Final Exam

For the Mt. Laurel class, the final exam will be held at 6:30 a.m. on Tuesday, December 11th, in our regular classroom.

For the Holy Cross class, the final exam will be held at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, December 12th, in our regular classroom.

Extra Credit

Here is an optional extra credit assignment. It is due at the beginning of class on Tuesday, December 4th for the Mt. Laurel class, and Wednesday, December 5th for the Holy Cross class.

• Which do you think are more important in determining the morality of a particular action: the motives (intentions) that lead to that action, or the consequences (results) of that action? Explain and philosophically defend your stance. Use examples to help highlight the difference between motives and consequences.
  

The assignment is worth the value of a reading response (a possible 50 points).

Links Worthy of a Swine

Here are some links that are loosely related to the stuff on Utilitarianism that we are studying. Most of these deal with psychology. There's a lot of psychological research on happiness popping up lately. The first link is an overview of the psychology of happiness:

Some Dark Thoughts on Happiness

The second is a slightly optimistic take on our ability to change our baseline level of happiness. This is important to know for an ethical theory that values maximizing happiness:

The Hedonic Set Point Can Go Up

The next link deals with a famous moral thought experiment, the trolley problem. This gets brought up a lot when evaluating Utilitarianism:

Psychology of the Trolley Problem

The last link is an advanced overview of consequentialist ethical theories. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, since it only looks at the consequences of an action to figure out whether an action is morally good or bad:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Entry: Consequentialism

So what makes you happy? WaWa? Ping pong? Cookies?

Relative to You, But Not to Me

Here are some links on ethical relativism. The first is an interview with a moral psychologist who supports a sophisticated version of ethical relativism.

Interview with Moral Psychologist Jonathan Haidt

The second one is an advanced overview of various versions of moral relativism:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Article on Moral Relativism

The Great Trashing of 2007

I had a fun weekend:

(See it all)

Reading Response #4

Reading response #4 is due at the beginning of class on Wednesday, November 14th, for the Holy Cross class, and Tuesday, November 20th, for the early morning class. The assignment is to write a one- to two-page response on the following:

Explain and philosophically defend your opinion about God. Do you believe God exists? Doesn't exist? Are you agnostic? By "philosophically defend" your opinion, I mean present an argument for why you believe what you believe. Feel free to use one or more of the arguments we've discussed in class. You can also come up with your own reasons.

Also, briefly say whether your opinion about God has changed at all after this section on philosophy of religion in this class. Have your reasons that support your opinion about God changed?

Pascal's Wager

Reading Response #3

As a little gift from me to you, I've decided to not assign anything for reading response #3. Everyone will get full credit for it (50 points).

Clearly, reading responses are better if they only exist in our minds than if they exist in reality.

Like a Watch, Only More So

Here are some links on the design argument for God's existence. First is a radio interview on Hume's criticisms of the design arg. Second is an article on evolution versus intelligent design.

Third is the article we discussed in class about all the "design flaws" in nature. Finally, here's an article on the new research that might show the appendix serves a purpose, and so wouldn't count as a design flaw. (Thanks to Tiffany for pointing this out in class!)

Finally, the National Public Radio show Fresh Air ran a pair of interviews with two scientists talking about whether God exists. The conversations touch on a lot of things we've been discussing in class.

Richard Dawkins pushing atheism

Francis Collins pushing theism

Hey, where's the interview with an agnostic? The media are so biased toward those with opinions.

If you've read a good article on intelligent design, recommend it to us by emailing me or posting the link in the comments section of this post.

Think [Tap-Dance] God

There's a philosophy comic strip that ran a whole series on the ontological argument that god exists. Here are links to the comics:

Comic #1: The argument

Comic #2: Existence is better? Huh?

Comic #3: So the greatest possible pizza exists?

Comic #4: The perfect girlfriend!

If you're still jonesing for the a priori, there's also this entry on ontological arguments in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Finally, here's what Guanilo said to Anselm after he presented Anselm his "Greatest Possible Island" criticism:

Reading Response #2

Reading Response #2 is due at the beginning of class on Wednesday, October 17th (for the Holy Cross class) or Thursday, October 18th (for the Tuesday/Thursday classes). The assignment is to write a 250- to 500-word essay in which you address the following:

In your own words, explain what you think the best version of the cosmological argument is. Then philosophically evaluate this version.

