It's So Hard to Say Goodbye to Yesterday

Your grades are now posted. Harpy Nu Year!

Nihilism

Here is the (mildly depressing) approach to the meaning of life mentioned in our class discussion on Wednesday:

• "The Myth of Sisyphus" by Albert Camus
• "The Absurd" by Thomas Nagel

Religion and Free Will Journal Guideline

Worth: 15% of your overall grade

New Due Date: the beginning of class on Wednesday, December 7th, 2011

Assignment: The assignment is to keep a journal during our section on philosophy of religion and free will. I want you to write several short journal entries about the various arguments for and against the existence of God, as well as an entry on our section on free will. We’ll be going over all these topics 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) An entry explaining and evaluating the cosmological argument (Aquinas reading).

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

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

4) An entry explaining and evaluating the problem of evil argument (Sober and Augustine readings).

5) A philosophy of religion wrap-up 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?

6) An entry on free will (Nagel, Sober, Maimonides, Aristotle, and Hospers articles). Do you think we have free will? Why or why not? Consider the various arguments for and against free will we’ve studied in class, as well as the various theories (libertarianism, hard determinism, and compatibilism).

There is no length requirement. (Again, the suggestion is around two paragraphs per journal entry.)

Hear No Evil

If you like to get philosophical on the treadmill, try downloading and listening to these podcasts on the problem of suffering:

• Well-known contemporary philosopher (and ordained priest) Marilyn McCord Adams offers some insights into the problem of evil in this audio interview. (Download)
• The NPR program Fresh Air has an audio interview with Bart Ehrman on the problem of suffering. (Download)
• Here's even more audio from a few philosophers on the problem of suffering. (Download)

Bad Things to Good People

Here are some links on the problem of suffering.

• This is a great introductory article on the problem of suffering.
• There is a collection of resources all about the problem of evil, including criticisms of several different responses to the problem. I mean, wow.
• I'd like to highlight one article in particular: a discussion of the "God works in mysterious ways" response: do we have enough evidence to believe that there is a reason for all the suffering in the world, but humans aren't smart enough to understand what that reason is?
• And here's a video talk on the humility response.
• Does everything happen for a reason? This cartoon dinosaur has an interesting take on that question. (T-Rex also occasionally wonders why bad things happen to nice people, and whether we're in the worst possible world.)

Random Comedy

As usual, The Onion nails it:

• "Realistic Announcer Shouting How Kevin Durant Making His Last 4 Shots Has No Bearing On Whether He Will Make Next Shot"
• "Cornell Drains Fun Out Of Cinderella Run By Explaining How On A Long Enough Timeline The Improbable Becomes Probable"

The Importance of Being Stochastic

Here is a bunch of links related to our natural tendency to misinterpret randomness as if it's an intentional pattern:

• Most of us are pretty bad at statistical reasoning.
• Here's a review of a decent book (The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives) on this topic.
• What was that infinite monkey typewriter thing we were talking about in class? Someone recently tried it! Well, sort of.
• A radio show I love recently devoted an entire episode to probability.
  
• Another radio show I love ran a great 2-part series on the screening for diseases called "You Are Pre-Diseased".
• What's up with that recent recommendation that routine screenings for breast cancer should wait until your 50s rather than 40s? Math helps explain it.

Like a Machine, Only More So

Here are some links on the design argument for god's existence.

• Here is a nice explanation of the design argument, along with an explanation of the ontological argument that we just finished studying.
•  Here's an audio interview with Elliott Sober (a philosopher we'll be reading soon) on the design argument:
  
• Here's a long-ish video lecture on the notion of fine-tuning.

10/26 Class Canceled

I'm sick, so Wednesday's class is canceled. This confuses a few things logistically, so here are the changes:

• The midterm will be moved back to Wednesday, November 2nd. 
• We'll be reviewing for it in class on Monday, October 31st.

Philoso-felines

Cute cats and philosophy captions? You know I can't resist:

I'm Certain I'm Doubting

Here are some links related to our discussion of René Descartes and skepticism from class.

• Optical illusion time! Here is a pair of collections of Julian Beever's sidewalk art that looks three-dimensional when viewed from a certain angle. That's a picture of one of his creations above.
• The search for truth is tough. Let's get the FBI on the case!
• Here's an audio interview about Descartes's famous argument that he's certain he exists.
• Can we be abolutely certain of math claims like 2 + 3 = 5? This cartoon dinosaur says we can't.

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.

Paper #1 Guidelines

(Want tips on writing a philosophy essay? Check out here and here!)

New Due Date: at the beginning of class on Friday, October 14th, 2011

Worth: 50 points (5% of final grade)

Assignment: Write an argumentative essay on external world skepticism: the claim that we do not know anything about the physical world beyond our immediate sense experiences. In particular, choose one of the topics below. Papers must be typed, and must be between 500-800 words long. Write down the word count on the first page of the paper.

Possible Paper Topics
1. Criticize skepticism of the external world. Describe what you take to be the best argument for external-world skepticism. Then evaluate this argument. Exactly how is this argument bad? Be specific: what is/are its flaw(s)? How can we avoid giving in to the skeptic’s arguments that we don’t know anything about the world?
[NOTE: For this option, you don’t have to present a positive argument for the existence of the external world. Just explain why the skeptical argument you focus on is bad.]

2. Tell me why you’re not a skeptic: Present and defend an argument for the claim that we can know that there is an external world beyond our sense experiences. Be sure to consider and respond to objections to your argument that a skeptic would likely offer.

3. Defend external-world skepticism. Present an argument for external-world skepticism. Then consider and respond to objections to this argument. Pay special attention to your conception of knowledge: defend the conditions you believe are required for knowledge.

4. Explain and evaluate Nick Bostrom’s argument in “Do We Live in a Computer Simulation?”Do you think Bostrom makes a good case for external-world skepticism? Why or why not? Be sure to fully explain your evaluation of his argument, and defend your opinion.

5. Write something else on skepticism. (Sean must approve this topic by Wednesday, October 5th.)

An Argument's Support

One of the trickier concepts to understand in this course is the structure (or support) of an argument. This is a more detailed explanation of the term. If you've been struggling to understand this term, the following might help you.

An argument's structure is its underlying logic; the way the premises and conclusion logically relate to one another. The structure of an argument is entirely separate from the actual meaning of the premises. For instance, the following three arguments, even though they're talking about different things, have the exact same structure:

1) All tigers have stripes.
Tony is a tiger.
Tony has stripes.

2) All humans have wings.
Sean is a human.
Sean has wings.

3) All blurgles have glorps.
Xerxon is a blurgle.
Xerxon has glorps.

There are, of course, other, non-structural differences in these three arguments. For instance, the tiger argument is overall good, since it has a good structure AND true premises. The human/wings argument is overall bad, since it has a false premise. And the blurgles argument is just crazy, since it uses made up words. Still, all three arguments have the same underlying structure (a good structure):

All A's have B's.
x is an A.
x has B's.

Evaluating the structure of an argument is tricky. Here's the main idea regarding what counts as a good structure: the premises provide us with enough information for us to figure out the conclusion from them. In other words, the premises, if they were true, would logically show us that the conclusion is true. So, if you believed the premises, they would convince you that the conclusion is worth believing, too.

Note I did NOT say that the premises are actually true in a good-structured argument. Structure is only about truth-preservation, not about whether the premises are actually true or false. What's "truth preservation" mean? Well, truth-preserving arguments are those whose structures are such that if you stick in true premises, you get a true conclusion.

The premises you've actually stuck into this particular structure could be good (true) or bad (false). That's what makes evaluating an arg's structure so weird. To check the structure, you have to ignore what you actually know about the premises being true or false.

Good Structured Arguments (Valid)
If we assume that all the premises are true, then the conclusion will also be true for an argument to have a good structure. Notice we are only assuming truth, not guaranteeing it. Again, this makes sense, because we’re truth-preservers: if the premises are true, the conclusion that follows will 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 is snowing right now.
It’s below 32 degrees right now.

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 still have good structure (their underlying 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 good 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 the structure, then, assume that all the premises are true. Imagine a world in which all the premises are true. In that world, are you able to figure out from the premises that the conclusion is also 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's structure is bad. If you cannot, then the argument is truth-preserving (inputting truths gives you a true output), and thus the structure is good.

Bad Structured Arguments (Invalid)
In an argument with a bad structure, you can’t draw the conclusion from the premises – the premises don’t give you enough information. Bad structured 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 students in our class are mammals.
All students in our class 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 have a bad structure, 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 our school starts letting dogs take classes. The second premise would still be true, but the conclusion would then be false.

The same goes 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.

