your readers a disservice by not addressing it." ~ Chris Copeland, Cupertino, CA. San Jose Mercury News, May 7, 1999, p. 7B.

GUN CONTROL QUOTE 12: "Gun control has proved to be a grievous failure, a means of disarming honest citizens without limiting firepower available t those who prey on the law-abiding. Attempting to use the legal system to punish the weapon rather than the person misusing the weapon is similarly doomed to fail." Wayne R. LaPierre, Guns, Crime, and Freedom (Regnery Publishing, 1994), p. 102.

GUN CONTROL QUOTE 13: "This is not a law enforcement issue; this is a fundamental human rights issue. Law-abiding people carrying firearms have never been a threat to law enforcement; and there is overwhelming evidence to support the positive results of carrying concealed firearms." Wayne R. LaPierre, Guns, Crime, and Freedom (Regnery Publishing, 1994), p. 32. Do not quote the following in any A-section. Does this commit the fallacy of false dilemma or false dichotomy in assuming such a sharp distinction between the law-abiding and those who violate the law? Isn't it obvious upon reflection that every person who ever violated the law was at one time a law-abiding person?

GUN CONTROL QUOTE 14: "The public has a right to ask tough questions of parole boards that release violent criminals before they have served 85 percent of their sentence. Where else would a failure rate of this magnitude -- which sometimes results in the death, rape, or injury of the innocent -- be tolerated? Would the Federal Aviation Administration allow airplanes to fly with critical parts that failed 29 percent of the time? Would the Federal Drug Administration allow drugs on the market that either killed or caused crippling side effects 18 percent of the time? Yet the American Bar Association's soft-on-crime stance would put more criminals back on the streets, while attacking the fundamental right of self-defense, and, indeed, the Second Amendment itself." Wayne R. LaPierre, Guns, Crime, and Freedom (Regnery Publishing, 1994), p. 101. Note: Does this argument fallaciously appeal to authority, the legal authority of the Second Amendment? Does this argument commit the fallacy of false analogy in asking questions about different government agencies and different failure rates? Does this argument commit the fallacy of red herring or evading the issue by raising the issue of releasing violent criminals rather than focusing more on the ABA's arguments for gun control (its alleged attack on the right to self-defense and the Second Amendment)?

GUN CONTROL QUOTE 15: "Gun control proponents, intent on disarming the American people, ignore history that reveals the greatest crimes against humanity occur when ruthless governments disarm and then kill powerless civilians." Wayne R. LaPierre, Guns, Crime, and Freedom (Regnery Publishing, 1994), p. 167.

GUN CONTROL QUOTE 16: "Most burglaries occur when homes are vacant, so the handgun in the drawer is no deterrent. It would also probably be the first item stolen." Josh Sugarmann, "The NRA is Right; But We Still Need to Ban Handguns," in Richard C. Monk, ed., Taking Sides (Dushkin Publishing Group, 1991), p. 268.

GUN CONTROL QUOTE 17: "One tenet of the National Rifle Association's [NRA's] faith has always been that handgun control does little to stop criminals from obtaining handguns. For once, the NRA is right and America's leading handgun control organization is wrong. Criminals don't buy handguns in gun stores." Josh Sugarmann, "The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns," in Richard C. Monk, ed., Taking Sides (Dushkin Publishing Group, 1991), p. 226.

GUN CONTROL QUOTE 18: "Public health campaigns have changed the way Americans look at cigarette smoking and drunk driving and can do the same for handguns." Josh Sugarmann, "The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns," in Richard C. Monk, ed., Taking Sides (Dushkin Publishing Group, 1991), p. 270.

GUN CONTROL QUOTE 19: "How often are guns used merely to wound or scare away intruders? No reliable statistics are available, but most police officials agree that in a criminal confrontation on the street, the handgun-toting civilian is far more likely to be killed or lose his handgun to a criminal than successfully use the weapon in self-defense." Josh Sugarmann, "The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns," in Richard C. Monk, ed., Taking Sides (Dushkin publishing Group, 1991), p. 268.

GUN CONTROL QUOTE 20: "The NRA maintains the gun laws don't work because they can't work." James D. Wright "Second Thoughts About Gun Control," in Richard C. Monk, ed., Taking Sides (Dushkin Publishing Group, 1991), p. 275.

GUN CONTROL QUOTE 21: "More women own or have access to handguns. Between 1970 and 1978 the suicide rate for young women rose 60 percent, primarily due to increased use of handguns." Josh Sugarmann, "The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns," in Richard C. Monk, ed., Taking Sides (Dushkin Publishing Group, 1991), p. 267.

GUN CONTROL QUOTE 22: "More women own or have access to handguns. Between 1970 and 1978 the suicide rate for young women rose 60 percent, primarily due to increased use of handguns." Josh Sugarmann, "The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns," in Richard C. Monk, ed., Taking Sides (Dushkin Publishing Group, 1991), p. 267.

GUN CONTROL QUOTE 23: "As public health professionals, if we are faced with a disease that is carried by some type of vehicle/vector like a mosquito, our initial response would be to control the vector. There is no reason why if the vehicle/vector is a handgun, we should not be interested in controlling the handgun." Josh Sugarmann, "The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns," in Richard C. Monk, ed., Taking Sides (Dushkin Publishing Group, 1991), p. 268. Do not quote the following in the A-section of your paper. Harwood's helpful hint: Does this argument commit the fallacy known as false analogy?

GUN CONTROL QUOTE 24: "The very increase of violent crime is what spurs thousands of people to buy handguns for self-defense. Furthermore, many of these new gun-owners lack the training to use their weapons effectively. The very increase of violent crime is what spurs thousands of people to buy handguns. No one can challenge the sincerity of their concerns. Still, the very accessibility of these weapon creates a problem." Pete Shield, Guns Don't Die, People Do, (Arbor House Publishing Co., 1981), p. 343. Do not quote the following in any A-section. Can we fairly fix up this argument to the following? If there is an increase in crime, then there is a significant increase in new gun owners. If there is a significant increase in new gun owners, then there are many untrained and ineffective gun-users. If there are many untrained and ineffective gun-users, then there is a life and death problem. So, if gun control prevents an increase in new gun owners, then gun control will prevent at least one source of a life and death problem.

GUN CONTROL QUOTE 25: "A totalitarian society, and particularly a totalitarian society occupying a country against its will, simply cannot permit the private possession of weapons to any great extent, except by those who have proven their loyalty." ~ The Legislative Reference Service, quoted in Robert J. Kukla, Gun Control (Harrisburg, PA, Stackpole Books, 1973), p. 440.

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


FAQ16: For all courses, what are 20 quotes about affirmative action that students may use in (the A-section of) a paper on affirmative action?

Remember, you have Dr. Harwood's permission to quote in the A-sections of your paper in ABC format anything from any published source on your approved paper topic, including but not limited to the following:

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ARGUMENT 1. “Your article on altering SAT scores touches on a most sensible approach for selecting disadvantaged students for a college education. Eight criteria are listed, with the first seven being race/ethnicity blind, relating only to a truly disadvantaged background, as it should be. However, the last criterion explicitly addresses race and ethnicity.I doubt that there is a single person in our nation who would object to supporting the higher education of a child from a poor school with impoverished parents who has shown he/she can be successful in college. But what does race or ethnicity have to do with that child’s achievement? Ironically, if only the first seven criteria are used, all black, brown or red strivers would still be identified. As it is, by making race and ethnicity a criterion, we taint those legitimate black, brown and red strivers as ‘affirmative action’ ringers. How embarrassing that must be for them. And how disappointing it will be for impoverished strivers who will miss out of college because they are not the right race or ethnicity.” William D. Allen Sr., Placentia, CA, Letter to the Editor, The Wall Street Journal, September 14, 1999, p. A23.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ARGUMENT 2. “‘New Weights Can Alter SAT Scores,’ you reported in your Aug. 31 [1999] Marketplace section. And among the weights the Educational Testing Service is adding so colleges can discern the ‘strivers’ among their applicants are quality-of-life factors such as ‘kinds of electrical appliances’ in their homes.Ergo, students should beware of self-reporting household items like color TVs with premium cable service, electric toothbrushes and computers with high-speed modems. They should admit to nothing more advanced than wood stoves and hand-cranked ice-cream makers lest the ETS formula plop them among the ranks of the non-striving privileged, worthy of no bonus SAT points.I would be an even better idea if they asked Aunt Sadie in Des Moines to hustle up some genealogical proof of minority ancestry in the family (or else just lie about it). Because plainly one must be a member of a preferred group to rate being an ETS-certified striver. This weighting game is all about continuing outlawed affirmative action by statistical sleight. It is amazing that intellectuals strive so absurdly to kill the ideal of individual merit.” Robert Holland, Arlington, VA, Letter to the Editor, The Wall Street Journal, September 14, 1999, p. A23.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ARGUMENT 3: “Thank you for mentioning my work in your article on adjustments to test scores in college admission. I would make only one slight revision. My proposal is actually twofold. First, I propose that colleges use a race-blind merit index of their own creation. As stated in the article, this could indeed include the extent to which a student’s test score exceeds his/her average high school test score.But, second, along with use of its own merit index, I also propose that institutions use a new, multistage admissions model specifically designed to minimize the risk of legal and political attack. Adopting a flexible, non-‘holistic’ model that uses data on race and ethnicity only where necessary is really more important than the particular merit index the college chooses. If colleges adopt what I refer to as a ‘merit-aware’ approach – both a merit index and a multistage process – the tables will be turned on those who would eliminate affirmative action in selective college admissions. That is, it will be possible to admit more disadvantaged students of color (who are qualified) with, on average, lower test scores even at the most selective colleges, with legal and political impunity.” Bill Goggin, Alexandria, VA, Letter to the Editor, The Wall Street Journal, September 14, 1999, p. A23.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ARGUMENT 4: “What right does the Educational Testing Service have to judge a family breadwinner’s occupation? According to the chart, the ETS feels free to play God by assigning a child’s family to the socio-economic group based on parents’ education, occupation and income. Well, my father never made it to high school and he lays sewer pipe for a living. Of course, he pulls in seven figures a year because he owns the company and runs it well. Now, exactly how far down the ‘white-trash’ totem pole are we? Please, ETS, stick to giving tests. Stop trying to cure the ills of civilization. You are just making it worse.” Christopher Timp, Scales Mound, IL, Letter to the Editor, The Wall Street Journal, September 14, 1999, p. A23. Harwood’s Helpful Hint: isn’t it inevitable when trying to advance civilization that early efforts at inventions (e.g., airplanes) and institutions will often make things somewhat worse than the status quo (the way things are at the time)? Indeed, won’t some early efforts (e.g., airplanes) crash and burn? But even if this is so, does that mean that we should stop trying to cure the ills of civilization? Isn’t commanding others to stop trying to improve civilization too complacent or too bossy? Does the writer of the letter above give any evidence that ETS is making it worse, much less that ETS is just making it worse? What is “it” anyway? Further, is there a false analogy here? Do the acts of ETS really compare with the acts of God (that is, with playing God)?

