Group Presentations: 11:00 AM Class

Here are the group assignments for the 11:00 AM class. If you're not in a group yet, let me know as soon as possible so we can get you in one.

Ethical Relativism (1st on Wednesday, 12/12)
Dana, Kim, Rebecca

Free Will (2nd on Wednesday, 12/12)
David Walker, Ian, Janice, Ralph, Tiffany

Philosophy of Art (3rd on Wednesday, 12/12)
Brittany R., Cara, Daphne, Joe, Stefan

Meaning of Life (1st on Friday, 12/14)
David Wesolowski, Kelli, Sean

Pascal's Wager (2nd on Friday, 12/14)
Kristina, Meredith, Tierney

Philosophy of Mind (3rd on Friday, 12/14)
Brianna, Brittany S., John, Ryan, Victoria

Also, I will be mentioning this in class, but just in case...

Attendance is mandatory for the group presentations on Monday (12/10/07), Wednesday (12/12/07), and Friday (12/14/07). It's the only time I'll be a stickler for it. Basically, I want you to show respect for the other groups presenting.

If you don't attend on either the days your group isn't presenting (and your absence isn't excused), your own personal presentation grade will drop. Each day you don't attend will lower your grade by a full letter grade.

Also, be sure to keep the presentations under 15 minutes. A 10-minute presentation is ideal, so we can have time for a short question-and-answer session afterwards.

Group Presentations: 9:00 AM Class

Here are the group assignments for the 9:00 AM class. If you're not in a group yet, let me know as soon as possible so we can get you in one.

Team Philosophy of Art (Wednesday, 12/12)
Matt, Neah, Stew

Team Meaning of Life (1st on Friday, 12/14)
Brian, Dan, Kyron, Trisha

Team Philosophy of Mind (2nd on Friday, 12/14)
Chris G., Derek, Stefanie, Suzie

Also, I will be mentioning this in class, but just in case...

Attendance is mandatory for the group presentations on Monday (12/10/07), Wednesday (12/12/07), and Friday (12/14/07). It's the only time I'll be a stickler for it. Basically, I want you to show respect for the other groups presenting.

If you don't attend on either the days your group isn't presenting (and your absence isn't excused), your own personal presentation grade will drop. Each day you don't attend will lower your grade by a full letter grade.

Also, be sure to keep the presentations under 15 minutes. A 10-minute presentation is ideal, so we can have time for a short question-and-answer session afterwards.

Paper #2 Guideline

Due Date: Monday, December 17th, 2007

Worth: 5% of final grade

Assignment: Write an argumentative essay on one of the topics below. Papers must be typed, and must be between 300-600 words long. Provide a word count on the first page of the paper. (Most programs like Microsoft Word & WordPerfect have automatic word counts.)

1. Compare and contrast two ethical theories we’ve discussed in class. Explain how each theory helps us to figure out what we ought to do when faced with ethical decision making. Focus on specific moral decisions as examples to highlight the differences in the theories. In your opinion, which theory provides a better picture of morality? Be sure to explain and defend your position.

2. Provide a detailed criticism of one of the ethical theories we’ve discussed in class. First, explain the theory, and present a charitable argument (what you take to be the best argument) in its favor. Then critically evaluate the argument. What are good objections to the argument? Consider how a proponent of the theory might respond to your objections, and explain why these responses are unsuccessful.

3. Which do you think is more important in determining whether an action is morally right or wrong: the consequences of the action (what happens as a result of the action), or the motivations behind the action (the reasons why someone chooses that action over other actions)? Why? [NOTE: I’m not looking for one right choice here. You can choose either side, as long as you defend it with a well-reasoned argument.] Explain an ethical theory that we have studied that cares more about the consequences of an action. Then name an ethical theory that we have studied that cares more about the motivations behind actions. In arguing for one side over the other, describe a specific moral dilemma in which these theories would give different decisions based on the action’s consequences vs. its motivations. Be sure to fully explain and defend your position.

4. Within the parameters of ethical theories discussed in class, write on a topic of your choosing. (Sean must approve your topic by December 12th.)

The Great Trashing of 2007

I had a fun weekend:

(See it all)

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 an article about all the "design flaws" in nature. Fourth is an article on the new research that might show the appendix serves a purpose, and so wouldn't count as a design flaw.

I also have a little music for you. Here's the source of the "more so" phrase:

John Gorka - I'm From New Jersey
"I'm from New Jersey | It's like Ohio | But even more so | Imagine that"

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.

Assignment: Religion Journal

Here is a guideline for the next big assignment: the journal you have to keep during our discussion of God.

Worth: 15% of your overall grade

Due Date: the beginning of class on Monday, November 26, 2007

The assignment is to keep a journal during our section on philosophy of religion. I want you to write several short journal entries about the various arguments for and against the existence of God. We’ll be going over all these arguments in class during the next few weeks. Each entry should be around two paragraphs long.

This assignment is a chance for you to do philosophy. I want you to demonstrate that you understand what we are reading and discussing. (Present each argument in your own words.) In addition to this, I want you to critically evaluate each argument we read and discuss. (Are any premises questionable? Does the argument provide enough support for its conclusion?) It is also a chance for you to give your opinion on these arguments, and defend your opinion with good reasons.

You should have the following journal entries, in this order:

1) Your first entry on your thoughts about God before discussing any of this stuff in class. Do you think there is a God? Why or why not?

2) An entry explaining and evaluating the cosmological argument (Aquinas reading).

3) An entry explaining and evaluating the ontological argument (Anselm & Guanilo readings).

4) An entry explaining and evaluating the design argument (Hume reading).

5) An entry explaining and evaluating the problem of evil argument (Augustine and B.C. Johnson readings).

6) A final entry where you discuss your thoughts about God after reading these philosophers and discussing this in class. Has your opinion about God changed? Have your reasons for your opinion changed?

The journal does not have to be typed. There is no length requirement. (Again, the suggestion is around two paragraphs per journal entry.)

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: