Homework #9 (CHAPTER 3, ETHICS)

Questions 1-4 are taken from this post.

1. Is there moral knowledge? Explain with one example from your daily life. Think of a good/or bad action coming from a friend (no less than 50 words). 

2. What are moral facts? (in your own words, avoid copying my text).

3. In what sense is Delacroix's Liberty Leading the People a masterpiece? Is this moral knowledge?

4. Why is it that Best Consensus cannot be produced overnight? Is Best Consensus infallible? Explain your answer. 

Questions 5-7 are based on this lecture. 

5. a) What is the difference between morality and etiquette. 

b) Provide an example of each from your own life based on the definitions.  

c) Why is etiquette (LI) so important for Confucius?

6. Morality and law are not the same, in what manner? Again, from your personal experience, bring up an instance when there's a law you consider immoral and wish it would change (or else, something immoral in need of a law.   

7. Why is slavery wrong now in 2024? Why was it not wrong in, say, 424 B.C.?

8. What's Hedonism and the pleasure argument? (Triff lecture)

9- What is "sustainable pleasure" according to Epicurus? (same lecture as above)

10- Define Ethical egoism. What's the difference between genuine (BEST) and apparent interests? Bring an example from your own life.

11- Point to the difference between interest and best interest. Bring an example from real life to make the point.

12- Make a defense of ethical egoism in two points.

13- What does this satement mean? Explain.

In the end, the ethical egoist becomes an altruist of sorts. She is not fooling herself that altruism should erase the expecting good in return. Why not? It reinforces the stereotype of the free rider. 

(Whatever answer is stressed in yellow requires at least 30 words).

FREE SPEECH VS. HATE SPEECH

FREE SPEECH ADVOCATES DEFEND THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS IDEAS — EVEN OFFENSIVE, HATEFUL, AND UNPOPULAR. NOT SPEECH THAT IS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE IT DIRECTLY INCITES VIOLENCE, THREATENS HARM OR DEFAMES OTHERS. 

The following forms of expression do not receive First Amendment protection (in U.S. constitutional law) because they cause or are likely to cause legally cognizable harm: 

Incitement to violence (Unprotected speech)

Actual threats, Unprotected speech) creating fear of bodily harm. 

Defamation, Civil wrong (tort) — false statements harming reputation. 

Slander (subtype of defamation). 

Libel: Written defamation of the public.

FREE SPEECH ADVOCATES DON'T DEFEND THESE FORMS ABOVE

True threats: At a rally, a speaker points to a nearby shop, tells the crowd “They’re our enemies — smash those windows right now!” and the crowd begins to do so. 

Defamation: “Dr. Smith knowingly falsifies medical records and billed patients for surgeries he never performed,” when the speaker knows it’s untrue and the claim damages Smith’s practice. 

Slander: During a public meeting, a person stands up and says, “Councilwoman Jones stole $50,000 from the city budget,” knowing it’s false, and the accusation harms her career.

Libel: A newspaper prints an article claiming: “Local teacher Karen Liu was fired for sexually abusing students,” when no such thing happened.

In your papers, DO NOT present any of these forms as legitimate characterizations of free speech, nor assume free speech advocates support it. 

FREE SPEECH ADVOCATES SUPPORT THESE:

MILL PRINCIPLE

The best remedy for harmful or dangerous ideas is more speech, not suppression —unless the speech crosses into direct harm (like threats or incitement).

CONTENT NEUTRALITY PRINCIPLE

The government cannot restrict speech based on dislike of its message, only on legitimate harms (e.g., violence, intimidation, defamation).

FREE SPEECH ADVOCATE DEFENDS 

Broad free-speech protection for controversial, offensive, or unpopular ideas — while accepting the traditional carve-outs that directly cause legally recognized harm. This is referred as: 

Civil libertarianism 

Free-speech maximalism (with exceptions)

The classical liberal/free-expression tradition

We defend the right to express ideas — even offensive, hateful, and unpopular ones — but we do not protect speech that is legally actionable because it directly incites violence, threatens harm, or defames others.

We aren’t defending incitement or threats — WE DEFEND the freedom to say things others might strongly disagree with, dislike, find disturbing, or find morally wrong, so long as it does not cross into the domain of actionable harm.

Climate change vs. Climate Catastrophe:

In what follows, I contrast Climate change against Climate Catastrophe:

Climate change: means the acknowledgment of an observable trend: rising global temperature, shifting rainfall patterns, and increasing extreme events. It rests on measured data, long time-series, and a narrow scientific consensus: yes, the climate is warming, and that warming alters ecological and social systems. For example, our modern warming is 1.4 degrees Celsius colder than the 14th-century Medieval Warming.

Climate catastrophe is a rhetorical extrapolation & hyperbole that turns a trend into a baked fact. It assumes imminent collapse, a universal point of no return, and apocalyptic scenarios unsupported by proportionate evidence. It does not stem from data but from maximalist interpretations of data. 

Case for maintaining this critical distinction

A. Epistemological: The risk for climate change is quantifiable, measurable, modelable, and updateable. It depends on accumulated empirical observation (e.g., +1.2 °C since the preindustrial era). 

Climate catastrophe: unquantified, often highly speculative risk. It treats uncertainty as narrative certainty, confusing possible scenarios with inevitable outcomes. Here we have three different fallacies: 

1. The Fallacy of Confusing Possibility with Certainty, also known as "Doomsday fallacy”: It treats an extreme projection—typically a low-probability tail outcome—as the default future. This is very common in common in debates on climate, AI risk, geopolitics. A general reasoning error: taking something that may happen in some scenarios and treating it as something that will happen. It collapses modal categories: “possible → probable → inevitable.” Not good. 

2. The Fallacy of Catastrophic Overgeneralization: It draws universal conclusions from exceptional cases. When applied to risk, it reads an extreme possibility as the only trajectory. Not good. 

3. Misuse of Precautionary Principle. When framed as a policy argument: turning a principle about prudence under uncertainty into a claim of certainty about catastrophic outcomes. Same.

B. Proportionality of Evidence 

Climate change: hard evidence—temperature records, CO₂ levels, ice-mass loss, ocean acidification. 

Climate catastrophe: elevates extreme model projections as if they were the central trajectory. Treats the “worst case” (RCP 8.5) as a guaranteed outcome, even though it is currently considered unlikely as a socio-economic pathway. 

C. Communicative Effect 

Climate change: enables gradual action, rational policy, risk-based adaptation, and mitigation. 

Climate catastrophe: generates paralysis, fatalism, apocalyptic rhetoric. It turns science into prophecy. And when the prophecy fails to materialize on schedule, public trust erodes. 

D. Politics of Language 

Climate change: describes a phenomenon. 

Climate catastrophe: interprets that phenomenon through an emotional frame—cataclysm—without proportional analysis. It hyperbolizes to the point of fusing science with activism. It operates as an aesthetics of fear. 

Conclusion: Distinguishing climate change from climate catastrophe prevents conceptual collapse. 

It allows us to treat global warming as real, measurable, urgent—but not as an apocalyptic inevitability. It guards against rhetorical exaggeration that undermines scientific credibility and drives policy through emotional shock rather than evidence. 

Homework #9, 2025 Tres párrafos del Philosophy Paper

Aquí tienen los tres párrafos de la tarea. Fíjense, lo marcado en amarillo representa los argumentos a medida que se van desarrollando. De nuevo, el párrafo 1 contiene el programa del philosophy paper: Tesis y contratesis, con dos puntos cada uno. 

_______

PARAGRAPH 1

In this paper, I defend the Pro-Choice position.  First, I argue that individuals have a legal right to make decisions about their own bodies, including whether to continue a pregnancy. For pro-choice advocates, bodily autonomy is a fundamental aspect of personal freedom and privacy. Second, I show that forcing the carrying of a pregnancy can cause physical and psychological damage, as well as having negative economic consequences. 

In contrast, Pro-Life advocates disagree. They hold that human life begins at conception and deserves protection from that moment. First, they claim that the fetus has intrinsic moral value, independent of the mother’s choice. In addition, pro-life advocates argue that a society that does not protect its most vulnerable members undermines its moral foundation. Both sides appeal to ethical principles—freedom versus the sanctity of life—yet frame them through different moral priorities. 

_______

A partir de ahora, los párrafos pertenecen a la tesis o contratesis. El párrafo 2 es el párrafo de la tesis. Observen el primer argumento de la tesis: right to make decisions about their bodies. Este argumento va desarrollado y expuesto con claridad, usando un lenguaje claro. Además incluye expertos o lo que llamo "outside sources". Se cita según la convención MLA.