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ARGUMENT 5: “In the equation that determines whether a student is an ‘SAT Striver’ race is not ‘still relevant,’ it is racist. It is the coupling of junk science and misguided social engineering. I expect more from the Princeton agenda. Were I black, I would be offended if the equation demonstrated that even with the balancing of socio-economic and demographic factors, being black is the sole determinant of why there are more Asians, Hispanics and whites who score 200 points above a score predicted by socio-economic factors.Perhaps ETS research dollars would be better spent micro-dissecting the private and parochial school sector, such as the Jesuit high schools where it seems that the number of black Strivers is equivalent, absent the race factor. Did I hear someone say vouchers?” Augustine L. Perrotta, Clinton Township, MI, Letter to the Editor, The Wall Street Journal, September 14, 1999, p. A23. Harwood’s Helpful Hint: view the video “Junk Science” by ABC News and available from Dr. Harwood. Then evaluate this argument.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ARGUMENT 6: “It is, again, not that affirmative action concepts are wrongheaded. They indeed are not. They should remain in place. But such programs are not solutions to our problems. They are palliatives that help people like me, who are poised to succeed when given half a chance. They do little for the millions of African Americans bottom-mired in urban hells by the savage time-release social debilitations of American slavery. They do little for those Americans, disproportionately black, who inherit grinding poverty, poor nutrition, bad schools, unsafe neighborhoods, low expectation, and overburdened mothers. Lamentably, there will always be poverty. But African Americans are overrepresented in that economic class for one reason and one reason only: American slavery and the vicious climate that followed it. Affirmative action, should it survive, will never come anywhere near to balancing the books here. While I can speak only for myself, I choose not to spend my limited gifts and energy and time fighting only for the penny due when a fortune is owed. … [S]ee the staggering breadth of America’s crime against us. … Solutions must be tailored to the scope of the crime in a way that would make the victim whole. In this case, the psychic and economic injury is enormous, multidimensional and long-running. Thus must be America’s restitution to blacks for the damage done.” Randall Robinson, The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks (New York: A Dutton Book, 2000), pp. 8-9. Harwood’s Helpful Hint: Is there a false analogy here? Is affirmative action only a penny out of a fortune? Even if affirmative action does little, must it do little? Couldn’t we expand or improve affirmative action to do much more? Isn’t this what some mean by President Clinton's slogan “Affirmative Action: Mend It; Don’t End It.” Is Robinson’s argument a good a fortiori argument (argument from the stronger, that is, the bolder solution of reparations and hence also for the milder step of affirmative action) affirmative argument?

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ARGUMENT 7. “As Germany and other interests that profited owed reparations to Jews following the holocaust of Nazi persecution, America and other interests that profited owe reparations to blacks following the holocaust of African slavery which has carried forward from slavery’s inception for 350-odd years to the end of U.S. government-embraced racial discrimination – an end that arrived, it would seem, only just yesterday.” Randall, p. 9. Harwood’s Helpful Hint: Is this a false analogy?

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ARGUMENT 8: “In the state of Washington, blacks make up less than 4 percent of the state’s population but make up almost 40 percent of the state’s prison population. Although blacks account for only 2.8 percent of undergraduates at the University of Washington (the only public university in the state said to have used affirmative action admission), Washingtonians overwhelmingly approved in November 1998 a resolution banning 'preferential treatment' based on race or sex to any group in the public sector. This placed the state in a group with California (which had earlier approved a similar resolution) and three other states (Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) that had sought and won through the courts bans against preferential treatment in university admissions. Such actions underscored a disturbing general decline, roughly coinciding with President Clinton’s tenure, in national black college enrollment.” Randall Robinson, The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks (New York: A Dutton Book, 2000), p. 102. Harwood’s Helpful Hint: is this a good argument because it shows a need for affirmative action, or a bad argument because it fails to show a need for affirmative action?

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ARGUMENT 9. "Affirmative action is absurd because it would imply that we need affirmative action for whites in the National Basketball Association (NBA), which is absurd." A version of a frequently heard argument. Harwood's helpful hint: is this a false analogy? Is there a difference in the history and ownership of NBA teams? Haven't whites contolled the history of the NBA and aren't most owners and coaches in the NBA today white?

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ARGUMENT 10. "[E]ventually, the WASPs will have to form their own lobby, for they too are a minority. The point is...: there is no 'majority' in America who will not mind giving up just a bit of their rights to make room for a favored minoirty. There are only other minorities, each of which is discriminated against by the favoring. The initial injustice is then repeated dozens of times, and if each minority is granted the same right of restitution as the others, an entire area of rule governance is dissolved into a ... shoving match between self-interested groups." Lisa H. Newton, "Reverse Discrimination as Unjustified," 83 Ethics 308-312 (1973), p. 311. Note: "WASPs" means "White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants." Harwood wrote of Newton's argument: "[T]he mere fact that there is no majority that will not mind AA [affirmative action] is inconclusive. For, if one treated lack of majority acceptance of AA as a conclusive reason to reject AA, one would commit the ad populum fallacy... Newton also errs in overlooking that our government is already involved in lobbying and pushing and shoving between self-interested groups. ... So, Newton poses a false dilemma in suggesting that we either reject AA or else we will fall into this democratic pushing and shoving match." Sterling Harwood, "Affirmative Action Is Justified: A Reply to Newton," in Sterling Harwood, ed., Business as Ethical and Business as Usual: Text, Readings and Cases (Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett, 1996), p. 108.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ARGUMENT 11. "[R]emedial rights exist only where there is law: primary human rights are useful guides to legislation but cannot stand as reasons for awarding remedies for injuries sustained." Lisa H. Newton, "Reverse Discrimination as Unjustified," 83 Ethics 308-312 (1973), p. 312. Note: Harwood writes of Newton's argument: "[S]he gives no further support for her view that law is the exclusive source of compensatory rights. Thus, she seems to commit the fallacy of appealing to the authority of law. Or perhaps she is equivocating on 'right' by trading on the ambiguity between legal rights and moral rights. But, in either case, whether equivocation or appeal to authority, her argument is fallacious. ... Finally, since AA is well-entrenched in the law of both legislation and executive orders, her emphasis on the supposed problem of the legal grounding of AA is misplaced." Sterling Harwood, "Affirmative Action Is Justified: A Reply to Newton," in Sterling Harwood, ed., Business as Ethical and Business as Usual: Text, Readings and Cases (Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett, 1996), p. 108.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ARGUMENT 12: "After all, the Civil Rights Act was established to provide equal opportunity for all citizens of the country, and so affirmative action in employment is one sound way to do this." quoted in Vincent Barry & William Harry Shaw, eds., Moral Issues in Business, 5th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.), p. 436.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ARGUMENT 13: "Social mores, expectations and attitudes have changed dramatically for the past 30 years, especially with regard to women's roles. Hence, racial and ethnic identities are changing, too, which brings peace of mind." San Jose Mercury News, Dec. 29, 1996. Note: Affirmative action began in 1961 under President Kennedy.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ARGUMENT 14: "However, apart from the fact that we keep talking about healing the racial rifts in our country, affirmative action programs make everybody more racially conscious. They cause resentment and frustration among whit men. Many black people and women also resent being advanced on grounds other than merit. Finally, if one hires and promotes people faster and further put them on merit, one is asking for problems, isn't one?" quoted in Vincent Barry and William Harry Shaw, eds., Moral Issues in Business, 5th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.), p. 432.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ARGUMENT 15: "The white man sees himself to be superior to the minority group and would say to himself that he has nothing to do with the minority group because of a superiority complex over the black man. Thus, he views blacks as outcasts, lazy, irresponsible, poor, unworthy, and uneducated..." quoted in Vincent Barry & William Harry Shaw, eds., Moral Issues in Business, 5th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1995).

