Will Blog for Philosophy

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? The Controversial Peter Singer

2007-06-20T15:36:00.000-07:00

Article by Charlotte Laws

Recently, I had the opportunity to eat, drink and make moral calculations with philosopher Peter Singer. The average person might think hanging out with a philosopher—even a renowned and accomplished one—would be a non-event or cause a pain in the brain, as in the soreness that can develop after a college class of induction, deduction and cerebral gymnastics. But as a lifelong fiancée of philosophy, I was thrilled that Dr. Singer agreed to meet with me.

Singer has the distinction of being the epiphany-trigger in my life. My first experience with him was on paper. In 1985, I read his book, In Defense of Animals, in which he talks about “speciesism,” a prejudice similar to racism and sexism in which humans believe they are superior to other species. Singer argues that nonhumans are of equal value to humans and worthy of equal consideration and that an animal’s ability to feel pain should give him protection under the moral umbrella that humans typically reserve for themselves. This idea was like a starter pistol, signaling me to begin my mission to help the truly voiceless and defenseless members of society. I stopped eating meat that day.

When I heard that the normally reclusive Singer—who lives in Australia and New Jersey and who is called the Father of the Animal Rights movement-- would be speaking at the Getty Museum in Los Angeles about animals and art, I figured why not take him out for a bite? Controversial utilitarians have to eat, too.

Singer is controversial mostly because of his position on infanticide and euthanasia. For example, he holds it is morally proper in some circumstances to kill a severely incapacitated infant whose life would cause immense suffering for himself and his family. Singer comes to this conclusion in the same way he comes to every conclusion: by embarking upon a utilitarian calculation.

A utilitarian deems an action right or wrong based upon the consequences of that action. He tallies the positives (hedons) and negatives (dolors) of the situation in advance and selects the course of action that is likely to result in the most positives or hedons.

Deontological moral theory is, in effect, the opposite of utilitarianism. Deontologists are hedon and dolor haters, and argue that consequences are inconsequential in the moral realm. Deontological theory states that people have certain duties or moral obligations which are based upon some absolute authority; the authority might be religion, universal reason, natural rights, natural law, or some other entity altogether. A deontologist would most likely believe it is wrong to kill an infant, regardless of the child’s level of disability, a precept that might be supported by Scripture.

In order to impress Dr. Singer, I figured I had better be on top of the “utilitarian calculation” game. No slacking. I had to be on my guard every second, ready to shift my actions to the right “utilitarian” course of action. I did not want this great philosopher to construe his time spent with me as in any way immoral.

The first order of business was to choose a restaurant. Singer had only put forth one requirement: there had to be a vegan entrée on the menu. But as a good utilitarian, I knew I had to weigh a parade of other factors. His hotel was in Santa Monica, so I chose a place nearby so as to save fuel and not contribute to global warming. I selected a totally vegan place, as a gesture to encourage exemplary establishments to be fruitful and multiply. I ultimately decided it was ok for the restaurant to be situated in Santa Monica after grappling with whether the area is more or less moral than surrounding communities.

I picked up Singer from his hotel and flipped on the car’s air conditioning because I wanted my important guest to be comfortable. In a polite way, he explained how my action was destroying the environment and suggested we simply lower the windows. I couldn’t believe it; I had already screwed up! I quietly chastised myself for failing to make the necessary moral calculation.

My second test came when I was confronted with whether I should make a left turn; and in so doing, hold up a long line of vehicles behind me. The alternative was to drive all the way to a signal light, turn onto a less busy street, do a three-point turn into a driveway, go back to the original intersection and make a right turn, an undertaking that would take an extra five minutes. Most people in our “I’m entitled,” me-first society feel morally justified in holding up a long line of other drivers, some who may be rushing to an emergency or who may be late for a critical appointment. But would a utilitarian come to this conclusion? I decided not and opted to inconvenience only my erudite passenger and myself.

The vegan restaurant was like a beehive, bustling with customers and lean on seating. We were directed to an airless corner where we were expected to jam ourselves into a pint-sized table. Part of me wanted to put down my philosophical foot, refuse the cramped conditions and demand a roomy, nearby table. But I heeded to utilitarianism, resolved that a party of four deserved the extra space. As the heat intensified during the meal, I began to regret my decision because it was “dolor city” in that stuffy corner.

Singer sipped on his mixture of beet, apple and carrot juice as he explained why he was leaning towards supporting Barak Obama for President. We discussed Congress’ proposed immigration legislation and how the issue is dealt with in Australia where his three kids live.

When we exhausted the media’s prized topics, we delved into the hypotheticals that make philosophy a cocktail party favorite; such as “if a trolley is rolling down a hill, should you let it kill your own child or a stranger’s child” and “is there a difference between killing someone and letting him die?” We even explored the always-popular free will debate. I asked Singer if he was choosing to have an enchilada or whether he was merely picking the entrée as a pawn of the universe. He thought he was choosing, but I argued that he was probably just a chess piece in a board game called “life.”

After spending two hours with Dr. Singer, what struck me most about the man was his humility, flexibility and open-mindedness. He is able to examine an issue with a fresh pad of paper. He lacks the cumbersome, preconceived ideas that stalk most individuals; and he is willing, even eager, to alter his opinion when new data and better arguments come to the fore. I find many people to be the reverse: stubborn, immovable objects, bogged down by pages and pages of notes, unwilling to white them out under any circumstance.

Perhaps this illuminates the distinction between the utilitarian and deontological mind. Utilitarianism by its very nature welcomes, even mandates, ideological pliability while deontological ethics thrives on being a moral tank, oblivious to its environment.

Society reacts to the utilitarian / deontological dance. In The Sacred Canopy, Peter Berger says that people invent ideas, but forget they are the architects of these ideas, later attributing them to an outside, religious source. Non-religious precepts seem to migrate down a similar path. They become rooted social norms like a brazen statue at the center of the town square. They may emanate from a deontological or utilitarian source, but they become more deontological, immutable and transcendent as they stand erect at the center of people’s lives. The statue is virtually impervious to the elements, in part because the average townsperson leans towards resisting change. It is easy and comforting to reinforce the laws, moral rules, and codes of conduct.

Utilitarianism may receive low marks in some circles because it has been manipulated to justify actions. We have all heard excuses like, “I had to cheat on my taxes because I figured the government has enough money” or “I didn’t return the lost wallet because I figured I need the money more than the other person does.” This “figuring” or calculating is a misapplication of the utilitarian method; it does not reflect what an impartial observer would decide. It reflects only the outcome the thief seeks: to avoid taxes or keep the lost wallet.

Despite periodic misuse, utilitarianism has a critical role to play in society. It can chisel away at or altogether overturn deontological values, which philosopher Jeremy Benthem claims are merely camouflage for the popular morality of the day. Utilitarianism allows undiscovered evidence and improved arguments to emerge. It is our best hope for a improved future, and we should recognize it as such.

I thank Dr. Singer for being a living example of the flexibility of utilitarianism. And from now on, when someone asks me to guess who’s coming to dinner, I will hope it’s a utilitarian. Especially a controversial one.

Animal Liberation and the Green Scare

2007-01-28T12:52:00.000-08:00

Please check out my new article, "Are you the Terrorist Next Door?"

Charlotte Laws

P.S. Why is there no activity on this blog?

Kinda quiet

2007-01-02T09:57:00.000-08:00

Happy New Year!

I hope the blog is still alive..

Hi everyone!

Pennypengo

The FBI and Animal Rights

2006-05-19T07:11:00.000-07:00

The FBI paid me to lecture them about Animal Rights Philosophy at their Academy in Quantico, Virginia last month. I wrote an article about the experience.... http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=9510

Charlotte Laws

New Article - Arm Wrestling with Darwin

2006-02-12T09:38:00.000-08:00

It is nice to be a part of your group. Recently, I wrote an article about the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debate....