Evaluating Deductive Arguments

Here are the answers to the handout on evaluating deductive arguments that we did as group work in class.

1) All bats are mammals.
All mamammals live on earth.
All bats live on earth.

P1- true
P2- true
support- valid
overall- sound

2) All email forwards are annoying.
Some email forwards are false.
Some annoying things are false.

P1- questionable ("annoying" is subjective)
P2- true
structure- valid (the premises establish that some email forwards are both annoying and false; so some annoying things [those forwards] are false)
overall- unsound (bad first premise)

3) All males in this class are humans.
All females in this class are humans.
All males in this class are females.

P1- true
P2- true
support- invalid (the premises only tell us that males and females both belong to the humans group; we don't know enough about the relationship between males and females from this)
overall- unsound (bad support)

4) No humans are amphibians.
All frogs are amphibians.
No frogs are humans.

P1- true
P2- true
structure-  valid (the premises say that frogs belong to a group that humans can't belong to, so it follows that no frogs are humans)
overall- sound

5) All bats are mammals.
All bats have wings.
All mammals have wings.

P1- true
P2- true (if interpreted to mean "All bats are the sorts of creatures who have wings.") or false (if interpreted to mean "Each and every living bat has wings," since some bats are born without wings)
support- invalid  (we don't know anything about the relationship between mammals and winged creatures just from the fact that bats belong to each group)
overall- unsound (bad support)

6) Some dads have beards.
All bearded people are mean.
Some dads are mean.

P1- true
P2- questionable ("mean" is subjective)
support- valid (if all the people with beards were mean, then the dads with beards would be mean, so some dads would be mean)
overall- unsound (bad 2nd premise)

7) Oprah Winfrey is a person.
Some people ate tacos yesterday.
Oprah Winfrey ate tacos yesterday.

P1- true
P2- true (you might not have directly seen anyone eat tacos, but you have a lot of indirect evidence... with all the Taco Bells, Don Pablos, etc., surely lots of people ate tacos yesterday)
support- invalid (the 2nd premise only says some ate tacos; Oprah could be one of the  people who didn't)
overall- unsound (bad support)

8) All students in here are mammals.
All humans are mammals.
All students in here are humans.

P1- true
P2- true
structure- invalid (the premises only tell us that students and humans both belong to the mammals group; we don't know enough about the relationship between students and humans from this; for instance, what if a dog were a student in our class?)
overall- unsound (bad structure)

9) All hornets are wasps.
All wasps are insects.
All insects are scary.
All hornets are scary.

P1- true!
P2- true
P3- questionable ("scary" is subjective)
structure- valid (same structure as in argument #1, just with an extra premise)
overall- unsound (bad 3rd premise)

10) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Sean is singing right now.
Students are cringing right now.

P1- questionable (since you haven't heard me sing, you don't know whether it's true or false)
P2- false
structure- valid
overall- unsound (bad premises)

11) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Sean isn't singing right now.
Students aren't cringing right now.

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- true
structure- invalid (from premise 1, we only know what happens when Sean is singing, not when he isn't singing; students could cringe for a different reason)
overall- unsound (bad 1st premise and structure)

12) All students in here are humans.
Most humans are shorter than 7 feet tall.
Most students in here are shorter than 7 feet tall. 

P1- true
P2- true!
support- invalid (the premises state a strong statistical generalization over a large population, and the conclusion claims that this generalization holds for a much smaller portion of that population; even though it's likely that most students in here are, in fact, shorter than 7 feet tall, it nevertheless could be true that the humans in here are a statistical anomaly)
overall- unsound (bad support)

13) (from Stephen Colbert)
Bush was either a great prez or the greatest prez.
Bush wasn’t the greatest prez.
Bush was a great prez.

P1- questionable ("great" is subjective)
P2- questionable ("great" is subjective)
support- valid (it's either A or B; it's not A; so it's B)
overall- unsound (bad premises)

14) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Students are cringing right now.
Sean is singing right now.

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- false
structure- invalid (from premise 1, we only know that Sean singing is one way to guarantee that students cringe; just because they're cringing doesn't mean Sean's the one who caused it; again, students could cringe for a different reason)
overall- unsound (bad premises and structure)

15) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Students aren't cringing right now.
Sean isn't singing right now. 

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- true
structure- valid 
overall- unsound (bad 1st premise)

16) If there is no God, then life is meaningless.
Life isn't meaningless.
There is a God.