As a reminder, we are discussing three different versions of the cosmological argument in class: (1) Thomas Aquinas's "first cause" version, (2) an abductive (inference to the best explanation) version, and (3) Richard Taylor's version. Aquinas's and Taylor's versions are in the textbook, but we're only talking about the abductive version in class.

Past Futures Are the New Past Pasts

Do you find yourself obsessed with Hume's question of what could justify inductive reasoning? Boy, do I have a link for you:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: The Problem of Induction
If you're tired of that one, there's also a new problem of induction. Or, you could watch this video of Lewis Black describing his failure to reason inductively every year around Halloween:


In class, we talked about how attempts to justify induction beg the question. Here's a dinosaur comic on question-begging. (Click on the comic to enlarge it)


Finally, here's a stick figure comic about scientists' efforts to confirm that the future will be like the past.

Innate Ideas, I've Had a Few

Here are a couple articles by Steven Pinker that offer some psychological insights on the innate ideas debate we've been discussing in class:

The Brain’s Versatile Toolbox (1997)

Grammar Puss (1994)

But hey, why read when you can watch a video? With that in mind, here's his appearance on The Colbert Report (the second part is particularly relevant to innate ideas):

Pinker has a few books on this stuff, and a lot of other interesting articles, too.

UPDATE (10/4): Not everyone agrees with Pinker, though. Here's an article about a South American tribe that might be a counterexample to the claim that there are innate aspects of language development.

The Interpreter
(The linguist researching the tribe explains his case more here. Steven Pinker and others respond to him here.)

One more link. Here's an advanced survey article on the rationalism/empiricism debate from my favorite free online philosophy encyclopedia:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Rationalism vs. Empiricism

Yes, there is more than one free online philosophy encyclopedia.

Link-Tested, Keanu-Approved

Here's a trio of links. The first one is a guide to reading philosophy that might help you if you're having trouble understanding the assigned readings.

Jim Pryor's Guide to Reading Philosophy

The next two relate to epistemology and skepticism. The first is about the philosophical implications of the movie The Matrix. If Neo read it, he'd say "whoa."

The Matrix: Dream Skepticism

The last link is an interesting take on skeptical scenarios (or what our textbook fancily calls universal belief falsifiers). Most of us think it's pretty unlikely that we're in a computer simulation like the Matrix. After all, these skeptical scenarios seem so weird. But Nick Bostrom provides some compelling reasons to think that these scenarios may be highly probable, after all.

What's the Probability that We're Living in the Matrix?

(A more advanced version of Bostrom's argument is available here.) By the way, if you have any links you think I or others in class might find interesting, let me know. And feel free to comment on any of these posts.

Review: Soundness

DEFINED: A deductive argument is sound when:
(1) the argument is valid; and
(2) all the premises are true.

WHAT IT MEANS: This is the gold standard—as good as it gets for a deductive argument. Sound deductive arguments are PERFECT. From the start, a sound argument has to be valid. But on top of it, each premise must also be true.

So to test for soundness, we first do our validity test. We do the imagine-a-world test. If the arg fails this test, then it's invalid, and automatically unsound.

If it passes the validity test, then we need to check the actual truth of the premises. So we forget about the imaginary world, and come back to the real world. Are all of the premises actually true in the real world, or is one or more false or questionable (opinionated)? If they're all true, then the argument is sound. If one or more is false or questionable, then the argument is unsound.

An argument is unsound if it is not sound. (duh) But remember, it’s easy for an argument to be unsound. Only one of many things has to go wrong for an argument to be unsound. One false premise, and it’s unsound. One false move in an argument that makes it invalid, and it’s unsound. Any deductive argument that isn't PERFECT is unsound.

Review: Invalidity

DEFINITION: A deductive argument is invalid when the truth of the premises does NOT guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

WHAT IT MEANS: If an argument isn’t valid, it is invalid. This means that you can’t draw the conclusion from the premises – they don’t naturally follow. Invalid arguments do not preserve truth.