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/claws_20060129.html

Charlotte Laws

SPS Meeting and Elections!!

2006-01-31T17:26:00.000-08:00

I'd like the SPS to meet soon -- we need to elect officers and to talk about our future plans. Let's get this thing rollin'!

Is it morally wrong

2005-12-19T12:11:00.000-08:00

to steal from the dead? I recently participated in an online survey that presents questions to determine how people would respond to specific ethically-challenging situations (http://moral.wjh.harvard.edu/). At the end of the questionnaire you are presented with your responses to 2 situations at a time and asked why you selected a different response in one case versus another.
Two of the questions I was asked were quite similar in that they involved the exchange of 1 life for 5 (or the other way around). However, there was a particular addition in one of the cases that changed my response from allowing the 1 for 5 trade-0ff to not allowing it; in the second case, in order to save the 5, not only would the 1 have to die, but his organs would be used to allow the 5 to keep on living. This is in contrast from the first scenario in which the doctor would simply have to ignore the 1, let him die, and treat the other 5 and have them live. Nowhere in the question does it state that he is asked if it is ok for his organs to be distributed (for neither he, nor the 5, know that their lives are in this life-for-life predicament).
So my question to you: Are humans owed any moral preference post-life? By this I mean, can we steal from the dead? And for that matter, can we do anything we would consider "unethical" to a living human, to a dead one? I imagine this could have an effect on the question of when a human actually gains moral standing (as is the case in the pro-life pro-choice debate) and when he would lose any ethical gain that a "living human" status would provide.
I hope I stated my question clearly. I'm still learning the ins and outs of proper philosophical etiquite.

Ahem... Hello!

2005-12-07T22:47:00.000-08:00

Hey everyone. I will be joining philosophy department at CSUN in the spring semester. I'm pretty excited to be majoring in philosophy. Although I will be a part timer for my duration at CSUN, I'm hoping I can contribute in whatever small way is possible to the philosophy deptartment. :)

Signs of life?

2005-11-11T22:45:00.000-08:00

Hello , anyone alive out there. Is it just me or is this club a little dead this year?

Oct 14th Talk

2005-10-10T23:30:00.000-07:00

Did we get a paper from Prof. Wilson for the lecture on Friday??

Summary of Meeting Sep. 27, 2005 MEMBERS, READ THIS POST AND FIND WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO FOR THE UPCOMING EVENTS

2005-09-29T14:55:00.000-07:00

Monday’s meeting was AWESOME! Thank you to everyone who showed up! I’m sorry Nick and Mike couldn’t be there, but they were at the first meeting, which covered roughly the same material.

Glad you all liked the pizza TOO!

Scan the post below, anytime you see your name, make sure you follow through on what it is you need to do!

1. Positions
a. Josh D. does not have the time to be director of events
i. Job to be filled by Nick and or Mike
b. Donna is now our secretary (THANK GOD!)
c. Dena wants a job, but she must be and make a commitment to the meetings first.
2. Events
a. SAT October 29th SO Cal Phil Conference. Members of the SPS NEED to show up to help Tim Black out with anything he may need. That includes handing out flyers and name tags to people. This is a very important event. PLEASE MAKE AN EFFORT TO SHOW UP!!!
i. Jes will look into getting name tag stickers and name tag pens
ii. Phil Department; What about flyers?????
(1) Department $ perhaps?

b. October 25th PRE LAW SOCIETY MEETING
i. JES Make flyers, or get Flyers from McHenry
ii. JES: Talk to the business department, invite them
iii. Nick and Mike: Post flyers in that special way you do.
iv. Chris Vogel talk to AS, see if we can have money ($175) to help with the meeting
v. John (?)See where Prof McHenry is holding the event, and see what we can do to make sure to get coffee, muffins etc at the meeting
vi. Josh (?) Get a ROUGH headcount for the meeting
c. Fight Club
i. Dinner and Discussion after the presentation @ Chili’s
ii. Be there or be square
d. Paper Presentation / Student panel discussion on
i. Race and Racism
(1) Josh D and John P talk to Velazco and find some good topics
(2) Work with the professor Donna mentioned (my notes are at home and the name slipped my mind) Donna... can you follow up on that?
ii. Perhaps another topic, if this isn’t a viable option
3. SPS Shirts!
a. New designs
i. I (jes) can do ANYTHING you want on ANY style shirt.
b. Lets see if we can get AS to pay for them for the active members (who have been to 3 or more meetings and office holders)
i. This would be about 12 shirts. At 10-15 bucks a pop that about $160 from AS. Since that money is ours, and it is for club promotion, lets see if:
ii. CHRIS is willing to talk to AS about $200 in shirt $$
(1) Remind them we didn’t touch a DIME last semester, perhaps?

THANKS TO ALL for your dedication to the club. I know some of this stuff is a pain in the bottom, but if we all work together, we can really help out the department, and most importantly, build a strong base for the club.

-Jes

P.S There is lots to be done, and lots that can be done that may not be mentioned. If you see some are the club could be covering and isn’t, and you want to get involved more... take some initiative and GO FOR IT.

It’s hard for me to delegate to everyone fairly. If you want more responsibility, then PLEASE take it!

SPS Shirts

2005-09-27T20:15:00.000-07:00

Hello ALL!

Thanks to everyone who went to todays meeting! I think we had a good time, and got a lot done. Also, I'm glad you all liked the pizza. If that is what it taks to get people to the meetings, so be it.

As promised, below is the link to my cafepress store. There is some personal stuff in there too (just ignore that).

cafepress.com/bohnertime <— link.

Remember; whatever you want, whatever you can think of I can put on a shirt for you.

Ok, meeting notes will be up soon!

-Jes

Tues Sep 27 Meeting @ 4.45 in ST 503

2005-09-20T15:54:00.000-07:00

Hello All!

I am sad to say, last night’s meeting had very poor turn out. Let’s just say BIG thanks to Tim Black, Nick M. and Mike E.! I appreciate you guys making the time to be part of the meeting.

At any rate, we are going to try again for next Tuesday, September 27th from 4.45 -.5.45 in ST 503. I will be ordering PIZZA for the meeting.

ALL THE CLUB MEMBERS THAT HOLD AN OFFICE NEED TO MAKE A REAL EFFORT TO SHOW UP, please.

This will be the meeting that sets up our goals and activities for the remainder of the semester. Remember, everyone is welcome, even non-philosophy majors, so bring your friends.

The flyer is attached. If I have the time, I will print flyers for the Faculty and Staff and get them out by Wednesday.

Faculty & Students: In addition to the meeting next Tuesday, here is a brief summary of some upcoming events:

* September 28 Sheldon Smith UCLA: Relation Between Causation and Law in Classical Mechanics

* October 14 George Wilson USC: Philosophy of Film, especially “Fight Club”

* October 25 Pre Law Meeting, hosted by Professor McHenry

* October 29 Southern Cal Phil Conference and Perhaps Grad School meeting with one of the visiting professors

* November 2 Amy Kind McKenna: Philosophy of Mind

Hope to see you all at the meeting.

Thank you for your time.

Kind Regards,
Jes Bohn

First SPS Meeting of Fall 2005

2005-09-14T11:10:00.000-07:00

Hey All!

It’s Jes!

As president, I am taking a little bit of charge and scheduling the first meeting for Monday, September 19th.

This is for two reasons:
1. The day works well for me
2. September 19th is National Talk Like a Pirate Day, which we all know is very philosophical in nature. Also, if you show up with an eye patch or hook hand on, I will give you brownie points for being so cool.

I am flexible on the time. Anything after 3.15 is fine with me.

If you have any questions, please feel free to call me on my cell at 818.606.3235

Hope to see you there!

-Jes

I just Kant do it Captin’...

