Week I: Introductory Discussion: What is Philosophy? What is Ethics? What is Law?

Week 1: Introductory Discussion: What is philosophy? What is Ethics? What is

Law? And what is the relationship between the three?

Introductory Lecture

What is Philosophy?
Critical debate on anything worth arguing about.
The prior, most fundamental questions on any topic are philosophical questions,
including the question as to what philosophy is.
Main functions:
-Analysing ideas, and clarifying viewpoints.
Traditional questions:
What does it mean to know something? Is there a God? Does the soul survive the physical death of the body? Is man merely an animal? Why is there something rather than nothing? How should I live? What is the meaning of life? What is art? Is it important? What is the nature of reality? What is the best form of government?
What is Morality?

Rachels defines morality as
“the effort to guide one's conduct by reason.” To do what there are the best reasons for doing- while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual who will be affected. »

Making distinctions between right and wrong.
Suggestions: Bernard Gert:
httondup://plato.standford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

Morality provides a guide for the behaviour of the people in a society.
-A universal code of conduct that would be endorsed by all rational persons (at least, that is the standard view of all modern Western ethical theorists since Kant).
Hobbes, Bentham; Mill: morality means behaviour that affects others.

Basic Questions concerning our Definition of Morality
Is it immoral to
-harm yourself without harming anyone else?
(I.e. Stay drunk all the time, or become a complete recluse, just living inside your bedroom and playing computer games all the time?)

(does such a code really exist? Some meta-ethicists would say that such a code does not exist).
-Is it immoral to not help others, even if you could do so easily ?
(Note that philosophers disagree strongly with each other over these questions).




How are Philosophy Essays Marked?
● Have you shown that you understand the problem?
●Do you understand the essay question?
●Have you answered the essay question?
●Have you shown that you have thought about the problems
by yourself?
●Have you expressed your reasoning clearly, and in a structured, orderly way? (We will go over structuring an essay before the first essay is due).
●Have you removed all text that does not directly discuss the argument?

Showing that you understand the material is more important than showing that you have done lots of reading.
Avoid:
● Mere expression of opinion
● Dogmatism
● Excessive quotation that does not show that you
really understand the ideas. (This is not to say that quoting is incorrect- but you should only quote when it is inappropriate to use your own words).
Opinion is nothing. Argumentation is everything.

The Baby Theresa Case

1.1 Preliminary Questions:
1).What is a person? (That is, how are people different to, say, dogs or powerful computers?)
2).What is death? That is, does death occur when the heart stops, the breathing stops, or when something else happens?
3).How are your answers to 1). and 2). above connected?

1.2 The Case
Theresa Ann Campo Pearson was born in Florida in 1992. She was born with a condition called anencephaly ( ‘ an-’ in Greek means 'without,' '-cephaly' means something to do with the head). Important parts of the brain were missing. However, parts of the brain responsible for breathing and heart rate were still working.
Theresa's parents made an unusual decision. They knew that Theresa would not live for more than a few days, and that she would never wake up (she would never have a conscious life). So, Theresa's parents volunteered her organs for transplantation. (In the USA, at least 2,000 infants need transplants each year, and there are never enough organs available). The doctors agreed that this was a good idea. There were problems, however. The organs had to be removed from Theresa before her heart stopped to still be usable. Florida law defines death as brain- death, so this was not in itself a problem. Yet, when the case went to court, the judge rejected the reasoning of the parents. As he knew that part of Theresa's brain was still alive, he decided that Theresa was not, in fact, brain dead. A few weeks later, Theresa died, and her organs were not donated.
Questions for Discussion.
1).Do you think that organ donation is a good idea? Why, or why not?
2).Do you think that Theresa's parents made the right decision?
3).Do you think that Florida law on the question of death is sound?
4).Do you think that the judge made the right decision?
5).How does Japanese law define death? (As heart/lung, cardiovascular death, or as brain death?) Should the law in Japan be changed, do you think? Why?
6).Are organ transplants done in Japan?