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ARGUMENT 16: "Objectively, affirmative action should be abolished in medical schools. This is because medical practice is supposed to be based on the disadvantaged person who finds himself in a helpless condition due to sickness. Hence, medical doctors are expected to be sympathetic, lovely, kind, gentle, caring, humanly and these attributes and their experience in their medical field give them the privilege to handle patients without the doubt of the public." quoted in the San Jose Mercury News, Dec. 29, 1996.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ARGUMENT 17: "One the other hand, I hate affirmative action because it does not want to give way to Proposition 209. The government erred when it attempted to base decisions on race or sex. In the view of the proponents, what started as a temporary effort to correct past wrongs has assumed bureaucratic permanence. In this view, the current system promotes injustice and ignores individual merit to advance the interests of various groups." quoted in the San Jose Mercury News, December 29, 1996.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ARGUMENT 18: "Conversely, affirmative action laws should be relaxed or eliminated. This is because affirmative action at some level is causing more problems than good or than it is solving." quoted in San Jose Mercury News, Dec. 29, 1996.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ARGUMENT 19: "Everyone deserves to be treated equally because we are all created by the same God. Therefore, affirmative action should not be abolished in our society, even though the white man claims that it does not favor him." quoted in Vincent Barry & William Harry Shaw, eds., Moral Issues in Business, 5th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1995), p. 432.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ARGUMENT 20. "Discrimination is failing to treat relevantly like cases alike and relevantly different cases differently. So-called reverse discrimination [affirmative action] does not fit that definition, since there is a relevant difference between blacks and whites [for example], namely, that only blacks have been victims of such severe and systematic racist discrimination. Only blacks deserve so much compensation. There is less, or nothing, to compensate whites for." -- Sterling Harwood, in "Introduction: The Pros and Cons of Affirmative Action," in Sterling Harwood, ed., Business as Ethical and Business as Usual (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996, republished 2000), p. 94.

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

FAQ17: For all courses, what are some quotations on prostitution students may use in a paper about whether or not to legalize prostitution?

Here are some links:

http://www.samueljohnson.com/prostitu.html & http://www.iswface.org/morequote.html & http://www.spicyquotes.com/html/Xaviera_Hollander_Prostitution.html

PROSTITUTION QUOTE 1. "To me, prostitution is morally neutral, as is sex itself. It is how one uses prostitution that gives it moral value. The act of paying for sex for me confers no moral value on it one way or another. It is neither good nor bad, it is simply an act. This also applies for me in the separation of sex from love and marriage (or a committed relationship, etc.). If one uses prostitution, or sex itself, to try to harm another human being it is morally bad. If one uses either to help or give pleasure to another human being it is morally good. It is as simple as that. There are some to whom prostitutes are near heroes, such as Robert Heinlein who characterizes them as such in his books ... There are others to whom prostitutes represent "fallen women". To the vast majority of people they are an unknown quantity apart from stereotypical received media images. To some feminists and psychologists they are victims. Of course, the truth is that they are none of these things. In the main they are a non-homogeneous group of people doing a job. The same job. And that is about the only common characteristic many prostitutes share." Mackenzie, S. (1992). "Libertarian Alliance: Pamphlet No. 19". Retrieved March 23, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.capital.demon.co.uk/LA/pamphlets/prostit.htm

PROSTITUTION QUOTE 2. “There is no more defiant denial of one man’s ability to possess one woman exclusively than the prostitute who refuses to be redeemed.” Gail Sheehy, quoted in http://www.spicyquotes.com/html/Gail_Sheehy_Prostitution.html, visited 1/28/04.

PROSTITUTION QUOTE 3. “Actually, if my business was legitimate, I would deduct a substantial percentage for depreciation of my body.” Xaviera Hollander, quoted in http://www.spicyquotes.com/html/Xaviera_Hollander_Prostitution.html , visited 1/28/04.

PROSTITUTION QUOTE 4. “The prostitute is not, as feminists claim, the victim of men but rather their conqueror, an outlaw who controls the sexual channel between nature and culture.” Camille Paglia, Sex, Art and American Culture (Vintage, 1992), p. 18, quoted in http://www.spicyquotes.com/html/Camille_Paglia_Prostitution.html , visited 1/28/04.

PROSTITUTION QUOTE 5. “Marriage is for women the commonest mode of livelihood, and the total amount of undesired sex endured by women is probably greater in marriage than in PROSTITUTION.” Bertrand Russell, quoted in http://www.nonstopenglish.com/reading/quotations/k_Prostitution.asp .

PROSTITUTION QUOTE 6. “If courtesans and strumpets were to be prosecuted with as much rigor as some silly people would have it, what locks or bars would be sufficient to preserve the honor of our wives and daughters?” Bernard Mandeville, quoted in http://www.nonstopenglish.com/reading/quotations/k_Prostitution.asp .

PROSTITUTION QUOTE 7. “If a woman hasn't got a tiny streak of a harlot in her, she's a dry stick as a rule.” D. H. Lawrence, quoted in http://www.nonstopenglish.com/reading/quotations/k_Prostitution.asp .

PROSTITUTION QUOTE 8. “These can never be true friends: Hope, dice, a prostitute, a robber, a cheat, a goldsmith, a monkey, a doctor, a distiller.” Indian proverb, quoted in http://www.nonstopenglish.com/reading/quotations/k_Prostitution.asp .

PROSTITUTION QUOTE 9. “So do not think of helpful whores as aberrational blots; I could not love you half so well without my practice shots.” James Stewart Alexander Simmons, quoted in http://www.nonstopenglish.com/reading/quotations/k_Prostitution.asp .

PROSTITUTION QUOTE 10. “Corruption is worse than PROSTITUTION. The latter might endanger the morals of an individual, the former invariably endangers the morals of the entire country.” Karl Kraus, quoted in http://www.nonstopenglish.com/reading/quotations/k_Prostitution.asp .

PROSTITUTION QUOTE 11. “Prostitution, when unmotivated by economic need, might well be defined as a species of psychological addiction, built on self-hatred through repetitions of the act of sale by which a whore is defined.” Kate Millet, quoted in http://www.nonstopenglish.com/reading/quotations/k_Prostitution.asp .

PROSTITUTION QUOTE 12. “Aren't women prudes if they don't and prostitutes if they do?” Kate Millet, quoted in http://www.nonstopenglish.com/reading/quotations/k_Prostitution.asp .

PROSTITUTION QUOTE 13. “All fighters are prostitutes and all promoters are pimps.” Larry Holmes, quoted in http://www.nonstopenglish.com/reading/quotations/k_Prostitution.asp .

PROSTITUTION QUOTE 14. “Punishing the prostitute promotes the rape of all women. When PROSTITUTION is a crime, the message conveyed is that women who are sexual are ''bad'', and therefore legitimate victims of sexual assault. Sex becomes a weapon to be used by men.” Margo St. James, quoted in http://www.nonstopenglish.com/reading/quotations/k_Prostitution.asp .

PROSTITUTION QUOTE 15. “The desire for success lubricates secret PROSTITUTION's in the soul.” Norman Mailer, quoted in http://www.nonstopenglish.com/reading/quotations/k_Prostitution.asp .

PROSTITUTUION QUOTE 16. “I don't think a prostitute is more moral than a wife, but they are doing the same thing.” Prince Philip II, husband of Queen Elizabeth II of England, quoted in http://www.nonstopenglish.com/reading/quotations/k_Prostitution.asp . Note: he is implying that Queen Elizabeth II is doing the same thing as a whore.

PROSTITUTION QUOTE 17. “We are all murderers and prostitutes --no matter to what culture, society, class, nation one belongs, no matter how normal, moral, or mature, one takes oneself to be.” R. D. Laing, quoted in http://www.nonstopenglish.com/reading/quotations/k_Prostitution.asp .

PROSTITUTUION QUOTE 18. “People call me feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute.” Rebecca West, quoted in http://www.nonstopenglish.com/reading/quotations/k_Prostitution.asp .

PROSTITUTION QUOTE 19. “Hollywood makes prostitutes out of women and sissies out of men.” Anonymous, quoted in http://www.nonstopenglish.com/reading/quotations/k_Prostitution.asp .

PROSTITUTION QUOTE 20. “The greatest nations have all acted like gangsters and the smallest like prostitutes.” Stanley Kubrick, quoted in http://www.nonstopenglish.com/reading/quotations/k_Prostitution.asp .

PROSTITUTION QUOTE 21. "[T]he difference between prostitution and rape in war is real, for there are always those men who choose, or prefer, to rape." Susan Brownmiller, p. 75, Bantam Books paperback edition, quoted in http://www.swimw.org/march2.html .

PROSTITUTION QUOTE 22. “It is an instructive fact that under the influence of seduction children can become polymorphously perverse, and can be led into all possible kinds of sexual irregularities. This shows that an aptitude for them in innately present in their disposition. There is consequently little resistance towards carrying them out, since the mental dams against sexual excesses – shame, disgust and morality – have either not yet been constructed at all or are only in [the] course of construction, according to the age of the child. In this respect children behave in the same kind of way as an average uncultivated woman in whom the same polymorphously perverse disposition persists. Under ordinary conditions she may remain normal sexually, but if she is led on by a clever seducer she will find every sort of perversion to her taste, and will retain them as part of her own sexual activities. Prostitutes exploit the same polymorphous, that is, infantile, disposition for the purposes of their profession; and, considering the immense number of women who are prostitutes or who must be supposed to have an aptitude for prostitution without becoming engaged in it, it becomes impossible not to recognize that this same disposition to pervrsions of every kind is a general and fundamental human characteristic.” – Sigmund Freud, in Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, ed., Freud on Women: A Reader (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1990), p. 119, ‘the’ in square brackets added by Dr. Harwood.