2005-07-21T17:20:00.000-07:00

Yeah, ummm, I’m reading John Rawls “History of Moral Philosophy”. Anyone care to do a reading group on the section on Kant?

Let me know.

jes@bohnertime.com
818.606.3235

Hello!

2005-07-06T08:45:00.000-07:00

Hi everyone!

I had a really crappy schedule change with work last semester..so all my intentions of involvement with the society went straight to h*ll. I think I only made one colloquia.

Anyhow..anybody had that Tim guy for epistemology?

I hope you're all having a great summer, and congrats to the grads!

Hey who's president of the society these days?

Donna Chapman

Movin' On & Graduation & Other Stuff

2005-06-27T11:26:00.000-07:00

Hi all,

Well, it's been awhile since I posted, and I just 'rediscovered' the blog (I don't sign onto it often), so I thought I would write a little something or other!

I was one of those who graduated on June 1st! It was great to see Jennifer G., David A., Jes B., Erik H., Channe G., I'm certain that were two other people but of course--it's been so long and I'm so old, I've forgotten who they were! How rude is THAT? :) Tami was there--though under a Liberal Studies major--she "walked proudly" with the rest of us! :) I was, however, saddened to only see two professors at the ceremony, and that's not counting Ron McIntyre as though he is still professing, he's moved on a bit to President of Faculty. I managed to officially meet Prof. Kellenberger - being an evening only student has it's drawbacks - I saw Prof. Kellenberger ONLY at some of the Phil Dept. Colloquia. Had a nice little chat with him, however, at the ceremony. He was over in the "Reception Area." Prof. Portmore was our "fearless leader" to the ceremony - and this past semester was the first (and only) time I managed to have a class under him. Doug will be missed immensely I'm sure--as he moves on to Arizona. At any rate, I thought it was a rather "sorry" turnout from the Phil Department as regards to congratulating it's graduates. But then, it's not any different treatment from the Dept in the 4 years I was at CSUN, so why would it be different on Graduation Day! :(

Aside from this, I am VERY happy to have completed my "undergrad" work--I'm one of the OLD dogs (or am I really a cat?) who HAS learned some new tricks, and I plan to continue with the eduation in January as I move on to California Lutheran University for a Masters in Education-specialization in Career and Guidance Counseling. It took a lot longer than some for me to finish the bachelor's degree--but I am SO GLAD that I have done it.

So what do others plan to do who have graduated--who are on this "blog" and could reply? :) What are folk's plans for the summer? What's up with the Phil "Club" (Society)? What are future plans for that? Inquiring minds want to know! :)

Ya'll take care and let me know if there is something I might could help with in the future. I still live close by the campus and would be willing to open my "home" (apartment) to meetings/gatherings of the Society as needed--or ????

My best,

Melanie Teller

FINAL MEETING FOR SPRING 2005

2005-05-16T16:02:00.000-07:00

Hey all, the final meeting is this Wednesday, May 18th. Hope you all can make it.

Also, Josh D. wasn’t able to get a reimbursement for the room we rented for the debate. So we need to make it up to Josh and all pitch in a bit to cover the cost. The total was $100. Anything you can do to help will be greatly appreciated.

Also the department will be presenting Josh Holt and John Parra with the Luckenbach Award at the meeting. This, I am sure, will be more excitement than we have seen all year.

Later!
-jes

Shapshay Tragedy Paper

2005-05-02T14:13:00.000-07:00

BOOYAKAA!

Here is the link to Shapshay's Paper

Shapshay Tragedy Paper.rtf

Enjoy!

-jes

Read it and Weep!

2005-04-29T13:17:00.000-07:00

Here is the recommended reading for the Problem of Tragedy as suggested by York Gunther. It has a different title, but quit trippin' and read!

http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fict-par.htm

(slight edit by jes)

Change-o-plans

2005-04-28T10:51:00.000-07:00

(Sorry Nick...)

Ok, I am going to have a reading group this sat night. It was originally supposed to be at Chili’s, but instead, I am moving it to my mom’s house. We will order dinner, watch House of Sand and Fog, and have a discussion.

My mom’s address is 19700 Trull Brook Dr. Tarzana, Ca 91356

Take the Tampa exit, and go left onto Ventura Blvd. Go right onto Valanden, and then drive straight up for about 3 miles until you reach Corbin.

Go Right onto Corbin, then an immediate Left onto Trull Brook Dr.

Her place is on the left hand side, about 3/4 of the way up the hill.

The number at her house is: 818.881.7791. My cell is 818.606.3235.

If anyone is interested, please join us! Let me know by email jes@bohnertime.com

-jes

Meeting!

2005-04-18T09:58:00.000-07:00

Hey all.

For those of you who couldn’t make the meeting last Wednesday, I will be planning another meeting for this Wednesday, 4/20, 5:30, ST 503.

It will be informal, so if you can’t make it, don’t worry about it.

Love,
Me.

Atheists and Faith

2005-04-15T16:16:00.000-07:00

At the meeting last Wednesday (I encourage all who did not attend to read my magnificent notes below) I overheard the end of the table talking about faith. The point they brought up, and the point of this post, is the idea that in reality, Atheism requires as much a faith as Christianity.

I disagree. Though I did not say anything then, I would like to spark a conversation on the topic now.

First and foremost, when we talk about faith, it is my understanding that we are talking about much more than simply a belief. For example, I believe that the equation2 + 2 = 4, is correct, but certainly, we would not call that belief, faith. Or, for a less self evident example I believe that the places in the world we refer to as France and China exist, though I have not ever seen them. At least in a common (non epistemological - those people are CRAZY) setting, I would say that my belief is not faith.

Faith, as I understand it, is the word we use to describe a type of belief we find to be held without reason. Not to say the belief is illogical, just taken as true without the standard most people place on believing the truth of something. So, for example: I have a GPA that is too low, and my writing sample won’t be up to parr to get into UCLA. Someone may say to me, I have faith you will get into UCLA for Grad school. Though it isn’t reasonable to believe I will make the cut, it isn’t a logical impossibility. To further emphasize my point, if someone were to say something like, “I have faith you will get into Cal State LA”, I would be a bit insulted, as Cal State LA is a bottom of the line fall back program for me.

Anyway, if you talk about the Atheist having faith, you are talking about the Atheist making an unjustified irrational judgement based on the evidence given to him. Or, at least, as unreasonable as the judgement and belief held by a Christian (the belief in God we normally call faith).

This of course, presupposes that the conclusion the Atheist has drawn from the evidence is irrational or unreasonable. But that seems true only from a Christian or perhaps agnostic perspective, and even then, I would say a limited Christian perspective. Certainly, the Atheist doesn’t believe his conclusion can’t be rationally justified. Quite the contrary. The Atheist finds his conclusion to be the most rational explanation. Simply choosing not to allow for the possibility of a beings existence for which there is no evidence for seems prudent. For example, there is no evidence for the existence of a unicorn. That doesn’t mean unicorns don’t exist. It is logically possible that such a creature does in fact exist. But I think we would be reluctant to tell the person who does not believe in the existence of unicorns they have FAITH unicorns don’t exist.

So at least, we can understand why the Atheist would not say he had faith in the nonexistence of God.

But then, some say there are compelling arguments which state that the Atheist is wrong. That the evidence clearly shows that one is justified in believing in at least some theistic perspective. John showed us some of those arguments in his side of the debate on The Argument from Intelligent design, a week ago. If you believe those arguments to be sound I wouldn’t say you had faith in a deity (if that is what the argument leads to), I would say your belief would be justified. I would disagree with your conclusions, but I wouldn’t say your belief in those conclusions meant you had faith in your answer.

Where I do think the idea of faith comes in is when we start extrapolating on the properties of these deities; properties they do not need to have given their role in explaining the evidence presented. So, if you want to say the systems of nature couldn’t rationally be the product of evolutionary force, thus there must be some designer, I would grant you that belief as being one that had nothing to do with faith. It might be a reasonable conclusion. But to then say this being was all good, that seems like a leap that is not reasonable. Nothing about being an intelligent designer means you are all good or all knowing. In this brief case, you would have FAITH this designer was God.

So, to back track, I wouldn’t say that simply being an Atheist or a Theist is a belief I would catagorize as one of faith, given you have compelling arguments to justify your claim. However, the jump to Christianity does seem to be a jump of faith. There are compelling argument that would make the postulation of such a God unnecessary. Moreover there seem to be classic problems that surround the existence of such a God.

It is in this way I feel the belief in the traditional Christian God can be called faith, while a belief in the non existence of God cannot be.

Did I miss the boat? I am sure I will know soon...

4-13-05 Minutes

2005-04-14T14:56:00.000-07:00

Dear Me,
Thanks for taking the minutes. It really helps me out.
Love,
Me

* * *

What’s up Kids? For all you who missed it, here are the minutes from our “meeting” at Chili’s. As a general note, you missed a nice time. We were in rare form last night, as we all chatted about, PHILOSOPHY. It was very... uhhh. philosophical!

And stuff

First, we had a few new people join us. Dana (not you, other Dana) (Engineering major) Chris (Urban Planning, senior), Eric (sp?) (Phil Junior) and Dena (Phil Junior) joined us for dinner. So thanks to them! I hope to see you all at the next meeting.

We talked a bit about the debate: It’s official...GO US!

Some of us are going to help out Bonnie Paller with the Phil of Science Conference on April 23. Myself included, now that my original plans fell through.

YOU SHOULD ALL SIGN UP TO HELP OUT PROFESSOR PALLER. We will be handing out name tags and escorting professors around and what not.

READING GROUP PLANNED FOR APRIL 30. We will be discussing the problem of Tragedy.
The following Tuesday, we are meeting at Professor Gunther’s house to discuss the problem further with Sandy Shapshay at 8:00.

She will be talking at CSUN May 4th @ 4.00 in the Whittset (sp?) Room SH 451.

The grad workshop has been moved to May 4th. However, that date is BAD, because of Sandy Shapshay’s talk. Perhaps MAY 11th is better. Nick, hold off for a few days booking the room.

I am going to be auditing classes next fall. I am willing to stay on as President, but given the guidelines of the constitution, (of which we are so mindful) I am not allowed. So we have to chat about how willing we are to break the rules of the constitution (again).

Oh, and before I forget, Nick wants his official title to be Minister of Defense for The SPS. Mike wants to be The SPS Director of Agricultural Design. Given their devotion and hard work these past few weeks, I see no problem with this.

So, it shall be said, so it shall be done.

Next Meeting

2005-04-10T15:10:00.000-07:00

Party On, Party People!

Ok everybody... the next meeting, unless Tim tells me otherwise, will be this Wednesday April 13th @ Chili’s on Reseda. It will be a short meeting, as we have only the upcoming Grad School Workshop and the success of the Debate to Discuss. Also, we will decide whether or not we want to do anything else before the end of the school year.

Perhaps we can make Dana’s reading group work...

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO CAN’T MAKE CHILI’S:

I will be in ST 503 on April 20th. I will catch up anyone who missed the celebration/discussion then.

Attached in the flyer.

Love,
Me!

Don’t forget about Sandra Harding
SC 1117 @ 3:30
She will be available @5:30 in ST 503
for an EXCLUSIVE student Q&A session.

Be there or be square, y0.

RAWK OUT, y0!

2005-04-08T09:24:00.000-07:00

Oh man guys, we rocked the debate OUT!!!! The whole team really pulled together and produced a quality event. Dana and Josh secured a location, John and Drew and Tammy and Josh Holt and Josh D and Nick and Mike (and even I) worked really hard on the information presented.

Thanks too to all the flyer teams (go Nick and Mike and Dana, the rogue flyer alliance).

For all who didn’t go, I am sorry we missed you. Perhaps next time we will see you there.

I am so pleased with how everything went. The club put on an awesome event!

Love,
Jes

Whats up with Da Bate!?

2005-04-05T10:58:00.000-07:00

Whatsup everyone, its officially the day before the day before the debate. Are we ready? Do we need to meet up again? I dont know if we have anything scheduled tomorrow (wednesday), but if anyone wants to meet up and go over the debate again before we actually do the damn thing Im free and will be on campus around 5:30. Take care, Nick

READING GROUP TOMORROW!!! (SAT 4-2-05)

2005-04-01T08:54:00.000-08:00

DON'T FORGET!!!!!!!!!

The Reading group will be on Saturday, April 2nd @ 2:00 pm. We will discuss the arguments surrounding the debate, which for anyone who doesn’t remember (or wasn’t at the meeting) is

“The Argument from Intelligent Design”

The Pro Side: Joe, Drew, John (for the argument for Intelligent Design)
The Con: Jes, Nick, Dana, Steve (against the argument for Intelligent Design)

Since Joe can't make it, Nick, Mike, and I are going to meet Joe for dinner so we can catch him up.

Make sure you come to the meeting with some sort of argument or information on an article that you think would make the debate more interesting and involving. We will discuss them in depth.

The meeting will be at my apartment: 19143 Victory Blvd #230. Reseda, CA 91335.
Write me and I will give you directions. OR you can see a map here <— link.

My cell is: 818.606.3235
My home is: 818.654.9392

Love,
jes

Reading group

2005-03-29T22:48:00.000-08:00

I think an interesting topic for the next reading group (after the argument from design group) would be something having to do with marxism, and maybe it's life in the present day world. I have a friend who really knows a lot about marxism, and is willing to come and talk to us about it, if we so desire.

APA Meeting Recap--what did YOU leave in San Francisco? Hopefully not your heart?!

2005-03-28T19:51:00.000-08:00

Hi all,

I managed to be a part of the group of students who traveled up north to the APA meeting in San Francisco this past weekend. I just realized that it would have been "nice" if all those involved with the SPS and/or Phil in general at CSUN could have planned a meeting place/time, but oh well huh?

I had a grand time--got to see/hear a lot of folks I admire and/or wanted to meet. But I'm afraid I left my good health in San Francisco! :( Came down with a nasty cold and touch of bronchitis--but it didn't dampen my spirits at least. Saturday was a bomb for me--I returned to my hotel room about 11 am, along with all the books I'd accumulated and then hibernated until we left about 7:30 am Sunday morning.

Andrew was in our crew--along with three other folks that I think would make DANDY SPS members! Perhaps we could send invites to them? :)

So, who learned what? Who saw whom? Whom did you meet? I saw Chris V. sauntering through the lobby on Saturday--I was too sick by then to call out a hello. I practically fell into Jessica, her boyfriend Danny, and Tim when I was coming through those horrible revolving doors at the Westin and some dummy behind me shoved the door in order that he could get in--thus practically throwing me out of the doorway and into Jessica, Danny, and Tim's little group meeting! I didn't any of those folks again during the meeting. I ran into Weimin Sun a few times, caught a glimpse of Doug Portmore, Dave Shoemaker (the traitor), and Takashi a couple of times. Only managed to speak with Weimin.

Leemon McHenry was our professor at the wheel for the drive up and back; and he was great with conversation and filling us in on some philosophical issues and schools and such. It was rather enlightening (though I was kinda "dead" on the drive back).

Perhaps I'll write more if/when I get better. I need to crash tonight but thought I would drop a note and see who else may have attended the meeting.

Best,

Mel Mel
Melanie Teller

Intelligent Design Flyer

2005-03-26T19:39:00.000-08:00

Ok, here is ONE of the TWO flyers I am making:

Hot Pam. Get her while she's hot!!! (<--- Link)

Is it too much to make a (not to subtle) joke about wanking?

I think so.

Does that stop me?

I think not.