P1- questionable (that's not an obvious claim to prove or disprove)
P2- questionable (again, that's not an obvious claim to prove or disprove)
support- valid (the same structure as argument #15)
overall- unsound (bad premises)

Homework #1: Email Subscription

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

A blog 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. You don't have to visit the blog if you don't want to. It's just a helpful resource. I've used a blog for this course a lot, and it's 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://2011cccphilosophy.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@camdencc.edu). I can check who's subscribed and who hasn't.

Course Details

Introduction to Philosophy
Camden County College, Blackwood Campus
Philosophy 101, Section 01
Fall 2011
Monday, Wednesday, Friday: 11:00 a.m. – 11:50 a.m.
Madison Hall, Room 311

Instructor: Sean Landis
Email: slandis@camdencc.edu
Phone: 609-980-8367
Course Website: http://2011cccphilosophy.blogspot.com
Office Hourse: by appointment

Required Texts
A Rulebook for Arguments, 3rd Edition, Anthony Weston (RA)
Classics of Western Philosophy, 7th Edition, Steven M. Cahn (CWP)

About the Course
This course is designed to introduce students to philosophy. Throughout the semester, we will explore a handful of classic philosophical questions: What is knowledge, and what can we know? What evidence is there regarding the existence of a God? Do humans have free will? What does it mean to say that one thing is morally right and another is morally wrong?

We will also be developing various philosophical skills, including:

• Understanding: the ability to identify and explain an author’s main point in your own words, along with the ability to identify and explain an author’s argument in support of this main point.
• Evaluating: the ability to critically and charitably determine whether these arguments provide accurate, logical reasons in support of their main points, along with the ability to engage in critical and charitable dialogue with people who hold different views from your own.
• Defending: the ability to develop your own arguments in support of your opinions on the ethical issues we study, along with the ability to honestly assess your opinions and critically evaluate the quality of your arguments in support of them.

A broader goal of this course is to gain an appreciation for philosophical reflection. Hopefully, we will learn that careful, systematic, detailed thought is a great tool for increasing understanding on complex topics.

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

Quiz 100 points
Midterm 200 points
Final 250 points
Fun Fridays 50 points total
2 Short Papers 50 points each (100 points total)
Journal 100 points
Group Presentation 150 points
Attendance/Participation 50 points

Quiz: There will only be one quiz, held at the end of arguments section of the course. The quiz will last about 25 minutes, and be held at the beginning of class on the scheduled day.

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 the full period (50 minutes) on the scheduled day. The final exam is cumulative—that is, it tests everything covered throughout the whole course. The final will last 50 minutes, and will take place during finals week.

Fun Fridays: There will be three in-class graded assignments scheduled on some Fridays during the semester.

Papers: There will be 2 papers (about 2 pages long each), the first on our section on knowledge, and the second on our section on ethics.

Journal: Each student will keep a journal during our section on the existence of God and free will.

Group Presentation: There will be a group project presented in front of the class toward the end of the semester. Each group of 3 to 6 students will research a topic in philosophy not discussed in class, and present a 10- to 15-minute lesson on it to the rest of class.

Attendance/Participation: Most of this will be based on your attendance. If you’re there every class, you’ll get full credit for your attendance grade. In addition, there will be a lot of informal group work throughout the semester in which students get together to analyze the readings or philosophical issues being discussed in class. Group work can impact your grade.

Extra Credit: I like giving extra credit! I’ll be giving some official extra credit assignments throughout the semester. I’ll also be offering some extra credit points more informally during class time. Remind me about this if I slack off on dishing out extra credit points.

Classroom Policies
Academic Integrity: Cheating and plagiarism (using someone else’s words or ideas in a paper or assignment without giving credit to the source) will not be tolerated in the class. Students found guilty of either will definitely fail the exam or assignment—and possibly the entire class. FYI: I’m pretty good at catching plagiarists. I recommend not trying it!

Attendance: I take attendance each class. CCC policy prohibits you from completing a course if you have been absent for more than 2 weeks (6 classes)—excused or unexcused.

Excused Absences: Any assignment will only be rescheduled for an excused absence. 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. Make-up quizzes and exams will be arranged through the Test Center (2nd floor of the Library).

Disability Accommodations: If you have special requirements let me know as soon as possible so we can make all necessary arrangements.