PROSTITUTION QUOTE 23. “In a controversial 1998 report, the International Labor Organization (ILO), the official labor agency of the United Nations, calls for economic recognition of the sex industry. Citing the expanding reach of the industry and its unrecognized contribution to the gross domestic product (GDP) of four countries in Southeast Asia, the ILO urges official recognition of what it terms 'the sex sector.' Recognition includes extending 'labor rights and benefits to sex workers,' improving "working conditions" (Lim, p. 212, ...) in the industry, and 'extending the taxation net to cover many of the lucrative activities connected with it.'" from "Legitmating prostitution as sex work: UN Labor Organization (ILO) calls for recognition of the sex industry," Janice Raymond, December 1998, http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/26/119.html

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

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?

You may quote the following material in bits -- usually about 4 sentences long or so. The following material is found in Ch.36, by Sterling Harwood and Anita Silvers, of the book: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, pp. 190-191. 

The famous Baby M case involves both moral and legal issues that arise when one person contracts with another to use the latter person's body for surrogate motherhood (that is, for creation of a baby who will become solely the former person's child). This is a real case that will enable us to practice using the moral principles we have learned to recognize. If this case seems disant from your lives, you might be interested to know that surrogate motherhood is now a not uncommon reproductive practice, although it rarely attracts as much publicity as the case of Baby M. In the future, you might find yourself considering whether to become or to employ a surrogate mother or advising a friend or ralative about doing so.As you read the facts of the case, keep track of which facts trigger the applicaton of any of the moral principles we have discussed. Use these facts in constructing well-considered evaluations of the actions in the case. Further, of course you should keep track of the actions you think are morally questionable, based on your knowledge of the 5 sets of moral principles you have learned (egalitarianism, libertarianism, utilitarianism, perfectionism, and the set of prima facie moral principles). 

Here are the basic but dramatic facts of the Baby M case.In 1985, Mary Beth Whitehead agreed to become impregnated by artificial insemination with the sperm of William Stern and to give up the resulting child to Stern: that is, Whitehead agreed to become a surrogate mother. When she agreed to this, she was 29 years old and married with two children of her own, a girl and a boy. Two of her motivations for becoming a surrogate mother, she said, were that giving Stern the child was "the most loving gift of happiness" and that the $10,000 she was to earn as the surrogate mother would help pay for her children's college education.William Stern was a 40-year old biochemist, and his wife, Elizabeth, was a pediatrician. Both wanted very much to have their own children. However, doctors diagnosed Elizabeth Stern as suffering from amild case of multiple sclerosis. The Sterns decided that becoming pregnant would therefore be too risky for Elizabeth. The Sterns considered adopting a child. But there is a so-called shortage of healthy, white babies available for adoption. The Sterns also learned that many adoption agencies viewed them as too old to adopt. Besides, Mr. Stern wanted a child of his own flesh and blood. Mr. Stern hired Noel Keane, a lawyer who specialized in writing ocntracts hiring surrogate mothers. Mr. Stern and Mrs. Whitehead signed a lengthy contract Keane wrote.  The contract specified that Whitehead's pament of $10,000 was to be held in trust until she delivered the baby to Mr. Stern. Mr. Stern paid more than $10,000 to Keane.  The contract specified that Mr. Stern would have all legal responsibilities for the baby, even if it was born with serious defects or was stillborn.  Mrs. Whitehead, the contract stated, was required to submit to amniocentesis, a test checking on the health of the fetus.  Mrs. Whitehead agreed in the contract to have an abortion if Mr. Stern simply requested it. The contract stated that the child would be conceived "for the sole purpose of giving said child to William Stern."After Mrs. Whitehead had been given standard psychological tests, Keane thought there was little or no reason to expect difficulties, especially because only two of his firm's more than 150 surrogate mothers had changed their minds about meeting the contractual terms.Mrs. Whitehead gave birth to a healthy little girl. Mrs. Whitehead turned over the baby to the Sterns.  The next day, however, she implored the Sterns to let her have the child for just one week, and the Sterns agreed. At the end of the week, however, Mrs. Whitehead refused to return the baby and asked if the Sterns would agree to giving her the child for one weekend each month and two weeks each summer. The Sterns went to court to enforce the contract.To help protect the anonymity of the girl, the court called her "Baby M."   Mrs. Whitehead stated, "Seeing her, holding her ... she was my child ... It overpowered me. I had to keep her." After Mrs. Whitehead had refused to give up the child, the Sterns taped some of their telephone conversations with Mrs. Whitehead. In at least one of these conversations, Mrs. Whitehead stated that she would rather kill the child than give it up to the Sterns.A judge awarded temporary custody of Baby M to the Sterns, but Mrs. Whitehead ran away with her the next day. The Sterns paid over $20,000 for a private investigator, who spent more than 3 months tracing Mrs. Whitehead to the house of her mother in Florida. The FBI and the private eye came to that house, took Baby M, and returned her to the Sterns.  Another judge decided just after Baby M's first birthday that Mr. Stern had legal custody of her. Mrs. Whitehead then appealed this decision and lost, but she appealed again to the Supreme Court of New Jersey, which ruled that the contract was "illegal, perhaps criminal, an dpotentially degrading to women." The court awarded custody of Baby M to Mr. Stern and granted Mrs. Whitehead the right to visit Baby M. The court nullified Mrs. Stern's adoption of Baby M and stripped her of any parental rights.The court's decision settles the legal case of Baby M, but it fails to settle the moral or even all the legal controversies surrounding the case. In New Jersey the legislature or a future ruling by the Supreme Court of New Jersey can change the law, and of course the court's decision is binding precedent only in New Jersey. The moral questions were not settled by the court's decision, since we cannot automatically conclude that whatever is legal is moral (remember, slavery in pre-Civil War America and Nazi extermination of millions were technically legal). Here are some of the questions that your study of the 5 moral principles (egalitarianism, utilitarianism, libertarianism, prima facie principles, and perfectionism) we have learned should have raised in your mind as you read the case. So discuss them all in your paper or presentation.

1 Was the making of the surrogate motherhood contract immoral?

2 Was the breaking of the surrogate motherhood contract immoral?

3 Should the Whiteheads have run away with the baby, and should Mrs. Whitehead have threatened to kill Baby M rather than give the baby to the Sterns?

4 Did the Supreme Court of New Jersey reach a morally justifiable decision?

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

FAQ19: For all courses, what are more than 100 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; do not combine paper topics)?

1. "The unexamined life is not worth living." -- Socrates

2. "We learn from history that we don't learn from history." -- Sterling Harwood, based on a much longer point by G. W. F. Hegel that is quoted in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations.

3. "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it." -- George Santayana

4. "Nothing too much." -- Socrates & The Oracle at Delphi, meaning "Nothing in excess" or "Moderation in all things." Compare this with Aristotle's Golden Mean (which is different from The Golden Rule).

5. "Know thyself." -- Socrates & The Oracle at Delphi in Ancient Greece

6. "Self-discovery is usually bad news." -- John Barth

7. "You want to hear my philosophy of life? Do it to him before he does it to you." ~ Marlon Brando, actor, in the film "On the Waterfront."

8. "All religions have a point where they reach absurdity." paraphrase of Joseph Campbell, Mythos video series shown in class (I plan to get the exact quote soon).

9. 
"[I changed the definition of myth from the search for meaning to] the experience of life.  The mind has to do with meaning.  What's the meaning of a flower.  There's a Zen story about a sermon of the Buddha in which he simply lifted a flower.  There was only one man who gave him a sign with his eyes that he understood what was said.  Now, the Buddha himself is called "the one thus come."  There's no meaning.  What's the meaning of the universe?  What's the meaning of a flea [or a flower]?  It's just there.  We're so engaged in doing things to achieve purposes of outer value that we forget the inner value, the rapture that is associated with being alive, is what it's all about." ~ Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth, video interview by Bill Moyers, Part 3, circa 1988.

10.  "[E]xperience Life as reality.  Has Life a 'meaning'?  Experience Life as reality and the question becomes meaningless." ~ Dag Hammarskjold, Markings, translated by Leif Sjoberg & W. H. Auden (Ballantine Books, 1983, originally 1963), p. 111.

11."Follow your bliss." Joseph Campbell (1904-1987), The Power of Myth, published posthumously in 1988.

12. "Myth is the secret opening through which the inexhaustible energies of the cosmos pour into human cultural manifestation. Religions, philosophies, arts, the social forms of primitive and historic man, prime discoveries in science and technology, the very dreams that blister sleep, boil up from the basic, magic ring of myth." Joseph Campbell (1904-1987), The Hero with a Thousand Faces (1949), Prologue.

13. I am that I am. Judeo-Christian quote.

15. "The only Christian died on the cross." approximate quote of Friedrich Nietzsche (exact quote and source I plan on coming soon)

16. "As for future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities." Charles Darwin, quoted in HBQ, p. 389.