No Longer Using Phil Society List?

2005-03-21T16:07:00.000-08:00

Hi all,

Well, I'm still trying to add a picture to my name, but so far no go. So I'm editing this 'mistake' and putting a message here.

I wanted to inquire as to whether the SPS has chosen not to utilize the Phil Society List that was built up over the past four years? I'm finding people write to me asking what's going on with events, etc. as I myself have not been sending any emails out either.

Just curious. This is the csunsps-g list that was made up some time ago and has around 60 people on it I believe it is at last count. If it's not being used, I'd question why not--as many people who might otherwise be interested in the Society are not getting information (and they don't check the website often either--which still isn't being updated on a timely manner--mostly due, I'm sure, to CSUN's computer server issues--which is ANOTHER reason that the website should/could be linked to an outside source so that it CAN be updated regularly.

Thanks all!

See whomever at the APA meeting!

Mel Mel

Signed, Your Trepidatious Representative

2005-03-19T22:54:00.000-08:00

Just wanted to banter a few ideas about with everyone, offer them for your perusal. I've been a features writer for a (arch-conservative) local newspaper for a few months now, and I've been asked to write a column on "the relevance of classical studies like philosophy on 'today's world'." If I had a nickel... Anyway, I'm considering a rather inflammatory approach, and wondered if any of you might have any recommendations- I've never been asked to be a formal representative of my esteemed colleagues, teachers and their Gordian body of thought and history in general, after all. I'm thinking of a "if you studied philosophy, you'd know..." format including the abortion debate not being about life, but either personhood or individual freedom; creationism and evolution being compatible, and neither being logically able to give an account of First Cause; religious problems with the existence of evil; inadequate ethical systems- read relativist- leading to colonialism, as the cause of modern political conflicts; and issues of existential freedom and absurdity in recent films; among others. Anything I have a representative responsibility to mention? :)

SPS Meeting 3/16/05 RECAP

2005-03-17T10:00:00.000-08:00

First off, Thanks to EVERYONE who was there. I know Chris missed class to join us, so thanks Chris. And I am happy to welcome Steve to the SPS. Which is not to discount Josh and John and Nick and Tim and Tammy and Joe and Dana and Bernie and Drew. I appreciate all of you guys (and gal) too. : )

Ok, here is what needs to be done, and who is signed up to do it (mostly):

ROOM BOOKINGS:

Dana is the MAN of the hour. He is going to book the Sierra Center Room (?) On the second floor of “The Marketplace.” (that glass room we have had some phil presentations in before...) Double check we will have mikes and chairs.

Dana if this costs money still book the room. Then me to get Josh’s number. Josh, see if A.S. will pay. If not, see if the department will pay.

DEADLINE: Friday, March 18th.

Nick is the MAN of the next hour. He is going to seal the deal for the Grad School presentation in the Philosophy Seminar Room. That room is SH224, fyi.
DEADLINE: Monday April 11th

Joe, you didn’t volunteer, but I am appointing you for a very important job. Contact whoever needs to be contacted and find out what it would take to get a both like those crazy La Rouche people get (right outside Sierra Tower, at the north west end of “the quad”). If you still don’t know where it is, have Nick point it out to you. Anyway, your idea about promoting the debate was good. We will get you flyers and a partner or two and you all can pass out flyers for an hour or so.
DEADLINE: Monday March 28. (You can call me if you have questions, Joe. (818.606.3235)

ADVERTISMENT/PROMOTION

Jes needs to chat with Amanda Porter and see if we can 1.) Advertise the blog in the paper 2.) Promote the debate in the paper with a large add. Also, how much will it be?
DEADLINE: Thursday, March 17th.

Josh needs to get announcements into the paper promoting the debate (aside from any sort of advertisement we may put in the paper)
DEADLINE: Monday, March 28th.

Jes will create the flyer for the debate (unless anyone else wants to either make their own, or help me.
DEADLINE Friday Night, March25th.

Jes,& Tim will run off some flyers. Anyone who has a printer and a ream of paper can also help in this department!!!
DEADLINE: Tuesday March 29th (to give to everyone handing out flyers)

FLYER HAND OUTS for the DEBATE (by department)

Jes: Phil
Bernie Sociology
Josh D. English
Drew History
JohnReligious Studies
General Campus flyer Posting Nick and Mike

ALL FLYERS SHOULD BE HANDED OUT BY WEDNESDAY MARCH 30TH.

POSTERS MADE

Should we go to kinkos and simply enlarge the flyer? Who will pay? Department?

Tim, can you see if the department will pay for that sort of thing? Will the department help us out at all with the debate?
DEADLINE: uhh Soon?
DEADLINE (for the poster): Tuesday, April 5th.

* * *

READING GROUP:

The Reading group will be on Saturday, April 2nd @ 2:00 pm. We will discuss the arguments surrounding the debate, which for anyone who doesn’t remember (or wasn’t at the meeting) is

“The Argument from Intelligent Design”

The Pro Side: Joe, Drew, John (for the argument for Intelligent Design)
The Con: Jes, Nick, Dana, Steve (against the argument for Intelligent Design)

Make sure you come to the meeting with some sort of argument or information on an article that you think would make the debate more interesting and involving. We will discuss them in depth.

The meeting will be at my apartment: 19143 Victory Blvd #230. Reseda, CA 91335.
Write me and I will give you directions. OR you can see a map here <— link.

Ok, that is it for now.

You all rock-zors my sock-zors!

-jessie

Intelligent Design

2005-03-16T19:14:00.000-08:00

First, I'd like to thank Jes for a wonderful SPS meeting and for providing us with pizza and cookies. Thanks, Jes!

For those of you who'd like to get started with some reading on Arguments from Intelligent Design, here's an article from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/design.htm.

Sign up for the Phil Conference DEADLINE

2005-03-15T11:42:00.000-08:00

Attention EVERYONE.

If you are interested in going to the Pacific APA meeting we have been talking about in the meetings, the deadline to sign up is TOMORROW NIGHT!!!

Please write an email to gregory.trianosky@csun.edu if you want to go.

Let him know your name, your major, your class level, and a blurb on why you are interested. If I were you guys, I would really try and sell my interest to Professor Trianosky. No guarantee you can go, but it’s worth a shot.

Also, I will be going independently from the department.

I think this trip could be a TON of fun. Try and get on the list!

Later Skaters,
Jes

818.606.3235 is my number, if you have questions.

Jes SunDial Article #3

2005-03-13T22:50:00.000-08:00

Hey all! Do me a favor if you get the chance. Read over my article for the sundial. Look for spelling, grammer, and most of all LOGICAL problems (not so much disagreement, though it is welcome). Ok, this is not a final draft, just a test run. The article is due Tuesday morning.

My love,

Jes
_____

REVISED: Thanks Tim! (and thanks to my Dad too!)

The Misplaced Blame of Secularist Influence

Commentator Bill O’Reilly, from Fox Television’s “The O’Reilly Factor” reported in March of 2004 that over 78% of Americans believed that moral values were on the decline, and described the moral compass of America as “fair to downright poor”. O’Reilly’s main target for the decline of morality was secularist influence on American culture.

I believe the blame on secularist influence is misplaced.

I am not a stranger to the claim that the major pitfalls of American morality are due to secularist influence on society. Furthermore, as secularist influences come from people who hold a secularist set of values and beliefs, I take this claim to mean that those of us who are secularist are responsible for this downfall. In other words, “hide your children, the Atheists are coming”.

I find this idea strange and confusing, for two reasons.

First and foremost, while I often hear people complain of the downfall of American society and morality, I have found in my own experience that this downfall has been greatly embellished. Though it cannot be denied that there are some problems in America today, certainly it cannot be contested that America has made great strides in promoting a more fair and equitable society within the last few decades. This is progress I would think both spiritualists and secularists could agree on as being morally valuable.