PARAGRAPH 2

Pro-Choice supporters emphasize bodily autonomy as a cornerstone of human rights. The right to control one’s body is protected by legal and moral reasoning alike. Philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson famously illustrated this in “A Defense of Abortion” (1971), using her violinist analogy to argue that being forced to remain connected to another life violates one’s autonomy, even if that life depends on you. Contemporary sources echo this concern. According to The New York Times, many reproductive-rights advocates view the issue as “not about promoting abortion, but about preserving the ability to make deeply personal medical decisions” (Liptak, Adam. “After Roe’s Fall, Legal Battles Begin.” The New York Times, 26 June 2022). This position frames abortion not as an act against life, but as an act of self-determination within complex personal and social circumstances. 

_______

El párrafo 3 es el párrafo de la contratesis. Observen el primer argumento de la contratesis fue: intrinsic moral value of the fetus. Este argumento va desarrollado, claramente expuesto, usando un lenguaje claro. Además incluye expertos o lo que llamo "outside sources". Se cita según la convención MLA.

PARAGRAPH 3

Pro-Life defenders argue that it is paramount to extend moral considerations to the fetus as a potential 

human being. They hold that life, once begun, possesses inherent worth regardless of dependency or stage of development. Philosopher Don Marquis, in his essay “Why Abortion Is Immoral” (1989), contends that abortion is wrong because it deprives the fetus of a future like ours, one containing potential experiences, relationships, and growth. This reasoning sees the act as a moral loss equivalent in kind—if not degree—to ending a postnatal life. Religious and civic groups often reinforce this stance; as reported in The Washington Post, many advocates believe “a consistent ethic of life protects the unborn alongside the elderly and disabled” (Boorstein, Michelle. “Faith Leaders React to Abortion Ruling.” Washington Post, 25 June, 2022). The pro-life argument places moral value on life’s continuity as the foundation of human dignity.

PROS AND CONS TOPICS FOR FINAL PAPER, PHI 2010 HONORS, 2025

 

PROS AND CONS OF AI

CLIMATE CHANGE

SOCIAL MEDIA

FACTORY FARMS

FREE SPEECH VS. HATE SPEECH

GUN CONTROL

DEATH PENALTY

Chaque personne est un choix absolu de soi

Para entender el libertarianismo de Sartre tenemos que hablar de identidad, es decir,  de ontología (que es el estudio del ser). 

En su obra maestra El ser y la nada, Sartre presenta lo siguiente:

1. El en-soi: plenitud sin fisura El en-soi (lo que es en sí) es el ser de las cosas. 

Es macizo, compacto, sin falta ni distancia respecto a sí mismo. Una piedra “es lo que es”. No se pregunta por su ser, no tiene interioridad ni proyecto. Representa la positividad pura del ser. 

2. El pour-soi: negatividad encarnada.  El pour-soi (lo que es para sí) es la conciencia. Y aquí Sartre introduce le néant (la nada) como su condición constitutiva. 

La conciencia no es algo, sino una grieta en el ser. Cuando el sujeto dice “yo no soy esto”, o “no quiero ser eso”, introduce una negación: se separa del ser dado, se distancia de sí, abre un hueco ontológico. 

De este modo, la nada no es una entidad, sino el modo de ser del para-sí. 

3. Negación como libertad.  Esa negatividad —le néant— es lo que hace posible la libertad. 

El ser humano puede “no ser” lo que es y “ser” lo que no es. 

En ese poder de negar lo dado radica la raíz del proyecto, del deseo, del sentido. Mientras el en-soi es plenitud sin historia, el pour-soi es falta en movimiento: vive negándose y rehaciéndose. 

El ser es una lucha entre contrarios. Polos opuestos. La libertad es una negatividad ontológica.

1. Libertad como negatividad del pour-soi.  

El pour-soi (la conciencia) no coincide consigo mismo. Siempre se escapa, se desborda. En la lógica clásica, la doble negación también elimina el efecto de la primera: ¬(¬A) ≡ A. Un principio de identidad: negar dos veces equivale a afirmar. Sartre dice en L’Être et le Néant: “El hombre es una nada que se interpone entre lo que es y lo que no es.” 

Esa nada —le néant— es precisamente la libertad. 