EXAMPLES:
1) All humans are mammals.
All whales are mammals.
All humans are whales.

2) If it snows, then it’s below 32 degrees.
It doesn’t snow.
It’s not below 32 degrees.

3) All humans are mammals.
All BCC students are mammals.
All BCC students are humans.

4) Either Yao is tall or Spud is short.
Yao is tall.
Spud is short.

Even though arguments 3 and 4 have all true premises and a true conclusion, they are still invalid, because their form is bad. Argument 3 has the same exact structure as argument 1—a bad structure (it doesn’t preserve truth).

Even though in the real world the premises and conclusion of argument 3 are true, we can imagine a world in which all the premises of argument 3 are true, yet the conclusion is false. For instance, imagine that BCC starts letting whales take classes. The second premise would still be true, but the conclusion would then be false.

The same for argument 4: even though Spud is short (Spud Webb is around 5 feet tall), this argument doesn’t guarantee this. The structure is bad (it’s either this or that; it’s this; therefore, it’s that, too.). We can imagine a world in which Yao is tall, the first premise is true, and yet Spud is tall, too.

Review: Validity

Here's a review of the tricky term "valid" as it refers to deductive arguments:

DEFINED: A deductive argument is valid when the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion.

WHAT IT MEANS: Validity focuses on the form or structure of the argument. If an argument is valid, then it has good form – truth preserving form.

Basically, if we assume that all the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true for an argument to be valid. Notice we are only assuming the truth of the premises, not checking to see whether they are actually true. Again, this makes sense, because we’re truth-preservers: if the premises were true, the conclusion that follows would have to be true.

EXAMPLES:
(1) All humans are mammals.
All mammals have hair.
All humans have hair.

(2) If it snows, then it’s below 32 degrees.
It snows.
It’s below 32 degrees.

(3) All humans are mammals.
All mammals have wings.
All humans have wings.

(4) Either Yao is tall or Spud is tall.
Yao is not tall.
Therefore, Spud is tall.

Even though arguments 3 and 4 are ultimately bad, they are still valid—their form is good. The second premise of argument 3 is false—not all mammals have wings—but it has the same exact structure of argument 1—a valid structure. Same with argument 4: the second premise is false (Yao Ming is about 7 feet tall), but the structure is good (it’s either this or that; it’s not this; therefore, it’s that).

To evaluate validity, then, assume that all the premises are true. Imagine a world in which all the premises are true. In that world, MUST the conclusion also be true? Or can you imagine a scenario in that world in which the premises are true, but the conclusion is still false? If you can imagine this situation, then the argument is not valid. If you cannot, then the argument is truth-preserving (inputting truths guarantees a true output), and thus valid.

IMPORTANT: Individual statements are true or false. Arguments are valid or invalid.

Reading Response #1

Reading Response #1 is due at the beginning of class on Wednesday, September 19th if you're in the Holy Cross class, or Thursday, September 20th if you're in the Mt. Laurel morning class. In a 250- to 500-word essay response, answer the following question:

What does Descartes say he cannot be certain of? What does Descartes say he can be certain of? What are his arguments for this? Do you agree with Descartes? Why or why not?

The response is based on the Descartes reading from pages 58-71 of the textbook.

More on Understanding Args

Some students asked for more arguments that they could practice converting into a formal premise/conclusion format, so here they are. These are a little easier than the ones we did in class--more like what you'll see on the quiz. To check your answers, email me or write your answers in a comment to this post, and I'll let you know how you did.

-----------------
1. Fairdale will win the championship because they have the best team.

2. Since the housing market is depressed and interest rates are low, it's a good time to buy a home.

3. China is guilty of extreme human rights abuses. Further, they refuse to implement democratic reforms. Thus, the U.S. should refuse to deal with the present Chinese government.

4. The revocation of the 55 mph speed limit has resulted in an increased number of auto fatalities. So we must alleviate this problem with stricter speed limit enforcement.

5. We may infer that the U. S. military is both capable and competent from the results of the Persian Gulf War.

6. Scientific discoveries are continually debunking religious myths. Further, science provides the only hope for solving the many problems faced by humankind. Hence, science provides a more accurate view of human life than does religion.