I appreciate the appeal to the “good old days” of the 1940s and 1950s. Life seemed stable and enriching back then. However, America in the 1940s and 1950s promoted ideas that were sexist and racist. Women were chained to the lives their husbands let them have, and were socialized to appreciate dehumanization and oppression. Women were shunned for wanting to live lives away from children and independent from men. People of races other than white were systematically abused and unprotected by the states in which they lived. Today, women and people of all races are well on the path to equal rights and opportunities. Though Americans are not yet completely equal, among the legislatures, inequality and discrimination are actively eliminated. I for one have no desire to return to these “good old days.”

I do not deny there is some departure from traditional Christian values evident in media and entertainment. There may be an increase in accessibility to fantasy violence, explicit sexuality, and offensive language in America as of late. The spiritualists often cite this increased accessibility as the catalyst of immoral behavior in society. However, any sort of loss of morality in America, and any sort of increase in violence, may be due to other factors besides the television and videogame industry. I believe when we look at an aggregate gain in morality we will find that a system of values allowing all people a chance to enjoy a life once reserved for white men seems a small price to pay for more exposure to sex, swearing, and fantasy violence. Additionally, secular icons like Britney Spears, video games like “Star Fox Assault,” and four letter words may not be so immoral or socially destructive as the spiritualist would suggest.

The second reason I believe the spiritualists have severely misplace blame, if indeed there is blame to place, is the inability secularists have to influence the progression of American morality.

The spiritualist prescribes elimination of secularist influence on American society as a way to right American moral wrongs. This could only be done if a majority of those determining the laws, rules and regulations were individuals who prescribe to Christian dogma. Currently the spiritualists have their whish. According to exit statistics from the last presidential election, 90% of those who voted were Theist, and 83% belonged to some Christian denomination. Of those Christian voters, 40% attended church occasionally, and 41% attended weekly. There is no shortage of Christian influence on the formation of society in America.

Secularists, whom I take to mean Atheists, Agnostics and non-believers, make up only 7% of America’s population. As such the spiritualist have given secularists credit for having unrealistic power, given there are few organizations devoted to secularist solidarity, there is no unified secularist belief system. Moreover most secularists, Atheists included, share a morality that is quite similar to Christianity. In general secularists believe acts like lying, stealing, cheating, murder, rape, fraud, and for some, even abortion, are morally reprehensible. Christianity has no monopoly on those values, and one does not have to be a Theist to promote them.

Nor do secularists have a monopoly on committing acts predominantly held to be immoral by spiritualists. One third of the women in America over the age of 45 have had an abortion. Of those, 31% are Catholic, and 37% are Protestant.

These numbers present an interesting problem for the spiritualist. If indeed, there is a belief system to blame for the alleged downfall of American society, wouldn’t it make more sense to blame the vastly predominant one? I am lead to believe spiritualists use the secularists as a scapegoat for the alleged problems they themselves have created. The numbers alone suggest that the shape of America’s morality has little if anything to do with the influence of secularist people, and more to do with those who promote spiritual beliefs.

Whatever the case may be I believe that the problems America does have are far too complex to be the result of any particular belief system. America’s problems can in part be attributed to intellectual laziness and shortsightedness shared by individuals on both sides of the religious coin.

Call list

2005-03-11T13:58:00.000-08:00

Hey everyone, Joe here. I want to get a little call list or e-mail lis going on so that it's easier for everyone to communicate. My E-mail is JHarper007@sbcglobal.net, please e-mail me your name and phone number and i'll put together a list that everyone can have. Obviously if 500 people join the club then this list is superfluous but for now it should suffice. So just get the info to me ASAP so it is easier for all of us to communicate. Jes if you already have info on people and want me to put the list togehter go ahead and e-mail me what you've got, i know you've got a huge load so i just want to help out.

Holy Crap, it worked...

2005-03-11T10:31:00.000-08:00

Okay, so it finally let me in to contribute... yay me! So I'll be throwing in my slant on the world up in this piece...

If there was a hook, this would be of it...

[blatant plug]
If you get bored, you can surf over to my LiveJournal and read about whatever the hell is up there...
[/blatant plug]

The Great Debate Flyer

2005-03-08T18:54:00.000-08:00

Oh man...

I rock. (<--- Link)

Seriously.

Rawk.

Profile Pics

2005-03-08T15:51:00.000-08:00

Hey All!

I excited to see so many people!

If you want a picture to go with your profile, but don't have any place to store the information, I can help you out for the next year. Email me a 100x100 pic, and I will host it on my site for you.

jes@bohnertime.com

All I ask for in return is your soul. Or sole. Whatever.

Random Question...AKA Bored SIlly

2005-03-08T15:15:00.000-08:00

If you kill a federal employee while THEY are commiting a crime should that still be a federal offense?? Is it really bad to kill someone who was being stupid??

Eample: A lettercarrier(postal emplyee) jay walks and I acciedently hit them with my car, am I at fault.

This is a question I have been thinking about for a few years after I came close to hitting the postman while he was crossing the street.

Have No Fear, Phenwonder is here! :)

2005-03-08T15:14:00.000-08:00

Well, it's really only Me! Thanks Jes for sending me another invite. This will be my first time with an "official" BLOG list.

I'm looking forward to continued reading of other people's posts. And please forgive me if I step on toes or make double (or even triple) posts as I learn the world "blogging."

I'm a little confused about what the debate is and when and where, etc. but then--I've got Senioritis REALLY bad and kinda will just keep reading to find out how to understand this format.

Ya'll might, uh, think about changing the website (sorry Tim Black--I just HAD to say it) to read 'welcome to the Spring Semester in the intro as it still reads Fall. But then, that's just me--one of my pals tells me I'm just too "literal" so well, there you have it.

My best,

Mel Mel
aka Melanie
aka Phenwonder and her six kitty cats, two of whom share Tim Black's birthdate (but not old age! :)

The Argument from Marginal Cases: A (Very) Brief Response

2005-03-08T14:46:00.000-08:00

I submit that the general consensus is that there is no morally relevant property that all human beings possess. It is precisely this consensus that gives Singer’s Argument from Marginal Cases its force. The particular problem seems to be that attempting to identify any such universal property automatically precludes certain human beings (e.g., newborns, the mentally handicapped, etc.). However, it seems to me that there may be a property that is had by all human beings (but not had but non-human animals); that property is being made in the image of God. If the Christian worldview is correct (i.e., if there is a God and if we – human beings – are made in His image), then it seems that there is a universal property had by all human beings. Therefore, the Christian can, in this way, render innocuous the force of Singer’s Argument from Marginal Cases. I say all this to point out that since the Christian position is one that is philosophically respectable and defendable (though admittedly, not full-proof), the Christian response to Singer’s argument is one worthy of consideration.

Hate Mail for Jes

2005-03-08T10:56:00.000-08:00

Dude, guys... I posted that article, and I got this response:

I have been a vegan for 8 years now. I do it for personal reasons. I have no problems with people who eat meat. I would prefer they do not, but I am not morally confused as to the value of human life over animal life. I would put a years tuition that you are a secularist. For only a morally confused person equates the value of animals with people. So the killing of 6 million chickens is equal to the killing of 6 million Jews? You are also, obviously, a left-winger. Only an issue that is led by ones compassion over reason and religious values can make the statement that "there is no morally relevant difference between animals and babies". If your dog (that you loved) and a complete stranger were drowning, who would you save? Either this will reaffirm your stance, or will cause you to reconsider (hopefully). I feel sorry for people who have tried to be vegetarians and can not because they need meat. Yes, some people do need it. Whether it is due to their blood-type or other biology, they need it. Without moral clarity, and without a fixed moral compass (usually derived from religious texts; not from the PETA manual), this is what secular thinking brings one to. Compassion over standards and emotions over rationality. By the way, I think eating dairy is more illogical than eating meat. For us humans are the only species on the planet that uses milk from another animal (intended for their baby), and use it ourselves. How can educated people believe that chickens "suffer" (as opposed to feel some primitive form of physical pain) in any way even remotely comparable to the self-aware, self-conscious, emotional human being? How does contemporary society produce these frightening idiots in such enormous numbers?