Porque al poder decir “no”, el sujeto rompe el determinismo del ser-en-sí. 

Negar es poder distanciarse uno de sí mismo: No ser lo que se es, ni estar condenado a lo que se fue. 

 2. Libertad como condena 

Por eso Sartre afirma: “El hombre está condenado a ser libre” (L'homme est condamné à être libre). 

El ser no puede dejar de elegir. Su ser es pura apertura. 

Eso quiere decir que no existe una esencia previa que determine su existencia. 

Cada decisión es una autonegación de lo dado, un modo de hacerse y rehacerse. 

La libertad no es un privilegio, sino una carga: no podemos refugiarnos en una naturaleza fija, ni en un destino. 

3. La negación hace posible el proyecto 

Gracias a le néant, el ser humano proyecta. Puede decir: “aún no soy eso que quiero ser”. 

Ese intervalo entre el ser y el deber-ser —el vacío que la conciencia introduce en el mundo— es el espacio del deseo, de la acción, del sentido. 

Sin negación no habría futuro, porque no habría distancia entre lo real y lo posible. 

4. La libertad como angustia 

 La negación no solo libera: también desarraiga. Cada vez que elegimos, negamos infinitas alternativas posibles, y asumimos la responsabilidad de haberlas destruido (separado de nosotros). 

Por eso la libertad va unida a la angustia (angoisse): el vértigo ante el vacío que somos.

Philosophy paper (second assignment)

 click here for more information

STRUCTURE OF YOUR 2025 PHILOSOPHY PAPER

Short Philosophy Paper: Thesis/Counter Format Structure 

(6 paragraphs total) 

Paragraph 1 – Both thesis and counter thesis presentation (two short paragraphs). State your thesis (the position you defend) first, and then the counter's thesis. 

Paragraph 2—Now, state your only thesis and present a clear supporting argument. Be direct and focused. Use outside sources, and cite the source (using MLA conventions).   

Paragraph 3 – Counter Presentation: State the opposing view (counter-thesis). Present one argument supporting that opposing position. Keep tone objective—show you understand the other side. Use outside sources, and cite the source (using MLA conventions).   

Paragraph 4 – Thesis Argument Expanded:  Develop your single argument in depth. Address potential objections briefly. Use outside sources, and cite the source (using MLA conventions).   

Paragraph 5 – Counterargument Expanded: Develop the counterargument fully and fairly. Explain how it challenges your thesis. Give it real strength so your later response feels earned. Use outside sources, and cite the source (using MLA conventions).   

Paragraph 6 – Rebuttal and Conclusion:  Directly respond to the counter-argument. Show why your thesis withstands the objection. Conclude with a short reflection on what your position implies.Use outside sources, and cite the source (using MLA conventions).   

Topics for your philosophy paper (2025)

Here are some of the most talked-about topics right now. Each entry is linked to a Wikipedia article. Look at the table on the left-hand side of the Wikipedia entry and find the different angles "FOR" and "AGAINST" any given topic. If you don't see the arguments "against" the topic in the entry, you must do your research (and I'll help). 

NEVER CITE WIKIPEDIA IN YOUR PAPER; LOOK AT THE WIKIPEDIA CITATIONS AND CITE THEM.  

Factory farms and/or Animal welfare

(Generally, it is little appreciated that this topic takes an ecological and human/animal dimension: the link between animal-processed foods, environmental degradation, and vegetarianism, all tied to the still obscure field of animal ethics).

Gun control vs. Second amendment

(Aproblem intersecting Second Amendment rights, civil rights, policy, government interference, mental health, and terrorism).

Social media & culture 

(Privacy issues, information overload, cyberbullying, fake news, social isolation, net addiction, etc).

Climate change 

(Global warming is at the forefront of today's scientific and sociopolitical discourse; many issues here are worth discussing: what is nature? Generational responsibility, presentism, economic growth, etc.

Capital Punishment vs. Abolitionism 

Free Speech vs. Hate Speech 

Online free expression must yield when it causes social harm. Counter: Restricting speech online undermines democratic discourse. Urgent amid misinformation, hate speech, and platform regulation debates. 

AI and Moral ResponsibilityThesis

Artificial intelligence can be morally accountable for its actions. Counter: Only humans, as intentional agents, can bear moral responsibility. Urgent because of autonomous systems, deepfakes, and lethal drones.