7. Jesse is one year old. Most one-year-olds can walk. It follows that Jesse can walk.

8. I deserve a raise. After all, I'm very good at my job.

9. We must resist all effort to allow the government to censor entertainment. Freedom of speech and expressions are essential to a democratic form of government. As soon as we allow some censorship, it won't be long before censorship will be used to silence the opinions critical of the government. The next thing we know, we will have no more freedom than the Germans did under Hitler.

10. Maebe is probably sick today, since she did not show up for work. And she has never missed work unless she was sick.

11. The United States, as the most powerful nation in the world, has a moral obligation to give assistance to people who are subjected to inhumane treatment. The ethnic Albanians were being persecuted in Kosovo. This is why it was proper for the U.S. to become involved in the air campaign against Kosovo.

12. The last person we hired from Bayview Tech turned out to be a bad employee, so I'm not willing to hire anybody else from that school again.

13. Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved. For of men it may generally be affirmed that they are thankless, fickle, false, studious to avoid danger, greedy of gain, devoted to you while you confer benefits upon them, and ready, while the need is remote, to shed their blood, and sacrifice their property, their lives, and their children for you. But, when danger comes near they turn against you. (from Machiavelli's The Prince)

----------------
Hat tip: I took examples 1-8 (with some revisions) from Beth Rosdatter's website, and examples 9-13 (with some revisions) from Jon Young's website.

Holy Cross Class Relocation

To the Wednesday night Holy Cross class (Tuesday/Thursday morning students can ignore this):

I just found out that BCC classes cannot meet at Holy Cross on Wednesday, September 19th due to Back-to-School Night. Instead, our class is going to be held at Room 121 of the Willingboro Center. We're only going to be there for the one night.

The Willingboro Center is located at 300 Willingboro Parkway in Willingboro, NJ 08046. Their number is 609-877-4520. Directions and a map are below.

Directions
From the North
Take U.S. Route 130 south until you see the Willingboro Town Center on your left (Merck Medco Facility and BCC building). Proceed to the next jughandle and use it to make a left turn across Route 130. Make the first left into the Willingboro Town Center and follow the signs to the BCC facility.

From the South (Delran, Cinnaminson, Palmyra, etc.)
Take U.S. Route 130 north to the Willingboro Town Center. Turn right into the Center and follow the signs to the BCC facility.

From Mt. Holly, Lumberton & Hainesport
Take Beverly-Rancocas Road to U.S. Route 130. Turn tight into Route 130 north until you reach the Willingboro Town Center. Turn right into the Center and follow the signs to the BCC facility.

Click on the map below to enlarge it:

My Prerogative

Nothing says 'philosophy as a worldview' like 1989 Bobby Brown:

Bobby Brown - My Prerogative

Email Subscriptions

So why does this course have a blog? Well, why is anything anything?

A blog (short for “web log”) is a website that works like a journal – users write posts that are sorted by date based on when they were written. You can find important course information (like assignments, due dates, reading schedules, etc.) on the blog. I’ll also be updating the blog throughout the semester, posting interesting items related to the stuff we’re currently discussing in class. I used a blog for this course last semester, and it seemed helpful. Hopefully it can benefit our course, too.

Since I’ll be updating the blog a lot throughout the semester, you should check it frequently. There are, however, some convenient ways to do this without simply going to the blog each day. The best way to do this is by getting an email subscription, so any new blog post I write automatically gets emailed to you. (You can also subscribe to the rss feed, if you know what that means.) To get an email subscription:

1. Go to http://bccphilosophy07.blogspot.com.

2. At the main page, enter your email address at the top of the right column (under “EMAIL SUBSCRIPTION: Enter your Email”) and click the "Subscribe me!" button.

3. This will take you to a new page. Follow the directions under #2, where it says “To help stop spam, please type the text here that you see in the image below. Visually impaired or blind users should contact support by email.” Once you type the text, click the "Subscribe me!" button again.