The most important reason is secularism. As G.K. Chesterton said about a hundred years ago: "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything." Those prophetic words restated what the Psalmist wrote 2,500 years before: "Wisdom begins with fear of God." (Oh, yes, that terrible "G" word. It just hurts, doesn't it?)

No God, no wisdom.

The death of God-based values is the major reason for the moral wasteland known as the university, the one place where America is regarded as a villain and the U.N. as morally progressive; where male and female are regarded as subjective constructs, not naturally distinctive identities; where Fidel Castro is a hero and Palestinian terrorists are freedom fighters.

And secularism explains the widespread belief in the equivalence of people and animals. The breakdown of belief in the God of the Bible has led to the demise of the belief in the sanctity of human life. If human beings are not regarded as created in God's image, but only in the image of animals, there is no reason to regard human life as worth more than that of an animal, including chickens. It is not a coincidence that no mainstream Jewish or Christian denomination, no matter how liberal, agrees with PETA's campaign or teaches its adherents that humans and animals are of equal worth. You have to enter the moral chaos of full-blown secularism to believe that people burned alive, slowly frozen to death, medically experimented on, stripped naked and machine gunned family-by-family, forced to watch their children burned, or slowly asphyxiated in gas chambers suffer no more than slaughtered chickens, and that both acts are morally identical. It is impossible to believe in any normative expression of Judeo-Christian values and believe this.

This guy hate me. I have never felt so good.

Why does it rock so hard to piss people off. The world may never know.

-jes

SPS Meeting, March 16th

2005-03-07T19:05:00.000-08:00

There will be a meeting of the CSUN Student Philosophy Society on March 16th, 5:30 p.m.-7:00 p.m., in Sierra Tower 503. Hope you'll show up to help us iron out the details for our upcoming debate and for our upcoming workshop on graduate school.

Program for Pacific Division APA

2005-03-07T15:47:00.000-08:00

Here's a link to the Program for this year's meeting of the Pacific Division APA. <--- link

note: Jes did the edit on this post because it was f-ing up the whole layout.

Sorry Tim, it had to be done.

Debate

2005-03-07T12:56:00.000-08:00

Whatsup guys,

Thinking about the debate and how we're quickly running out of time to make it turn out the way I think we are all imaging/hoping it will be. So, in order to get it started, I was thinking it could be divided into two parts:

1. concerning the "meat" of the debate: topic, speakers, teams, and the dialouge between the two teams
2. focusing on location, P.A. system, advertising, weather (if we want to hold it outside) etc., estimated people in the audience.
Also, in regards to the topics, I was thinking perhaps we could look into what relevant topics are being taught this semester in philosophy and possibly choose a topic that relates to the courses and then use the professors to advertise for us during class (possibly convincing them to give extra credit, yeah i know its a stretch). Anyways, im not going to be doing any public speaking at the debate, so I think the topic ultimately should lie in the hands of those who are. Hope all is well, Nick

Jes in the SunDial

2005-03-07T09:19:00.000-08:00

Jes wrote an ARTICLE (<--- Link) for the SunDial.

I encourage you all to do the same.

Love,

Me.

The two horns of the argument from marginal cases

2005-03-05T13:36:00.000-08:00

The argument form marginal cases, from Singer:

In order to conclude that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status (and therefore that no animals deserve a full and equal moral status), there must be some property P that all and only human beings have that can ground such a claim.

Any P that only human beings have is a property that (some) human beings lack (e.g., the marginal cases).

Any P that all human beings have is a property that (most) animals have as well.

Therefore, there is no way to defend the claim that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status.

The arguments promoting animal rights are contingent on how we (humans) treat other humans. That is, most of the arguments from the animal rights movement asks people to treat animals in a certain way because we treat humans in a certain way. This is the first horn.

The argument is contingent. It relies on the way we treat humans to promote treatment of animals. But what if use the second horn: the argument was reworked in such a way that we used the way we treat animals now to promote a change in the way we treat marginal humans. If we deny that animals have rights, and state some property that all rational adult humans share that some marginal humans do not, what is the problem with then denying marginal humans right as well.

The view is consistent in so far as no being is extended rights despite the fact that a being of equal moral status is not extended those rights.

However, I can see a problem with those beings who have a potential to share the moral properties of those who are allowed moral rights. Namely, babies and the temporally mentally handicapped (people in comas, I suppose). It is clear that at most babies and some people in comas will eventually share those properties which allow them to share equal moral standing with those who are allowed to hold rights.

But citing a potential to have rights seems iffy. Frey’s problem (Interests and Rights) with potentiality is that a potential to have rights denies the status of the being now. Which, I interpret as being a problem because the discussion is over which rights, if any, a being has now. Aside from the fact that babies and coma patients do not share properties which would extend them rights, not all babies and coma patients will even eventually share those properties which we cite as justification for extending rights. To lump all babies and coma patients into the class of rights holders because they might share morally relevant properties is to treat them a certain way because they are of a like kind.

Alistair Norcross (I think the paper name is Three Approaches to the Ethical Treatment of Animals) points out the problem with this sort of assignment of rights, which, to summarize briefly, judges people not on merit, or relevant properties, but on babyhood or comahood (?), which both, in and of themselves, seem rather irrelevant. The second problem of citing potential to have rights seems also to fall easily into a slippery slope, in which we could grant a fetus rights (because presumably, one day they will be adults). I would suggest the slope could be taken as far back as sperm and egg, but I think anyone arguing that a sperm and egg should have rights because they have a potential to share morally relevant properties is being slightly dishonest. Perhaps some would want to grant the fetus even at a few days moral rights, but that is a different debate. Moving on...

I do not think citing a potential to have morally relevant properties is sufficient for grating rights. It seems only fair to grant rights based on morally relevant properties, which ever those properties may be.

But there seem to be some big problems with denying marginal humans rights, at least, intuitively. We wouldn’t want to say that we can treat babies and the retarded any way we like. But there would be nothing stopping us, if we use animals as our starting point. That is, we treat animals however we like. They are bread for food, slaughtered in horrible conditions. We can own them and put them outside when they are bad. We can use their skins for belts and purses and jackets.

Of course, many of us wouldn’t use babies and the retarded this way, but there would be no moral obligation (or legal obligation) not to do so. While this wouldn’t be problematic in the case of the severely retarded in terms of their futures, imagine if we could do things like brand babies and people in comas. What about when these people do share those properties which allow them to be holders of rights. Should we tell them that the treatment they received when they were not holders of rights was justified because they lacked the relevant properties they now possess. It seems the freedom we enjoy would somehow be undermined if in our non right bearing stage, we were treated like cattle.

Of course, if I rely on human intuition when extending marginal humans rights, it seems inconsistent to demand we abandon our intuitions when it comes to our treatment of animals. So I don’t’ want an argument rejecting the second horn of this argument based on intuition, but I can’t think of anything clever, save for this little story about the branded babies above.

I feel all mixed up. Help?

Debate Topics from Jes

2005-03-03T12:27:00.000-08:00

Ok, here are my topic choices:

1. God in the pledge.

This is my favorite. It involves religion, which makes everyone pissy. EVERYONE has an opinion about this issue. It’s easy to research and its easy from an audience perspective to ask questions. It is also philosophical in nature.

2. We could debate about the rights of animals.
I know a bit about this. However, it may be a little out of reach/ boring for most people.

3. Homosexuality and the State (AKA Gay Marriage)
This ought to piss people off. But I don’t know how philosophical it is.

