Final exam (written by Devorah Korf)

Find the link here.

facts & america (... and the "bigot" charge)

the homophobic charge: As per same-sex marriage, (67% in favor, 82% D, 44% R, 71% I) not bad if you ask me,

the xenophobic charge: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: majority of US citizens say illegal immigrants should be deported (of those 38% are Latinos themselves!) Are these Latinos xenophobic?

the pro-gun charge: only 20% of Americans oppose the second amendment, Americans are pro-gun (and ALSO pro gun-control, that needs to be tweaked).

Theism vs. atheism: 69% believe in God, 26% don't. Americans are THEISTS.

The bigot charge: First, the definitions. A bigot is "strongly" partial to his beliefs, (are many of us any different?). Secondly, the definition allows for subtlety; it seems the problem lies in the adverbial modification: "strongly." If I was just partial to my beliefs, presumably that doesn't make me a bigot. But being partial to my beliefs is REDUNDANT! because that's EXACTLY THE VERY DEFINITION OF BELIEF (look at definition #2 in dictionary the link). But having beliefs IS Quite NORMAL. It gets more bizarre: Consider that if you had strong beliefs against the "bigot," that makes you ANOTHER BIGOT! 

topics for our final exam (WOLFSON HONORS)

Ethics is the study of moral values. Metaethics is the study of ethics.

Moral values are behaviors of fundamental consequence for human welfare.

mj = mn + facts :::: moral judgments = moral norms + "facts"

Is there moral knowledge? (here I flesh out moral naturalism)

Cultural relativism: The doctrine that what makes an action right is that it's approved by that culture. Counterarguments: 1- Logical contradiction (see above), impossibility for moral disagreements and 2- The fact that cultures are not that different at a deeper level. One can point to differences between "deep" values (moral values, i.e., human behavior of fundamental consequence for human welfare) and "superficial" values (domestic habits, etiquette, fashion, etc) other cultural values to the effect that most cultures seem to share the same deep moral values.

 5. Logical Structure of Moral Arguments: mj = mn + "facts" (this is not a formula, just an approximation). What is a "fact"? A belief held by factual evidence (i.e., child abuse is wrong because of the facts we know about psychology, human rights, child development, etc,).

 6. Are there universal moral principles? YES. We could point to at least two: 1- Principle of mercy (Unnecessary suffering is wrong) 2- Principle of justice (Treat equals equally).

Section 5.2 

1. Difference between Consequentialist theories and Formalist theories.

Consequentialism is the theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of an action in terms of its consequences. Formalism is the theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of an action in terms of the action's form (i.e., "killing is wrong": the formalist believes that moral actions are objective).

 2. Intrinsic value (value for its own sake; personhood is an essential value: a-reason, b-autonomy, c-sentience, d-freedom) and instrumental values (value for the sake of something else).

 3. Ethical egoism: What makes an action right is that it promotes one's best interest. This is equivalent to a calculus of prudence. C/A (a) Moral agents are mot mere instruments for one's interest. (b) Egoism is not a socially or politically cogent theory (i.e., you would not vote for an egoist in office if you could vote for an utilitarian).

Click here for my notes on Ethical Egoism

 4. Act Utilitarianism (or Traditional utilitarianism): What makes an action right is that it maximizes happiness everyone considered (remember this is only a particular milieu: family, class, Miami, Florida, the USA). C/A (a) McCloskey’s informant (problems with rights) (b) Brandt’s Heir (problems with duties), (c) Goodwin's Fire Rescue (problems with duties), (e) Ross Unhappy promise (problems with duties) (6) Ewing's Utilitarian torture (problems with justice).

Click here for my notes on utilitarianism

Section 5.3 

Kant's Formalism. Formalism is the theory that AIR because of the action's form.

1. Kant’s Categorical Imperative: What makes an action right is that everyone can act on it (which yields universalizability), and you'd have everyone acting on it (which yields reversibility: Golden Rule).

2. Duties: obligations one has by virtue of one's embeddedness in society. Perfect duty: A duty that must always be performed no matter what. And imperfect duties.

Here are my notes on Kantian ethics.

3. Kant's Second Formulation: TREAT PEOPLE AS ENDS, NEVER AS MEANS TO AN END. Problems with the second formulation? C/A The problem with Kantian theory is the problem of exceptions to the rule. Should I keep a promise even if it puts someone's life in danger? Then, some times we have to treat people as means to ends.

Here are my notes on Kant's second formulation.

Here are my notes on Political Philosophy. 

Study the freedoms, equality and rights (Capitalism is not part of it).

Final paper submission guidline

this is what your final paper should look like (see the staple on the top left hand-side)

1- You're supposed to hand the final draft on the date of the final. 
2- The final paper must comes with both peer-revisions. 
3- The draft must be stapled, no binders, no cover page. 
4- At the top left the draft:

PHI 2010 
John Doe (your name)
MWF 10am class  

5- Your draft should be written in Times New Roman point 12, paginated on the top, right hand side.
6- Title in bold (centered). 
7- Your draft must be double spaced, with a minimum of 1,000-1,200 words.
8- MLS style of citations, (all same font, same size, including online sources). 
9- Please, properly spell check your drafts.

EACH OF THESE DETAILS ARE WORTH POINTS!

Is social media responsible for our democracy’s current crisis?

take a look at this interesting article in the NYTimes,

political philosophy (only this post)

Here a quick breakdown of three categories freedoms, rights and equality, they are all important, the discussion is what's (more important).

FREEDOMS

personal freedoms: freedom of speech, private property, inheritance, etc

social freedoms: religious freedom, freedom of political assembly (generally it means a freedom of association), 

RIGHTS 

what is a right? a right is a normative rule about what is owed of people or allowed of people.

natural rights: are "natural" in the sense of "not man-made", one owns them because one belongs in the HOMO SAPIENS club. therefore, they are universal. they apply to all people, and do not depend from the laws of any specific society. they are inherent.

absolute right: an absolute right is the strongest right, which cannot be overridden by any other types of considerations (e.g., utility or expedience) that do not involve rights.

prima facie rights: it means that at first sight, the right appears applicable but upon closer scrutiny, we may decide that other considerations outweigh it. 

legal rights: these are based on a society's customs, laws, statutes or actions by legislatures 8the right to vote, a felon may not enjoy that right).

negative rights: these are permissions not to do things, or entitlements to be left alone. another way of looking at it is that negative rights are natural. Lockean proviso of rights: right to freedom, private property and pursuit of happiness.

positive right: is an entitlement ("one is entitled to") a specific service or treatment from others, and these rights have been called positive rights. example: welfare rights. see that positive rights are rights one consents in others having. one is not "born with them".

a difference between negative and positive rights is that positive rights are not inherent. 

political rights: they protect individuals' freedoms from infringement by governments, social organizations, and other private individuals. they include peoples' physical and mental integrity, life, and safety. they include: protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, color, age, political affiliation, ethnicity, religion, and disability. they also include negative rights such as freedom of thought, speech, religion, press, assembly, and movement. 

from the previous definition of prolitical rights, one infers the rights to equal opportunity.

right to equal opportunity: is a state of fairness in society (in education or employment or housing) where people are treated similarly, unhampered by artificial barriers or prejudices or preferences, except when particular distinctions can be explicitly justified.

example: take a person applying for a job. 1- her chances should be based solely on her qualifications. she should not be discriminated against because of position, connections, religion, sex, ethnicity,  race, age, gender identity, or sexual orientation.

making a distinction based on anything other than her qualifications would amount to denying others of equal opportunity.
autonomy = freedom/self-beliefs

EQUALITY: "TREAT EQUALS EQUALLY & UNEQUAL UNEQUALLY"

E1 the principle of opportunities: we all SHOULD have the same right to opportunities, regardless of our differences (even if one may end with unequal results).

E2 equality of outcomes: people should have approximately the same material wealth and income (now it has been extended to identity politics).

COUNTERS: 

1- Striving for equal outcomes generally backfires, since normalizing the outcomes may require a degree of discrimination between groups to achieve the desired outcome. example: giving positions, grants, admissions in universities, etc, to people not because of merit. In fact, policies that seek equality of outcomes often require a deviation from the strict application of meritocracy and equality for all citizens.

2- If I have reasons to believe that my autonomy is being squashed at the expense of someone else, both of us having had the same equality of opportunities, I'd feel that I've been treated unfairly (imagine I come up with a grading method that averages the Ds to a general "C" at the expense of the Bs and As). In this case the principle of equality violates a principle of fairness.

Look above at the intersection of freedoms and rights: which of the spheres is more important?

The ideal situation is seems to be to keep them in balance. But recently there are ideological slants. Libertarians prefer freedom, socialists prefer equality. Liberals are kind of in the middle (favoring both).