17. "My own mind is my own church." Thomas Paine, American revolutionary, quoted in HBQ, p. 89.

18. "Religion is the way we honour our ancestors' errors." Mark M. Otoysao, quoted in HBQ, p. 389.

19. "A minister is coming down every generation nearer and nearer to the common level of the useful citizen -- no oracle at all, but a man of more than average moral instincts, who if he knows anything, knows how little he knows." Oliver Wendell Holmes, quoted in HBQ, p. 389; compare this with Socrates's take on the Oracle at Delphi's claim that there was none wiser than Socrates.

20. "Don't wait for the Last Judgment. It takes place every day." Albert Camus, French philosopher and winner of the Nobel prize for literature, who died in 1960; quoted in HBQ, p. 388.

21. "What's the difference between a religion and a cult? A religion has money." The Wizard of Id, an approximate quote from Dr. Harwood's memory of the comic strip in the 1980s.

22. "Faith consists in believing when it is beyond the power of reason to believe. It is not enough that a thing be possible for it to be believed." Voltaire, quoted in HBQ, p. 389.

23. "One's religion is whatever he is most interested in." James M. Barrie, quoted in HBQ, p. 389.

24. "The church exists for the sake of those outside it." William Temple (aka Archbishop of Canterbury), quoted in HBQ, p. 389; compare Paine's quote.

25. "The writers against religion, whilst they oppose every system, are wisely careful never to set up any of their own." Edmund Burke, quoted in HBQ, p. 389.

26. "Atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of Man." Francis Bacon, quoted in HBQ, p. 393.

27. "If the thunder is not loud, the peasant forgets to cross himself." Russian proverb, quoted in HBQ, p. 393.

28. "The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain agnostic." Charles Darwin, quoted in HBQ, p. 392.

29. "Puritanism -- the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy." H. L. Menken, quoted in HBQ, p. 392.

30. "When a man is freed of religion, he has a better chance to live a normal and wholesome life." Sigmund Freud, quoted in HBQ, p. 392.

31. "My atheism, like that of Spinoza, is true piety towards the universe and denies only gods fashioned by men in their own image, to be servants of their human interests." George Santayana, quoted in HBQ, p. 393.

32. "There is a crack in everything God has made." Ralph Waldo Emerson, quoted in HBQ, p. 393.

33. "The voice of the people is the voice of God." Latin proverb, quoted in HBQ, p. 393.

34. "Christianity might be a good thing if anyone ever tried it." George Bernard Shaw, quoted in HBQ, p. 393.

35. "An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support." Fulton Sheen, HBQ, p. 393.

36. "I consider myself a Hindu, Christian, Moslem, Jew, Buddhist, and Confucian." Gandhi, quoted in HBQ, p. 394.

37. "You have not converted a man because you have silenced him." John Morley, quoted in HBQ, p. 394.

38. "Men prefer to believe that they are degenerated angels, rather than elevated aped." W. Winwood Roade, quoted in HBQ, p. 394.

39. "My theology, briefly,Is that the universeWas dictatedBut not signed." Christopher Morley, quoted in HBQ, p. 393.

40. "There is one Islam only." IT, p. 6.

41. "Islam constantly points to the interlinking of everything, the unity of the universe." IT, p. 5.

42. "[A]lthough Muslim society and Islam in the ideal are fused, in reality many Muslims do not live by the ideal." IT, p. 5.

43. "[P]eace be upon him." Muslim saying, IT, p. 12.

44. "The Prophet [Muhammed] was born in 570 AD. His father had died a few weeks earlier." IT, p. 14.

45. According to Muslims, "God's first house on earth [was] built by Adam and later rebuilt by the prophet Abraham and his son Ismail." IT, p. 14.

46. "[T]he word itself ['Islam'] means submission to the will of God." IT, p. 17.

47. "... Muslims believe that there have been over 124,000 'prophets' who spread the message of God, whether directly or indirectly. Such figures, some Muslim scholars have suggested, include people like Plato and Buddha ..." IT, p. 24.

48. "As Islam is not linked to the founder of the religion, it is also not linked to a geographical ara. This is unlike Hinduism, which derives its name from Hind or the river Indus, or Judaism, which derives its name from the land of Judaea." IT, p. 25.

49. "The religion [of Islam] is not 'Muhammadanism', as it was incorrectly called in the West until recently. The idea of 'Muhammadanism' for the West corresponded to the fact that Christianity was named after Christ and Buddhism after Buddha -- both figures seen as divine or semi-divine by there followers." IT, p. 25.

50. "Muslims do not allow images or [visual] representations of the Prophet." IT, p. 22.

51. "The Quran repeatedly points out that both Jews and Christians are 'people of the Book', that the original Books came from God. Indeed, for Islam the prophets of Judaism and Christianity are also prophets of Islam. The prophets of Islam begin with Adam, and include Nuh (noah), Ibrahim (Abraham), Ismail (Ishmael), Ishaq (Isaac), Loot (Lot), Yaqub (Jacob), Yusuf (Joseph), Musa (Moses) and Ayybu (Job). There is even a geneological link with Jews: Jews calim descent from Abraham through his son Isaac while the Arabs claim descent through his son Ismail." IT, p. 23.

52. "The Prophet contracted twelve marriages [after his first]. ... It is the Prophet's treatment of his wives -- with fairness, gentleness, and respect -- that has laid the basis for the treatment of women in Islam. It must be understood that these marriages were only allowed to the Prophet. A Muslim is encouraged to marry only once but under extraordinary circumstances may marry up to four wives." IT, p. 20.

53. "...[S]he [Khadijah, wife of the Prophet] would have the singular honor of being the first Muslim in history." IT, p. 16.

54. "The message of Islam was first revealed to the Prophet in 610, when he was engaged in one of his periods of retreat to the cave on Hira." IT, p. 16.

55. "'None of you can be a believer unless he loves for his brother what he loves for himself,' said the Prophet." IT, p. 18. Compare this to "Love thy neighbor." and the Golden Rule.

57. "Even God cannot change the past." Agathon (447?-401 BC), ODQ, p. 3.

58. "The voice of the people is the voice of God." Alcuin (735-804), ODQ, p. 3.

59. "Our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Proidence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions." John O'Sullivan (1813-1895), quoted in ODQ, p. 370.

60. "It is a reproach to religion and government to suffer so much poverty and excess." William Penn (1644-1718), quoted in ODQ, p. 377.

71. “Any man’s death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind.” – quoted by actor Jack Lord, playing police captain Steve McGarrett, Hawaii Five-0 episode “Just Lucky, I Guess.” See John Dunne on this idea.

72. "I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it." --Pablo Picasso; double check the source; got it from em from musician

73. “No one can wear one face to himself and another to the multitude without getting bewildered about which might be true.” – Nathaniel Hawthorne; source: The Sopranos, “College,” broadcast on HBO on 3/2/03 at 5pm.

74. “It’s difficult to say what’s impossible, since the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow.” – Robert Goddard, rocket scientist, quoted on CNN, 1116am PT, 2/8/03.

75. 1. “Oil is too important to be left to the Arabs.” – Henry Kissinger, quoted in Hidden Wars of Desert Storm, video.

76. “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke, quoted at the end of the film “Tears of the Sun” (2003; war), starring Bruce Willis; Tom Skerritt; Monica Belucci; Cole Hauser; Eamonn Walker; Nick Chinlund; Fionnula Flanagan; and Malick Bowens; Chad Smith; Paul Francis; Charles Ingram; Sammi Rotibi; Cle Sloan; Kobby Dankyi; Allison Deam; Michael Clossin; Alice B. Shaw; & Faustino Suco.

77. “Common sense can be frightening.” – Bill O’Reilly, The O’Reilly Factor, Fox News Channel, 6/13/03.

78. “But you could find examples of 5 positive things he [Hitler] said in that book [Mein Kampf].” – Bill O’Reilly, registered Republican, The O’Reilly Factor, Fox News Channel, 5-1-03.

79. “Only that which is the other gives us fully unto ourselves.” Philosopher Sri Yogananda, quoted in the film “Two Weeks’ Notice” (circa 2002), a romantic comedy starring Hugh Grant, Sandra Bullock, Donald Trump, and Mike Piazza (of the LA Dodgers and NY Mets).

80. Compare the following quote with the Golden Rule: "Good people proceed while considering that what is best for others is best for themselves." (Hitopadesa, Hinduism), quoted in William H. Shaw, Business Ethics (Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1991), p. 12.

81. Compare the following quote with the Golden Rule: "Thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself." (Leviticus 19:18, Judaism), quoted in William H. Shaw, Business Ethics (Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1991), p. 12.

82. Compare the following quote with the Golden Rule: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." (Matthew 7:12, Christianity), quoted in William H. Shaw, Business Ethics (Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1991), p. 12.

83. Compare the following quote with the Golden Rule: "Hurt not others with that which pains yourself." (Udanavarga 5:18, Buddhism), quoted in William H. Shaw, Business Ethics (Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1991), p. 12.

84. Compare the following quote with the Golden Rule: "What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others." (Analects 15:23, Confucianism), quoted in William H. Shaw, Business Ethics (Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1991), p. 12.

85. Compare the following quote with the Golden Rule: "No one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself." (Traditions, Islam), quoted in William H. Shaw, Business Ethics (Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1991), p. 12.

86. "After all, what's a cult? It just means not enough people to make a minority." The Globe and Mail, quoted in HBQ, p. 389.