Lemme Know What you Think.
I have more ideas that I know for a fact piss people off, if these look too dull to anyone.

SPS Meeting Recap

2005-03-03T08:30:00.000-08:00

Hey All!

For those of you who missed or need to recap last nights meeting:

1. We need to get flyers and information collection sheets out to those people who are going to the talk on March 9th.

2. We need to brainstorm about debate topics. Remember, pick something that is compelling enough for people to want to see, easy enough for people to understand, simple enough to ask questions about etc. We will pick a topic and teams at the next meeting.

POST THE TOPIC (or topics) YOU WANT TO DEBATE ABOUT AND WHY HERE!!!

3. When the heck is the next meeting. 2 or 3 weeks, perhaps? Lets decide so we can get the information out during the talk March 9th.

4. READING GROUP AT JES’S APARTMENT (AKA, MY PLACE). Tell your friends! Ask me for directions. We will be discussing the paper being presented March 9th. The link to her article is on the SPS web site, (linked on the side of this page)

5. Lets get some solid questions together for Tim for the grad school work shop.

6. Ryan Denham, the editor of the opinion section over at the school paper (The SunDial) is interested in starting a philosophy corner. Trust me, it is really cool to have your opinion in the paper. Guidelines: About 800 words, ground the article in current events. Tell your friends.

Also: See Jes's piece this MONDAY. I will take death threats via. email or hand delivery.

7. We also talked about getting Moorpark and some other junior colleges involved in at least the blog.

That is it, I think.
You all Rock the Casbah. Especially Professor "Title-Track Black".

-jes

SPS Meeting TONIGHT!

2005-03-02T09:02:00.000-08:00

Hey All!

Just a reminder that the next SPS Meeting is tonight. You should go because all the cool kids are doin' it.

Also, you should check out the flyer that I made because it's goddamn good.

GOOD, I SAY <--- (link)

Love,
Me.
(Jes)

Site under construction

2005-03-01T12:11:00.000-08:00

Hey all.

Dan has been working on like a million things, one of them being this blog. So, it's a work in progress. If you can think of anything MAJOR we are missing, feel free to post a comment here.

Thanks again Danny-Do!

Love,
The Best Girlfriend in the UNIVERSE.

Help on Jes's Article

2005-02-27T16:24:00.000-08:00

Ok people. I am probably going to submit this article to the school paper. Care to help clean it up? While you may not agree with the stance, what I am looking for are things like logical problems, spelling and grammer errors, and sentence structure. Any help you can give would help me out. Thanks!
-jes

When I tell people I am a vegetarian, I get a myriad of responses. Most people are curious why I decided to give up meat, some want to know how I get my protein, some want to know how that weird morning star/ boca food tastes.

When I tell people they shouldn’t eat meat either, they get down right offended. The response I get then is usually “Who cares, they’re just animals. They wouldn’t even be alive if it wasn’t for us. They are stupid, incapable of reason and they don’t know better. Besides, you can’t tell me it’s wrong to eat meat, that’s just your opinion.” I am writing this article to say; the morality of eating meat is not just my opinion.

Before I begin, I would like to say; I understand that eating meat is a huge part of American culture. Meat commercials lead you to believe, that eating meat is an American activity. In fact, the phrase “where’s the beef” seems to be the embodiment of what meat means to Americans. Where’s the beef translates to “where’s the substance” or “where is the important stuff.” A meal consisting of a juicy steak has traditionally been a sign of wealth and prosperity. Meat is an important economic force as well. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, the beef industry in 2003 was valued at 70 Billion dollars. They produced 26.3 billion pounds of meat from 35.5 million cattle during that time. Veal production alone totaled 13.8 million pounds in 2004. The beef industry is huge.

Many people feel the success of the beef industry has been gained unfairly on the backs of animals. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals report on the horrid conditions under which these animal are not only kept, but also killed. Animals are kept in small cramped conditions, where they cannot move for their entire adult lives. Animals often have body parts removed without being anesthetized. Cows are sometimes skinned while they are alive and alert. The reality of the situation is, regardless of regulations put in place to ease the torment of animals farmed for food, the guideline are often not met.

Claiming the morality of eating meat is just my opinion implies that the morality of eating meat can be determined by personal preference. However, that claim reduces the morality of meat consumption to one of a preference to red over green, or vanilla over chocolate. This claim seems as false to me as saying that gratuitous torture of babies can be wrong for you, but right for me. Killing animals for food is not a subjective matter any more than the gratuitous torture of babies is. If, as I will argue below, there is no morally relevant difference between animals and babies, the state should recognize the immorality of the practice of slaughtering animals for food, and make the practice illegal.

There are two arguments that defeat the majority of the objections from meat eaters. The most popular objection from the meat eater is one that claims it is morally permissible to eat animals because they are animals. However, this objection fails. While it is true that animals are animals, nothing in that claim says why it should be ok to consume them. This objection is similar to a sexist argument. While the sexist might want to claim that a woman should not be entitled to equal pay because she is a woman, he hasn’t said anything about her womanhood that justifies his claim. Certainly, this is why sexism is frowned upon. Simply being a woman in most cases doesn’t say anything of her ability to perform certain tasks. Similarly, if we cite species membership as grounds for allowing torture, we should explain why species membership is a relevant difference. Simply stating it is morally permissible to murder animals for food because they are animals is speciesist , in the way that it is sexist to deny a woman a job because of her gender, or as ageist as denying moral rights to a child because of his age.

The move for the meat eater is to begin citing differences between humans and animals that he finds morally relevant. Here, the meat eater runs into a problem referred to as the argument from marginal cases. The argument from marginal cases, pioneered by famous ethicist Peter Singer, states roughly this: If we want to say that only humans are entitled to equal treatment, we have to cite some property all humans have that no animals do. Any property only humans have is lacking in some humans. Properties like language, intelligence, or ability to be rational are lacking babies and the mentally handicapped. Moreover, the more properties we cite to include marginal humans, the more animals share those properties. Emotional attachments, communication, a sense of the future are properties shared by humans and (some) animals. Because of this, there is no non speciesist way to justify treating these animals in a fashion we would not treat humans.
Given the arguments outline above, if the government allows marginal humans like babies and the mentally handicapped to have rights, the government should also allow animals who share morally relevant properties to have rights as well. While there are numerous objections, including appeals to financial loss, note that citing economic loss in terms of sacrificing human rights and treatment is unacceptable. To say the country will suffer monetary loss if practices like factory farming are banned, denies the moral relevance of animals, which, as mentioned above is arbitrary and speciesist.

Updating the SPS website

2005-02-26T13:49:00.000-08:00

I've now updated--or should I say that I've now tried to update--the SPS's website, located, of course, at http://www.csun.edu/~philos33/club.html. Will someone please let me know whether the damn thing is actually updated? It should now announce the results of last meeting's elections, the next meeting of the SPS, and Professor Brie Gertler's upcoming colloquium. My love to you all!

New blog

2005-02-24T12:14:00.000-08:00

We have a blog!

Thanks, Jes!

2005-02-24T11:48:00.000-08:00

I must correct my earlier post -- either that, or Jes' seething anger will lead her never to talk to me again. Here's the corrected version: Thank you, Jes, for creating a blog for the SPS. Dan deserves no credit whatsoever and, in fact, I haven't the faintest idea who Dan is.

Thanks, Jes (and Dan)!

2005-02-24T11:21:00.000-08:00

Thanks for the blog, ya'll! Let me address, in my first post, the problems I'm experiencing with the SPS's CSUN website. I've been trying to figure out exactly why I can view the updated webpage on the computer in my office, but I can't view the updated webpage--only an older version--on my laptop at PsychoBabble. I hope the blog remedies some of these difficulties. Spread the word!

I heart Philosophy

2005-02-24T10:42:00.000-08:00

Philosophy is fun.