4. You'll then get an email regarding the blog subscription. (Check your spam folder if you haven’t received an email after a day.) You have to confirm your registration. Do so by clicking on the "Click here to activate your account" link in the email you receive.

5. This will bring you to a page that says "Your subscription is confirmed!" Now you're subscribed.

If you are unsure whether you've subscribed, ask me (609-980-8367; slandis@bcc.edu). I can check who's subscribed and who hasn't.

Course Details

Introduction to Philosophy
Burlington County College
Philosophy 101, Fall 2007
Section 80: Holy Cross, Wednesdays: 6:30–9:45 p.m.
Section 33: Mt. Laurel, Tuesdays/Thursdays: 6:30–7:50 a.m.

Instructor: Sean Landis
Email: slandis@bcc.edu
Phone: 609-980-8367
Course Website: http://bccphilosophy07.blogspot.com

Required Texts
The Philosophical Journey: An Interactive Approach, 3rd Edition, William F. Lawhead

About the Course
This course is designed to introduce students to philosophy. Throughout the semester, we are going to explore a handful of classic philosophical questions: What is knowledge? Does God exist? What is the nature of good and evil?

In examining these issues, it is my hope that we can also develop the skills of doing philosophy—understanding philosophical arguments, evaluating the quality of such arguments, and developing good arguments of our own on philosophical topics.

Grading
A = 900-1000 total points
B = 800-899 total points
C = 700-799 total points
D = 600-699 total points
F = below 600 total points

Assignments
Midterm: 250 points
Final : 350 points
Quiz : 150 points
4 Reading Responses : 50 points each (200 points total)
Attendance/Participation: 50 points

Exams: There will be a midterm and a final exam. The midterm tests everything covered during the first half of the course, and will last about half of a class period (80 minutes) on the scheduled day. The final exam is cumulative—it tests everything covered throughout the whole course, not just the second half. The final will also last 80 minutes, and take place on the last day of class.

Quizzes: There will be a quiz at the end of the first sections on logic and epistemology. The quiz will last 20 minutes.

Reading Responses: There will be four reading responses, which are to be handed in at the beginning of class the day they are due. I will not accept homework at any other time, unless you cannot make class due to sudden illness/injury (again, with a doctor’s note), religious observance, or official university business.

Reading responses consist of an approximately one- to two-paged (typed, double-spaced, 12-point font, normal margins) response to a specific question about one or more of the week’s readings. The responses are a chance to do philosophy. To this effect, the focus of the responses will be on paraphrasing (demonstrating that you understand the argument by putting it in your own words) and critically evaluating (presenting objections to the argument or responding to such objections) the philosophical arguments being presented in the readings.

Classroom Policies
Academic Integrity: Cheating and Plagiarism will not be tolerated in the class. Students found guilty of either will definitely fail the exam or assignment—and possibly the entire class. (Come to me if you are unsure what constitutes cheating or plagiarism.)

Excused Absenses: Make-up exams, quizzes, in-class projects, and oral reports will only be rescheduled for any excused absences (excused absences include religious observance, official college business, and illness or injury – with a doctor’s note). An unexcused absence on the day of any assignment or test will result in a zero on that assignment or test.

Important Dates
August 28: Last day to withdraw & receive a 100% refund.
August 29 – September 5: Late Registration and Add Period (with $35.00 service fee)
August 29 – September 12: Drop Period with name removed from roster and 50% refund
September 13 – November 2: Withdrawal Period (no refund/W grade)
September 21: Last day to request an audit

Holy Cross Course Schedule

August 29
-Check. Check One. Sibilance (intro to class; no reading)
-Doing Philosophy (no reading)

September 5
-Some Logic | Deductive Arguments (pages 37—45)
-Some Logic | Inductive & Abductive Arguments (pages 4—11)

September 12
-Epistemology | Descartes vs. Skepticism (pages 50-53; 58-71)
-Epistemology | Descartes vs. Skepticism (pages 50-53; 58-71)

September 19
-Epistemology | Rationalism: Plato (pages 71—82)
-Epistemology | Empiricism: Locke (pages 88—96)
(Reading Response #1 due)

September 26
-Epistemology | Empiricism: Hume (pages 104—113)
-QUIZ; Epistemology | Hume Wrap-up