87. "One's religion is whatever it is that is one's ultimate concern." Paul Tillich, paraphrased from Dr. Harwood's memory.

88. "Not this, not that. (neti, neti)," from Hinduism; quoted in Leslie Stevenson & David L. Haberman, Ten Theories of Human Nature, 3rd ed. (Oxford University Press, 1998).

89. From a Buddhist point of view, [it] is standing the truth on its head by considering goods as more important than people and consumption as more important than creative activity. It means shifting the emphasis from the worker to the product of work, that is, from the human to the subhuman, a surrender to the forces of evil. The very start of Buddhist economic planning would be planning for full employment, and the primary purpose of this would in fact be employment for everyone who needs an 'outside' job: it would not be the maximisation of employment nor the maximisation of production. Women, on the whole, do not need an 'outside' job, and the large-scale employment of women in ofices or factories would be considered a sign of serious economic failure. In particular, to let mothers of young children work in factories while the children run wild would be as uneconomic in the eyes of a Buddhist economist as the employment of a skilled worker as a soldier in the eyes of a modern economist.
While the materialist is mainly interested in goods, the Buddhist is mainly interested in liberation. But Buddhism is 'The Middle Way' and therefore in no way antagonistic to physical well-being. It is not wealth that stands in the way of liberation but the attachment to wealth; not the enjoyment of pleasurable things but the craving for them. The keynote of Buddhist economics, therefore, is simplicity and nonviolence. From an economist's point of view, the marvel of the Buddhist way of life is the utter rationality of its pattern -- amazingly small means leading to extraordinarily satisfactory results." ~ E. F. Schumacher, Small is Beautiful (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 1973), pp. 56-57.

90. "Make the most of the Indian hemp seed, and sow it everywhere!"
George Washington
Note to the gardener at Mount Vernon, 1794
"The Writings of George Washington"
Volume 33, page 270 (Library of Congress)

91. “To see what is right, and not do it, is want of courage, or of principle.” ~ Confucius, quoted in Donald O. Bolander, Dolores D. Varner, Gary B. Wright, and Stephanie H. Greene, eds., Instant Quotation Dictionary (New York: Dell Publishing, 1972), p. 227.

92. “Honeyed words and flattering looks seldom speak of love.” ~ Confucius, quoted in The Sayings of Confucius (Barnes and Noble, 1994), p. 1.

93. “Of a gentleman who is frivolous none stand in awe, nor can his learning be sound. Make faithfulness and truth thy masters: have no friends unlike thyself; be not ashamed to mend thy faults.” ~ Confucius, quoted in The Sayings of Confucius (Barnes and Noble, 1994), p. 2.

94. “A gentleman who is not a greedy eater, nor a lover of ease at home, who is earnest in deed and careful of speech who seeks the righteous and profits by them, may be called fond of learning.” ~ Confucius, quoted in The Sayings of Confucius (Barnes and Noble, 1994), p. 3.

95. “Not to be known should not grieve you; grieve that ye know not men.” ~ Confucius, quoted in The Sayings of Confucius (Barnes and Noble, 1994), p. 4. Compare the old saying: “It’s not what you know but who you know that counts.” Further, compare the countersaying: “It’s not who you know that counts but who knows you.”

96. “Guide the people by law, subdue them by punishment; they may shun crime, but will be void of shame. Guide them by example, subdue them by courtesy; they will learn shame, and come to be good.” ~ Confucius, quoted in The Sayings of Confucius (Barnes and Noble, 1994), p. 5.

97. “At fifteen, I was bent on study; at thirty, I could stand; at forty, doubts ceased; at fifty, I understood the laws of Heaven; at sixty, my ears obeyed me; at seventy, I could do as my heart lusted, and never swerve from right.” ~ Confucius, quoted in The Sayings of Confucius (Barnes and Noble, 1994), p. 5.

98. “If I talk all day to Hui [Confucius’s favorite disciple], like a dullard, he never stops me. But when he is gone, if I pry into his life, I find he can do what I say. No, Hui is no dullard.” ~ Confucius, quoted in The Sayings of Confucius (Barnes and Noble, 1994), p. 7.

99. “Look at a man’s acts; watch his motives; find out what pleases him; can the man evade you? Can the man evade you?” ~ Confucius, quoted in The Sayings of Confucius (Barnes and Noble, 1994), p. 7.

100. “He [a gentleman] is broad and fair; the vulgar are biassed [sic, biased] and petty.” ~ Confucius, quoted in The Sayings of Confucius (Barnes and Noble, 1994), p. 7.

101. “Work on strange doctrines does harm.” ~ Confucius, quoted in The Sayings of Confucius (Barnes and Noble, 1994), p. 7.

102. “Listen much, keep silent when in doubt, and always take heed of the tongue; thou wilt make few mistakes. See much, beware of pitfalls, and always give heed to thy walk; thou wilt have little to rue. If thy words are seldom wrong, thy deeds leave little to rue, pay will follow.” ~ Confucius, quoted in The Sayings of Confucius (Barnes and Noble, 1994), p. 8. Most of the things you regret are things undone.

103. Confucius, to a questioner, on why Confucius is not in power: “What does the book say of a good son? ‘An always dutiful son, who is a friend to his brothers, showeth the way to rule.’ This also is to rule. What need to be in power?” ~ Confucius, quoted in The Sayings of Confucius (Barnes and Noble, 1994), p. 8

104. “Without truth I know not how man can live. A cart without a crosspole, a carriage without harness, how could they be moved?” ~ Confucius, quoted in The Sayings of Confucius (Barnes and Noble, 1994), p. 9.

105. Confucius, to the questioner Tzu-chang, on whether we can know what is to be ten generations hence: “The Yin inherited the manners of the Hsia; the harm and the good that they wrought them is [sic: are] known. The Chou inherited the manners of the Yin; the harm and the good that they wrought them is [sic: are] known. And we may know what is to be, even an hundred generations hence, when others follow Chou.” ~ Confucius, quoted in The Sayings of Confucius (Barnes and Noble, 1994), p. 9.

106. “A friend to love, a foe to evil, I have yet to meet. A friend to love will set nothing higher. In love’s service, a foe to evil will let no evil touch him. Were a man to give himself to love, but for one day, I have seen no one whose strength would fail him. Such men there may be, but I have not seen one.” ~ Confucius, quoted in The Sayings of Confucius (Barnes and Noble, 1994), p. 18.

107. “A scholar in search of truth who is ashamed of poor clothes and poor food it is idle talking to.” ~ Confucius, quoted in The Sayings of Confucius (Barnes and Noble, 1994), p. 18.

108. “The chase of gain is rich in hate.” ~ Confucius, quoted in The Sayings of Confucius (Barnes and Noble, 1994), p. 18.

109. “Be not concerned at want of place; be concerned that thou stand thyself. Sorrow not at being unknown, but seek to be worthy of note.” ~ Confucius, quoted in The Sayings of Confucius (Barnes and Noble, 1994), p. 19.

110. “One thread, Shen [a disciple of Confucius], runs through all my teaching.” ~ Confucius, quoted in The Sayings of Confucius (Barnes and Noble, 1994), p. 19.

111. “A gentleman considers what is right; the vulgar consider what will pay.” ~ Confucius, quoted in The Sayings of Confucius (Barnes and Noble, 1994), p. 19.

112. “Who contains himself goes seldom wrong.” ~ Confucius, quoted in The Sayings of Confucius (Barnes and Noble, 1994), p. 20.

113. “A gentleman wishes to be slow to speak and quick to act.” ~ Confucius, quoted in The Sayings of Confucius (Barnes and Noble, 1994), p. 20. Cf. Be quick but never hurry.

114. “The Master’s teaching all hangs on faithfulness and fellow-feeling.” ~ Tseng-tzu, quoted in The Sayings of Confucius (Barnes and Noble, 1994), p. 19.

115. "God works in strange and mysterious ways." -- a famous, old Christian saying.

116. "Religion ... is the opium of the people." -- Karl Marx, Critique of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right (1844), introduction, quoted in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, p. 481; quoted as "Religion is the opiate of the people" -- without ellipses -- in HBQ, p. 393.4. Note that HBQ = Robert I. Fitzhenry, ed., The Harper Book of Quotations, 3rd ed. (HarperCollins, 1993). 'ODQ' = The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, second edition, Oxford University Press, 1966.

117. "Judaism had been a religion of the father; Christianity became a religion of the son. The old God the Father fell back behind Christ; Christ, the Son, took his place, just as every son had hoped to do in primeval times." Sigmund Freud, Moses and Monotheism, pt. III, sec. 1 (1938), quoted in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, p. 569.

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

FAQ20: For all courses, what are some arguments on capital punishment that students may use in a paper on capital punishment?

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 1. "Between 1980 and 1990, the nation's prison inmate population soared to nearly 700,000 and it is growing more every day. Over 3.6 million persons were in prison, in jail, on probation, or on parole. Corrections has become the fastest growing single item in most state budgets and the bureau of prisons has become the fastest growing agency in the federal government. Our correction system is built on the concept of rehabilitation, but clearly it doesn't work. The recidivist rate, billions of wasted dollars and the failure of countless prison job-training programs have left little room for argument. Perhaps it's time to change the premise of corrections from one of rehabilitation to death punishment." Kent W. Perry, Newsweek, March 13, 1989. Note: the conclusion of all of these arguments is that captial punishment is justified, or that it is unjustified. So note that Perry may be understating his point too much in using 'Perhaps.'

