boyfriend girlfriend discuss moral norms (he's a relativst, she's an objectivist)

She: You know, I'm tired of you looking at girls every time we go out.
He: Ehem, sorry. Looking at what?
She: Girls! You do it! Even as I'm by your side. So disrespectful.  
He: Wait, babe.
She: Don't babe me.
He: Are you upset?
She: Of course I am!
He: Apple of my eye.  I wouldn't do anything to hurt you. Look, if it makes you upset I'll stop it. It's just a involuntary reflex, a vestige of Homo Erectus in my subconscious male mind.
She: You don't get it! I don't want you to stop it just because I'm upset (she is making an objectivist point here).
He: What is that supposed to mean?
She: I want you to understand it's wrong.
He: I do, you're upset and that makes it wrong.
She: No! It's not wrong because I'm upset. It's the other way around: I'm upset because IT is wrong.
He: Alright, since when looking at a girl is wrong?  
She: First, it's not merely "looking." What makes your "looking" wrong is that you have your girlfriend by your side. And I deserves your respect. And that's a fact.
He: Ok, help me here. Would it be wrong if you didn't object to it? (he's compelling her to admit wrong is dependent to her beliefs)
She: Yes. If I had no self-esteem, and was therefore blind to your constant ogling at girls in my presence, it would still be wrong. Go find a woman that respects herself and finds that entertaining (she is successfully pointing to moral facts independent of her beliefs) 
He: Look, my love, I'm ready to stop it if that offends you. But we're going to have to agree to disagree (this is the limit of the subjective relativist).

objectivism, subjectivism and relativism

1- we have learned that moral norms come from moral behaviors, which contribute to group survival.
these behaviors are enforced by the group by ELDERS. they have the cosmogony of the group. the cosmogony is the narrative of the group.

2- these behaviors are passed on as MEMES. this is what we know as religion (which is the group sets of rituals to ensure survival.

3- moral norms are guarded by the DEITY, in the form of moral COMMANDS (DO NOT DO...)

  
see that the division is whether moral judgments are either dependent (SUBJECTIVIST) or independent (OBJECTIVISTS) of people's beliefs.

moral relativism is the view that moral judgements are relative to people's beliefs or cultural values.

descriptive moral relativism is the view that people do disagree about what is right and wrong, so we owe to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.

here's a sketch:

 1- moral relativism is infallible because it declares moral values a consequence of people's beliefs. your beliefs determine your moral norms. here's an example in real life:

therefore, what makes an action is right is that someone approves of it. 

2- the impossibility of debating moral differences is a result of moral relativism's infallibility.

3- the contradiction of relativism is that an action cannot be both right and wrong at the same time. 

4- actually, moral values are deeper than the relativist make them to be. they are not merely arbitrary, but the result of incremental social behaviors which ensure the survival of the species. these behaviors are passed on to the next generation as social memes. 

instructions for your draft's first four paragraphs (MINITERM)

click here,

problems with your drafts? here is a list students who can help YOU

This is a list of students whose drafts are good enough that they can give sound advice:

MWF 10 am

Antonio Cardenas,
Paul Miniet,

Diego Rodriguez, 

Humbert Torres,

MWF 11am

Vanessa Arrieta,

Julian Mier,
Selena Bridges,
Karen Palacios,
Chandra Diaz de Arce,

T,R 950am

Renel Desir,

Kevin Restrepo,

Alicia Wilmot,
Yuniska Castaneda,

T,R 11:15am

Wilson Pena,

Pamela Monfort,

Dorian Ruiz,

Brittany Hall,

T 5:40pm

Devorah Korf,

Schneider Pierre,

Sofia Ocoro,

All regular classes: I reviewed your drafts already

If you still need to fix draft issues don't resend them to me via email. 

See me in my office. It will likely take 12 minutes. 

Here are my office hours (again)

famous mind experiments!

1- Alcubierre drive, Physics (imagine a spacecraft going faster than the speed of light)

2- The battle of Waterloo, History (what if it had not rained?)

3- The Ship of Theseus Identity Philosophy (are you all your parts even if all the parts have been exchanged already?)

4- The Chinese Room, A.I. (are computers smart if all they do is translate orders?)

5- Schrödinger's cat, Physics (this deals with the bizarre behavior of photons in quantum mechanics)

an so on,

revision of your drafts (glossary of my symbols)

I'm revising your drafts. In order to save time, I've come up with these abbreviations, which you will find at the right-hand side margin of your doc. 

Topics for Phi 2010 Midterm (MINITERM)

Click here for the topics for the Midterm Exam.

Link for your book for true/false tests, multiple choice, etc.

please, send your drafts in word format, not pdf, no google docs. cannot make edits in those

now that your drafts are peer-reviewed, input your peer's suggestions and send your revised drafts to

atriff@mdc.edu

in the subject of your email please, write down:

Elizabeth Doe, First Draft Revision, MWF 10am class (whichever your class and name happens to be)

YOU HAVE A WEEK AFTER THE PEER-REVIEW TO DO THIS

First draft in-class peer-review: What to look for,

Formal issues

* left hand side:name, First Draft Philosophy Paper, class time,
* title: middle, bold,
* Times New Roman p. 12,
* double spaced,
* indented paragraphs,
* spelled check and grammar checked (very important!)
* 9 paragraphs (at least)
* minimum 1000 words,
* no front-and-back printing of draft,

Paragraph format issues

* first two paragraphs: Thesis and Counter, 3 points per paragraph.
* total of 6 sentences per paragraph. first sentence presents, the following sentence explains, 
* each paragraphs properly prefaced: either GS "advocates" or GS "critics" or SSM "advocates" or SSM "critics," etc. don't mind the repetition.
* 4th parag. should be Thesis 1st point, 5th parag. Counter 1st point and so on, alternating until the conclusion.
* Bibliography in separate page, at least 4 different sources,
* Only reputable sources to be cited, NO URLs, consult this for MLA conventions of citability  of digital references,


Content issues

* avoid unnecessary wordiness. the more wordy the more indication of poor research, 
* look for argument/citation ratio, 70% for argument,  30% for citation. if there is more, this is a red flag for plagiarism,
* proper introduction of each quote, "who talks" (Dr. John Doe, professor of Biology), "provenance," (at Penn State University),
* if a website, find the writer's name, her position, etc. google her name that if necessary,
* look for fat thesis paragraphs vs. thin counter paragraphs. this is a sign of poor research or bias, which is worse. your paper is as good as your counter's presentation,
* look for RELEVANCE, i.e., what is presented is properly explained and justified. 
* look for COHERENCE, i.e, the presented points in the draft successfully justify your thesis and counter's introductory paragraphs. 

CALL A SPADE A SPADE!
it's time to tell your friend the following 

* this draft needs more research
* this draft has dubious sources
* your draft is too biased towards your thesis
* the points are not presented in a coherent manner
* the points presented are not relevant,
* the sources presented are not relevant,

If you have an intuition, call it, you're probably right!

Section 4.1 & 4.2 (diagrams)

Above, Animalism and Locke's Memory Theory of P:I: with counters. Below the Psyhcological Continuity Theory with counters.