Possible Responses to the Baby Theresa case (actually stated by professional ethicists, as Rachels notes):
The Benefits Argument
The Argument that we should Not Use People as Means
Argument against the Wrongness of Killing

Reading before Lecture 2 and Week 2:
RTTP: 1-28 ; 144-153. EMP 1-14 (book available Wednesday)
Discussion Preparation: Read over the Iceberg Case.
Read the text, and think of what you would decide if you were on the jury. Think of the basic reasons behind your decision. Note that you cannot merely say that this is the decision that 'feels right.'









Lecture 2.
Assessing and Making Arguments

To be covered:
Premises and Conclusions.
Validity and Soundness
Fallacies.
Consider the following argument. From Rachels RTTD:144-153.

Homosexual acts are unnatural. All unnatural acts are immoral. Therefore, Homosexual acts are immoral, and homosexual people are sinners.

-What is the conclusion of this argument?
Homosexual people are sinners.

-What are the reasons (the premises) of this argument?
-Homosexual acts are unnatural.
Unnatural acts are immoral.

Evaluating an argument is a two- step process.
Step 1. Firstly, we evaluate the structure of the argument. We do this by identifying the structure of the argument.
All A are B
All B are C
_________
All A are C

Is this structure valid? Try substituting terms so that the premises are true, but the conclusion is untrue.
The argument is valid. (Note that this does not mean that the argument is correct).

Step 2: Are the premises true?
-are homosexual acts unnatural? What does 'natural' mean here, exactly? Contrary to the laws of physics? Or contrary to the laws of animals? In either case, the claim is incorrect; homosexuality cannot be said to violate physical laws, and homosexuality in animals is well known. As for humans, how could it be unnatural, if it keeps occuring?
Premise 2 is even more problematic. To see this point, think of all the things that are quite natural behaviors for humans that are destructive (Buddhism is largely concerned with escaping natural instincts). Think also of all the natural substances that are lethal or unhealthy for us, and all the unnatural things we do to avoid cold, pain, boredom, and so on. Note that the Vatican considers events that cannot be explained in terms of natural laws as miracles- that is, as unnatural phenomena.

Example:

All Greeks are Mortal
Socrates is Mortal

Therefore

Socrates is Greek

Is this a valid form?
A=Greeks
B= Mortals
C=Socrates

All A are B
All C are B
therefore

All C are A

This argument is INVALID



Try substituting the terms as follows to test the argument to show its invalidity:

A= yakuza
B= Japanese
C= Geisha



An important point: even if the conclusion, or even every premise, is correct, it does not follow that the argument is sound. It is crucial that you distinguish validity from the truth of the premises.


All aliens are Japanese prime ministers
Koisumi is an alien
Koisumi is a Japanese prime minister

Valid argument; false premises

Smoking tobacco improves short term memory
Jean- Paul Sartre was a heavy smoker, and so was Sigmund Freud
Smoking is not dangerous

True premises, invalid argument




Discussion for Week 2: Moral Dilemmas.

United states vs. Holmes

On the 13th of March 1841, the American ship, the William Brown, left Liverpool for Philadelphia in the United States. At 10 O'Clock on the night of the 19th of April, the William Brown struck an iceberg. 41 survivors- the captian, the first mate, seven other crew, and 31 passengers, in all 41 people, were crowded into a lifeboat designed to hold 7. 31 other passengers went down with the sinking ship. As soon as the lifeboat was put to water, it began to leak. Even without the leak, however, the boat was seriously overloaded- the waterline was only 10 inches from the gunwale (the sidewalls of the boat). As a storm threatened, and the water was full of icebergs of various sizes, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. The captain and crew simply threw the weakest men on board over the side, sparing only the strongest and those married couples who were together on board the lifeboat. (There were several 'honorable suicides'). As it turned out, after days of hard rowing and bailing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was charged with 'unlawful homicide.'
(adapted from Victor Grassian Moral Reasoning).
full details, plus the arguments for the defence:
tp:/wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/holmes.htm

Question: Imagine you were on the jury for Captain Hood's manslaughter charge. Would you declare Hood innocent, guilty of murder, or guilty of manslaughter? Why?
Objectives in this exercise:
-To construct an argument
-To identify some basic moral principles;