October 3
-Does God Exist? | Aquinas & The Cosmological Arg (pages 306—316)
-Does God Exist? | Taylor & The Cosmological Argument (pages 317—322)

October 10
-Does God Exist? | Ontological Argument (pages 337—342)
-Does God Exist? | Paley & The Design Argument (pages 322—325)
(Reading Response #2 due)

October 17
-Does God Exist? | Hume & The Design Argument (pages 326—337)
-Does God Exist? | Problem of Evil Intro & Review for Midterm (pages 356—360)

October 24
-MIDTERM
-Does God Exist? | Hick & The Problem of Evil (pages 360—372)

October 31
-Faith & Reason | Pascal (pages 342—347)
-Intro to Ethics | Plato (pages 400—402 & 408—415)
(Reading Response #3 due)

November 7
-Ethical Relativism | Herodotus & Benedict (pages 415—427)
-Utilitarianism | Intro (pages 454—458) & Mill (pages 461—466)

November 14
-Utilitarianism | Norcross (pages 466—472)
-Deontological Ethics | Kant (pages 472-484)
(Reading Response #4 due)

November 21
THANKSGIVING BREAK (no class)


November 28
-Virtue Ethics | Intro (pages 490—498) & Aristotle (pages 490—504)
-Virtue Ethics Wrap-up

December 5
-Final Exam Review

December 12
FINAL EXAM

Mt. Laurel Course Schedule

August 30
Thursday: -Check. Check One. Sibilance (intro to class; no reading)

September 4-6
Tuesday: -Doing Philosophy (no reading)
Thursday: -Some Logic | Deductive Arguments (pages 37—45)

September 11-13
Tuesday: -Some Logic | Inductive & Abductive Arguments (pages 4—11)
Thursday: -Epistemology | Descartes vs. Skepticism (pages 50-53; 58-71)

September 18-20
Tuesday: -Epistemology | Descartes vs. Skepticism (pages 50-53; 58-71)
Thursday: -Epistemology | Rationalism: Plato (pages 71—82)
(Reading Response #1 due)

September 25-27
Tuesday: -Epistemology | Empiricism: Locke (pages 88—96)
Thursday: -Epistemology | Empiricism: Hume (pages 104—113)

October 2-4
Tuesday: -QUIZ; Epistemology | Hume Wrap-up
Thursday: -Does God Exist? | Aquinas & The Cosmological Arg (pages 306—316)

October 9-11
Tuesday: -Does God Exist? | Taylor & The Cosmological Argument (pages 317—322)
Thursday: -Does God Exist? | Ontological Argument (pages 337—342)

October 16-18
Tuesday: -Does God Exist? | Paley & The Design Argument (pages 322—325)
(Reading Response #2 due)
Thursday: -Does God Exist? | Hume & The Design Argument (pages 326—337)

October 23-25
Tuesday: -Does God Exist? | Problem of Evil Intro & Review for Midterm (pages 356—360)
Thursday: -MIDTERM

October 30—November 1
Tuesday: -Does God Exist? | Hick & The Problem of Evil (pages 360—372)
Thursday: -Faith & Reason | Pascal (pages 342—347)

November 6-8
Tuesday: -Intro to Ethics | Plato (pages 400—402 & 408—415)
(Reading Response #3 due)
Thursday: -Ethical Relativism | Herodotus & Benedict (pages 415—427)

November 13-15
Tuesday: -Utilitarianism | Intro (pages 454—458) & Mill (pages 461—466)
Thursday: -Utilitarianism | Norcross (pages 466—472)

November 20
Tuesday: -Deontological Ethics | Kant (pages 472-484)
(Reading Response #4 due)
Thursday: THANKSGIVING BREAK (no class)


November 27-29
Tuesday: -Virtue Ethics | Intro (pages 490—498) & Aristotle (pages 490—504)
Thursday: -Virtue Ethics Wrap-up (no new reading)

December 4-6
Tuesday: -Ethics Wrap-up (no new reading)
Thursday: -Review for Final Exam

December 11-17
FINAL EXAM (Date, time, and location to be announced)