Now, there are problems with both Libertarianism and Socialism Why? Socialism is idea of distributing wealth (and the engine of communism) has failed.

Yet, there are socialist policies of various degrees, for example, medicare and medicaid, TANF, and foodstamps, and plan 8 housing, in the US or the much touted programs of Universal Health in Denmark, Sweden, Norway. However it's a mistake to assume that these northern countries are socialist countries. They are capitalist countries with socialist policies. 

As per Libertarianism, the idea of the minimal state presents problems for increasingly bigger nations with heterogeneous populations.

It seems a negotiation of moderate liberalism is the best option with an emphasis on safeguarding personal freedoms while keeping economic inequalities at bay.  

talke a look a this case, which pits claims of religious freedom against the fight for gay rights

the story in this article from the NYTimes.

the story of Esraa, a courageous girl in Egypt

FIRST DRAFT in-class peer-review

1- BEGGING THE QUESTION ISSUES (THESIS AND COUNTER DECLARATIONS)

Take a look at each explanatory sentence in the THESIS and COUNTER declarations. Make sure that these sentences are not begging the question on the points presented!  Your explanatory sentence should give reasons for the declarative sentence. Be careful NOT TO BEG THE QUESTION!

what's in RED, below, is redundant:

In this paper, I will argue against the excessive use of social media. Firstly, social media excessive use has reduced face-to-face interaction. Individuals are more comfortable engaging with each other online rather than talking face to face. Additionally, social media have also led to a lack of privacy in our society. Any personal information that is shared on social media is no longer considered to be personal because any other users can capture that information without your approval.

The explanations in red are repeating the declarations, SAYING THE SAME THING with different words. THIS IS A GRAVE SIN IN LOGIC!

2- INJECTING THE THESIS INTO THE COUNTER'S PARAGRAPH

This student writes a paper on the side of fast food critics. Below is the paragraph for his counter, a fast-food advocate. See how he purposefully misrepresents the position of the advocate INSIDE the fast-food advocate:

Fast food advocates disagree, simply by stating that trans fats in the food are non-consequential, so it wouldn’t matter to them. The advocate will also bluntly disagree on the ingredients, stating that non-nutritious food is not necessarily harmful, which of course it is. 

3- TAKE A LOOK AT PARAGRAPH 7. PLAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO SEE IF THE THESIS MAKES A CONVINCING CASE AGAINST THE COUNTER'S LAST POINT. THIS PARAGRAPH WINS THE PAPER. 

4- Make sure that every factoid in your paper is properly sourced! Any number, whether average or percentage or total, must be properly sourced. You have to provide source where yu get it from.  Example: 

Accordingly we see an increase of 5% in the number of deaths due to suicide amongst drug users (McCulloch, 23). The realization prompted the DSCT of New York to raise the alarm that its facilities should ID such cases (Yorvis, 4). Even then, skeptics like Dr. Mathew Jordan, from Baptist Hospital in New York, declares that there is no correlation between drug usage and depression (New York Times, 1996).  

See above that the student has mentioned three different factoids and they're ALL properly sourced.

5- LOOK HERE FOR MLA IN-TEXT CITATIONS PROTOCOL. FOLLOW IT!

If you know your author, there should have a parenthetical citation (  ,  ) like this:

Human beings have been described as "symbol-using animals" (Burke, 3). 

The entry "Burke" will appear in the bibliography as such:

Burke, Kenneth. Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method. Berkeley: U of California P, 1966. 

If you don't know your author, do it this way:

We see so many global warming hot spots in North America likely because this region has "more readily accessible climatic data and more comprehensive programs to monitor and study environmental change . . ." ("Impact of Global Warming"). 

And this is how to cite it in the bibliography:

"The Impact of Global Warming in North America." Global Warming: Early Signs. 1999. www.climatehotmap.org. Accessed 23 Mar. 2009.
 
6- IS YOUR DRAFT COHERENT? FOR INTERNAL COHERENCE TAKE A LOOK AT THIS EXAMPLE: 

see the thesis paragraph above, each point preceded by "First," "Second," declarative sentence, explanatory sentence. Now let's look at the thesis first point above properly fleshed out in thesis paragraph 3 of the draft:

recall that the thesis' second point was that "social media increases happiness of its users." see below how the point is taken and flesed out in paragraph 5 of the draft.