Course Schedule

*This schedule is tentative and will probably change a lot*

August 31—September 2: Intro to Class/Philosophy
Wednesday: Introduction to Class (no reading)
Friday: What is Philosophy? (no reading)

September 5—9: Arguments
Monday: LABOR DAY (no class)
Wednesday: Understanding & Evaluating Arguments (RA Chapter 1)
Friday: Arguments: Generalizations (RA Chapters 2); group work

September 12—16: Arguments
Monday: Arguments by Analogy & Causal Arguments (RA Chapter 3 & 5)
Wednesday: Arguments: Sources (RA Chapter 4); group work
Friday: Deductive Arguments (RA Chapters 6)

September 19—23: Arguments
Wednesday: Deductive Arguments (RA Chapter 6); group work
Monday: Fallacies (RA Chapter 10)
Friday: FUN FRIDAY #1: Biases (no reading)

September 26—30: Knowledge
Monday: QUIZ #1; Intro to Knowledge (no reading)
Wednesday: Defining Knowledge | Plato’s Account (handout: Plato)
Friday: Skepticism (CWP 482-483, 490-496)

October 3—7: Knowledge & Existence of God
Monday: Skepticism | Descartes’ Meditations One (CWP 490-492); group work
Wednesday: Descartes’ Meditations Two (CWP 429-496)
Friday: God | Intro to Philosophy of Religion (handout: Lawhead)

October 10—14: Existence of God
Monday: Cosmological Argument | Aquinas: Summa Theologiae Question 2 (CWP 440-441, 450-453)
Wednesday: PAPER #1 due; Cosmological Argument (no new reading); group work
Friday: Ontological Argument | Anselm: Prologue & Chapters 1-8 in Proslogian (CWP 411-417)

October 17—21: Existence of God
Monday: Ontological Argument | Gaunilo: Reply on Behalf of the Fool (CWP 425-427)
Wednesday: Design Argument | Hume II & V in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (CWP 862-867, 873-875)
Friday: Design Argument | (no new reading); group work

October 24—28: Existence of God
Monday: Design Argument | Chance vs. Design (no new reading)
Wednesday: Review for Midterm (no reading)
Friday: MIDTERM

October 31—November 4: Existence of God
Monday: Problem of Evil | Intro (handout: Sober)
Wednesday: Problem of Evil | Augustine: Books 1, 2, & part of 3 in On Free Choice of the Will (CWP 357-369)
Friday: FUN FRIDAY #2: Proof

November 7—11: Existence of God & Free Will
Monday: Friday: Problem of Evil | Hicks (handout: Soul-Building)
Wednesday: Free Will | Freedom vs. Determinism (handout: Nagel)
Friday: Free Will | Maimonides The Guide of the Perplexed (CWP 434-439)

November 14—18: Free Will & Ethics
Monday: Free Will | Aristotle: Book III in On the Soul (CWP 223-227) and Book III, Chapter 1 of Nicomachean Ethics (CWP 275-277)
Wednesday: Free Will | Determinism (handout: Hospers)
Friday: Ethics | Utilitarianism: Mill part of Chapter 2 in Utilitarianism (CWP 1060-1063)

November 21—25: Ethics
Monday: Ethics | Evaluating Utilitarianism (handout: Rachels)
Wednesday: Journal due; Ethics | Kant 1st section in Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals (CWP 984-991)
Friday: THANKSGIVING BREAK (no class!) (woo?)


November 28—December 2: Ethics
Monday: Ethics | Evaluating Kantian Ethics (handout: Rachels)
Wednesday: Ethics | Virtue Ethics: Aristotle Book II of Nicomachean Ethics (CWP 269-275)
Friday: FUN FRIDAY #3 | Practical Ethics (no new reading)

December 5—9: Ethics/Group Presentations
Monday: Ethics | Virtue Ethics evaluated (handout: Rachels)
Wednesday: preparation for presentations (no reading)
Friday: group presentations

December 12—16: Group Presentations & Review
Monday: group presentations
Wednesday: group presentations
Friday: PAPER #2 due; review for Final Exam

December 19: Final Exam
Monday: FINAL EXAM (11:00-11:50 p.m.)

Important Dates
August 30th: Last day to drop a course & receive a 100% refund.
September 14th: Last day to drop a course & receive a 50% refund.
September 21st: Last day to sign up to audit a course.
December 2nd: Last day to withdraw from Fall classes.