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 2. "Most liberals say that the death penalty does not deter murderers. I don't know why. There is not a case on record where a killer who has been executed has killed again. It certainly deters him. The graveyards of this nation are inundated with the bodies of second and third victims of killers who via escape, furlough or parole have lived to kill again." B. M. Lybrand, letter to the editor, The Dallas Morning News, July 28, 1990, p. 30A, quoted in Irving M. Copy and K. Burgess-Jackson, Informal Logic, 2nd ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1992), p. 119. Suggestion: Distinguish between deterrence and incapacitation, and distinguish between special deterrence and general deterrence. Incapacitation is making the prisoner unable to repeat his/her crime. Special deterrence is allowing the prisoner to live but discouraging him/her from repeating a crime by making him/her too afraid of further punishment. General deterrence is discouraging the public at large from committing a crime by making the public fearful of being punished for committing that crime.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 3. "An inmate who follows the hard-living lifestyle will typically leave the penitentiary and then quickly get tired of looking for work. Instead of going out and pounding the pavement until he finds a job, he will start lying around the house. His wife doesn't like this because she expected him to find a job and help support the family once he does. He has no job, no money, and no place to go. Then, because of his anger, and because he has returned to his old way of thinking, he takes that anger out on a new victim. This hard living will cause inmates to return to prison." Daniel J. Bayse, As Free As An Eagle (Virginia: Kirby Lithographic Co., 1991), p. 117.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 4. "Because of increased juvenile crime, more and more juvenile offenders are being viewed as vicious redators and lost forever. For such individuals, parole would simply give them the opportunity to kill again as adults. Violence among teenagers and juvenile homicide has reached epidemic level. If the current trend continues, killing by children could triple or even quadruple by the end of the 1990s." Dr. Charles Patrick Ewing, ed., "Abuse, Alcohol and Drugs Turn More Kids into Killers," quoted in Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN), Aug. 14, 1990, p. 7A.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 5. "Few questions stir more passion than the ancient debate over the relative importance of heredity and the environment. The debate is often stated in extreme form: genes are destiny and environment does not matter. Yet there is no organism without both genes and environment. Heredity affects traits and behavior and the evidence is strong that many individual characteristics have a genetic basis, no matter how slight. The possibility that the tendency toward law-abidingness or criminality has a genetic basis canot be dismissed out of hand." Morgan O. Reynolds, "Crime by Choice," 1985, quoted in David K. Bender and Bruno Leone, the editors, Crime and Criminals, (Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1989), p. 46.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 6. "From a religious point of view, the more systematically we eliminate murderers by executions, the greater will be the reinforcement against killing and the greater the number of innocent lives saved. There are many Biblical commandments from God for imposition of the death penalty for a variety of crimes. One of the most familiar is in Genesis 9:6: Whosoever sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." Chattanooga News, Free Press, 1983, quoted in Gary E. McCuen and R. A. Baumgart, eds., (Wisconsin, GEM Publications, Inc., 1985), p. 67. Note: Does this argument fallaciously appeal to authority (religious or scriptural authority)?

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 7. "If all those caught producing or processing addictive drugs, plus all those caught selling addictive drugs in our country, were confronted with capital punishment administered without recourse, then gradually this intolerable situation of crimes of drugs would be ameliorated." W. H. Long, Manchester Union Leaders, October 3, 1989, quoted in Donald Macgillis and ABC News, Crime in America, (Chilton Book Company, 1990), p. 173.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 8. "Capriciousness and irrelevant discrimination in the distribution of the death penalty to convicted murderers - and even in the distribution of fines to people who double park - should be corrected, for they outrage our desire for equality and above all allow guilty personal to escape deserved punishment." Ernest van den Haag, Letter to the Editor, The New Republic, Jan. 23, 1984, p. 2, quoted in Irving M. Copi and K. Burgess-Jackson, Informal Logic, 2nd edition, (New York: Macmillan), p. 39.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 9. "But, contrary to abolitionist hopes and expectations, the [Supreme] Court did not invalidate the death penalty. It upheld it. It upheld it on retributive grounds. In doing so, it recognized, at least implicitly, that the American people are entitled as a people to demand that criminal be paid back, and that the worst of them be made to pay back with their lives." Walter Berns, "Is Capital Punishment Justified?," in Taking Sides, 3rd ed., (Dushkin Publishing, Co., 19??), p. 176.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 10. "In 1972 Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote that, punishment for the sake of retribution is not permissible under the eighth amendment. That is absurd. The element of retribution - vengeance, if you will - does not make punishment cruel and unusual, it makes punishment intelligible. It distinguishes punishment from therapy. Rehabilitation may be the ancillary result of punishment, but we punish to serve justice, by giving people what they deserve." George F. Will, "The Value of Punishment," Newsweek, May 24, 1982, p. 92, quoted in Irving M. Copi and K. Burgess-Jackson, Informal Logic, 2nd edition, p. 29.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 11. "We also reject petitioners' argument that we should invalidate capital punishment of 16 to 17 years old offenders on the ground that it fails to serve the legitimate goals of penology. According to petitioners (the arguers), it fails to deter, because juveniles processing less developed cognitive skills than adults, are less likely to fear death; and it fails to exact just retribution, because juveniles being less mature and responsible, are also less morally blameworthy." Justice Antonin Scalia, for the U.S. supreme Court, Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989), quoted in Irving M. Copi and K. Burgess-Jackson, Informal Logic, 2nd edition, (New York: Macmillan, 1992), p. 51.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 12. "The majority of prisoners on death row, however, are too poor to pay private attorney. Their legal help has been appointed by the state. But State-appointed attorneys are often overworked, underpaid, and not as well supported by a paid staff as the prosecuting attorneys." Fred Burning, Countdown to the Electric Chair, Macleans, October 26, 1987, quoted in JoAnn Bren Guernsey, ed., Should We Have Capital Punishment?, (Minneapolis: Lerner Publications Company, 1993), p. 21.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 13. "Judges have studied and worked long and hard to take on such life-and-death responsibilities. Most judges believe strongly in the judicial system and want to serve it to the best of their abilities. But what about juries? They are made up of people who have varying abilities, probably little knowledge of the law, and little choice about service as a juror. It doesn't take much to be a member of a jury in a murder case. So, if they are not experts, we shouldn't trust their judgment." Charles L. Black, Jr., Capital Punishment: The Inevitability of Caprice and Mistake, p. 78.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 14. "I have always been against capital punishment in any form. None of us has the right to take the life of another human being, because if we're wrong, we can't give back the life we took. I don't necessarily think of killing someone as punishment of the condemned, it is the punishment of his family. When a person is dead, you're no longer punishing him. You're punishing only the people who love the person you've sentenced to die." Coretta Scott King, quoted in Walter Berns, For Capital Punishment: Crime and the Morality of the Death Penalty, (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1979), p. 136.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 15. "As for the argument that it is cheaper to execute a capital offender than to imprison him for life, [that] is simply incorrect: (1) A disproportionate amount of money spent on prisons is attributable to death row. Appeals are often automatic, and courts admittedly spend more time with a death [penalty] case. At trial, the selection of jurors is likely to become a costly, time consuming problem in a capital case. All of these exhaust the time, money and effort of the court. When all is said and done, there can be no doubt that it costs more to execute a man than to keep him in prison for life." David Gottleib, speech at the University of Kansas, quoted in David L. Bender, ed., Death Penalty, Greenhaven Press, Inc., p. 214.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 16. "To sanction the death penalty for economic reasons means equating the value of human life with money. That's tantamount to killing for the sake of economy. To justify it on the principle of 'an eye for an eye' is contrary to any strivings for humanitarian principle. Thus the number one consideration is whether capital punishment does reduce the incidence of crime." Robert H. Loeb, Crime and Capital Punishment, (New York: Franklin Watts, 1978), p. 61.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 17. "We discern neither a historical nor a modern societal consensus forbidding imposition of capital punishment on any person who murders at 16 or 17 years of age. Accordingly, we conclude that such punishment does not offend the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment." Justice Antonin Scalia, for the U.S. Supreme Court, Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989), quote in Irving M. Copi and K. Burgess-Jackson, Informal Logic, 2nd edition (Macmillan, 1992), p. ?

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 18. "CP [capital punishment] incapacitates with 100% effectiveness. Unlike life imprisonment or any other alternative, no more innocent people will be murdered by escapees or prisoners." Ernest van den Haag, quoted in Michael J. Gorr and Sterling Harwood, eds., Crime and Punishment: Philosophic Explorations (Boston: Jones & Bartlett, 1995), p. 516. Note: Wadsworth Publishing Company in Belmont, CA now owns and distributes this book.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 19. "CP [capital punishment] is feared above all punishment because it is not merely irreversible as most other penalties are, but also irrevocable. It hastens an event, which unlike pain, deprivation or injury is unique in every life and never has been reported on by anyone. Death is an experience that cannot actually be experienced and ends all experiences." Ernest van den Haag, quoted in Michael J. Gorr and Sterling Harwood, eds., Crime and Punishment: Philosophic Exploration (Boston: Jones and Bartlett, 1995), p. 516. Suggestion: search for any inconsistencies in this argument. Is there a self-contradiction in this argument?

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 20. "End the death penalty""The current assault on the death penalty concerns whether we should execute people who are mentally retarded. The other major rallying point is the argument that we can never be 100 percent certain that we are executing the right person.The designation of a person as 'mentally retarded' is somewhat arbitrary. We pick an IQ test score of 70 and say, "That's the line." Does that mean it is OK to execute a person with an IQ of 71 and not someone with an IQ of 69?The death penalty is wrong because it is outrageous that we cede government the right to legally take the lives of its citizens. Opponents of the death enalty should stop taking the piecemeal approach and protest instead on the sound and convincing grounds of its moral and ethical repugnance." Donald M. Olson, Redwood City, San Jose Mercury News, 3/29/01, p. 9B.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 21. "End the death penalty""Those of us who were at the San Quentin vigil Monday night (Page 1A, March 27) are fully aware of the victims, but for me, the larger focus is upon our inhumanity. I struggle to understand why we have so much hatred and desire for revenge that we believe that to execute a person will bring closure to a victim's family. Closure occurs when we can move beyond hatred and revenge, and find forgiveness.What is behind the motivation of the few people at the vigil who were there anxiously waiting for Robert Massie's death? What motivates their desire for the death of another? Where did we fail in teaching them the way beyond hatred?The focus of a vigil at an execution is to bring to the attention of those not at the vigil that we must move beyond hatred and revenge." Bob Carter, San Carlos, San Jose Mercury News, 3/29/01, p. 9B.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 22: "Capital punishment is as fundamentally wrong as a cure for crime as charity is wrong as a cure for poverty."~ Henry Ford, from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/henryford106263.html, last visited 11/10/2009.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 23: “Many laws as certainly make bad men, as bad men make many laws.”  ~Walter Savage Landor, Imaginary Conversations.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 24: “Justice is open to everyone in the same way as the Ritz Hotel.”  ~Judge Sturgess, from www.quotegarden.com, last visited 11/9/2009.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 25: “People who love sausage and people who believe in justice should never watch either of them being made.”  ~ Otto Bismark, from www.quotegarden.com, last visited 11/9/2009.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 26: “Justice is the tolerable accommodation of the conflicting interests of society, and I don't believe there is any royal road to attain such accommodation concretely.”  ~ Judge Learned Hand, in P. Hamburger, The Great Judge, 1946.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 27: “When you go into court you are putting your fate into the hands of twelve people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.”  ~Norm Crosby, from www.quotegarden.com, last visited 11/9/2009.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 28: “A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer.”  ~Robert Frost, from www.quotegarden.com, last visited 11/9/2009. 

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 29: “This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice.”  ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., from www.quotegarden.com, last visited 11/9/2009.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 30: “The trouble with the laws these days is that criminals know their rights better than their wrongs.”  ~Author Unknown, from www.quotegarden.com, last visited 11/9/2009.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 31: “Justice is incidental to law and order.”  ~John Edgar Hoover, from www.quotegarden.com, last visited 11/9/2009. 

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 32:  “Justice may be blind, but she has very sophisticated listening devices.”  ~Edgar Argo, from www.quotegarden.com, last visited 11/9/2009. 

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 33: “Punishment is now unfashionable... because it creates moral distinctions among men, which, to the democratic mind, are odious.  We prefer a meaningless collective guilt to a meaningful individual responsibility.”  ~Thomas Szasz, from www.quotegarden.com, last visited 11/9/2009. 

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 34:  “Any society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.”  ~Erik Pepke, from www.quotegarden.com, last visited 11/9/2009. 

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 35: No man suffers injustice without learning, vaguely but surely, what justice is.  ~Isaac Rosenfeld, from www.quotegarden.com, last visited 11/9/2009. 

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 36:  “Somebody recently figured out that we have 35 million laws to enforce the ten commandments.”  ~ Attributed to both Bert Masterson and Earl Wilson, from www.quotegarden.com, last visited 11/9/2009.  Note that Earl Wilson is probably not the same Earl Wilson who won 22 games for The Detroit Tigers in 1967.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 37:  “I've never had a problem with drugs.  I've had problems with the police.”  ~ Keith Richards, lead guitarist, The Rolling Stones, from www.quotegarden.com, last visited 11/9/2009. 

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 38: “There is plenty of law at the end of a nightstick.”  ~ Grover Whalen, from www.quotegarden.com, last visited 11/9/2009. 

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 39: In the Halls of Justice the only justice is in the halls.  ~Lenny Bruce, from www.quotegarden.com, last visited 11/9/2009. 

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 40: Although the legal and ethical definitions of right are the antithesis of each other, most writers use them as synonyms.  They confuse power with goodness, and mistake law for justice.  ~Charles T. Sprading, Freedom and its Fundamentals, from www.quotegarden.com, last visited 11/9/2009. 

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 41: If the laws could speak for themselves, they would complain of the lawyers in the first place.  ~Lord Halifax, from www.quotegarden.com, last visited 11/9/2009. 

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 42: It's strange that men should take up crime when there are so many legal ways to be dishonest.  ~Author unknown, quoted in Sunshine magazine, from www.quotegarden.com, last visited 11/9/2009. 

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 43: Hunger makes a thief of any man.  ~Pearl S. Buck, quoted in You Said a Mouthful, edited by Ronald D. Fuchs, from www.quotegarden.com, last visited 11/9/2009. 

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 44: Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.  ~Edmund Burke, from www.quotegarden.com, last visited 11/9/2009. 

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 45: But how is this legal plunder to be identified?  Quite simply.  See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong.  See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.  ~Frederic Bastiat, The Law, from www.quotegarden.com, last visited 11/9/2009. 

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 46: “The more laws the more offenders.”  ~Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732, from www.quotegarden.com, last visited 11/9/2009. 

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 47: “It ain't no sin if you crack a few laws now and then, just so long as you don't break any.”  ~Mae West, from www.quotegarden.com, last visited 11/9/2009. 

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 48: “Law never made men a whit more just.”  ~Henry David Thoreau, from www.quotegarden.com, last visited 11/9/2009. 

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 49: “If you don't know there's a trampoline in the room, you're not going to dust the ceiling for prints.”  ~From the television show Law & Order, from www.quotegarden.com, last visited 11/9/2009. 

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 50: “Lawsuit: A machine which you go into as a pig and come out of as a sausage.”  ~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, from www.quotegarden.com, last visited 11/9/2009. 

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 51: “The United States is the greatest law factory the world has ever known.  ~Charles Evans Hughes, from www.quotegarden.com, last visited 11/9/2009. 

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 52: “We’ve have 245 DNA exonerations so far and half those guys were on death row.  How can … how do these cases happen?  And they’re all a combination of bad police work, overzealous prosecutors, jailhouse snitches, junk science, bad defense lawyering, … [political ambition], judge’s who were asleep, … bad eyewitness identification…”  ~ John Grisham, interviewed by Charlie Rose, Charlie Rose, PBS-TV, first aired 11/06/2009. 

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT QUOTE 53: “They [prosecutors, police] are never, never, never held accountable for that [the wrongdoing of willful misconduct by the police and prosecutors] because they are the law and they are not going to prosecute themselves.”  ~ John Grisham, interviewed by Charlie Rose, Charlie Rose, PBS-TV, first aired 11/06/2009.

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

FAQ21: What are some fantastic quotes to consider using as A-sections in any relevant term paper topic?

1. "Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it." ~ George Santayana (12/16/1863-9/26/1952), Reason in Common Sense.

2. "Only the dead have seen the end of war."
~ George Santayana (12/16/1863-9/26/1952), Life in Reason (Charles Scribners and Sons, 1905), p. 284.  Note: this quote is often falsely attributed to Plato, as in the beginning of the film Blackhawk Down.

3. "The unexamined life is not worth living." ~ Socrates (circa 469-399BC).

4. "The unlived life is not worth examining." ~ Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011), from Vanity Fair magazine, Jan. 2012.

5. "Two things fill me with ever-increasing awe and wonder, the starry heavens above and the moral law within." ~ Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).

6. The fact that human life is finite gives it meaning." ~ Bill Kurtis, narrator, "Death Cheaters," The Unexplained, first aired 12/05/1999.

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

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)?

Earning extra credit is as easy as A, B, C: A, Quote a statement from the film or video; B, state whether you agree or disagree with the statement you just quoted, and C, then state why you agree or disagree with the statement you just quoted. Do this for up to 3 different statements for up to 3 points. To earn 3 points you must have 9 sections on your card (3 different quotations, 3 statements of whether you agree or disagree with those quotations, and 3 explanations of why you agree or disagree with those quotations). Ask Dr. Harwood to pass around a sample in class and he will do so once he gets a good sample to pass around. You may do the same sort of extra credit assignments on the following videos that Dr. Harwood does not have available to loan. So rack up those extra credit points to take the edge off your test taking experienes in the course! ;o) If you would like me to add a video to the list of approved videos for extra credit, just ask me and I will consider it.

1) For all courses, Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, starring John Cleese, Michael Palin, Graham Chapman, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle & Terry Jones.

2) For all courses, Bowling for Columbine, winner of the Oscar (Academy Award) for best documentary from 2002, starring Michael Moore and Charlton Heston; about gun control & violence in America. Remember that you can get quotes from this film for any relevant paper you write, too; for PHIL 70, focus on just war theory and religious objections to violence and fearmongering;

3) For all courses, Mindwalk (1991, drama), staring Liv Ullmann, Sam Waterston & John Heard. A physicist, poet and politician discuss their fields with each other as they vacation by t