Response to Collin Henry's Response

I must agree with both Collin and Nick, fairly representing the opposing side of an argument is a vital part of writing an argumentative paper.  It is better for both sides, for it allows the writer to defend his views all the more,and gives proper credit where it is due to the other side.  It was difficult to find anything in the selected pages of They Say I Say, but I thought you did a nice job finding a possible improvement.  I agree with your criticism, too.  The idea that representing an opposing view accurately in an argumentative paper really does help strengthen your paper very much.  Your mention of this made it seem like an obvious point that would have naturally been expanded on in the book, but I hadn't thought of it until your mention.
In my experience, providing a clear and accurate representation of your opposition is a tough task, especially when it's an argument which you feel passionately about.  You do an excellent job of underlining why it is so important and beneficial to do it, though.  It is a point that is often looked over and not emphasized as much as it should be by instructors who are teaching beginning writers how to correctly and effectively write an argumentative piece.

The Importance of Luxury Needs

In the book The Ethical Life, Shafer-Landau introduces an essay by Peter Singer (229-236) on a solution to eradicate world poverty. Singer’s main point is that people should stop spending on non-essential needs. Instead, anyone who believes that helping a starving child is morally right is morally obliged to donating his extraneous income to foreign aid organizations. Singer’s argument can be summarized in argument form as follow:

The Proof: Morality Dominating Society

Morality plays a role in all aspects of our society, especially science. Chapter 21 in Shafer-Landeau’s “The Ethical Life” is an excerpt from the book Moral Scepticism and Moral Knowledge, by Renford Bambrough. Bambrough begins with the example of a child given anesthetics before a painful surgery and explains how this scenario places a moral obligation to make sure that the child is not in unnecessary pain. Next, by establishing the existence of moral knowledge, Bambrough tries to refute popular arguments made against the reality of moral knowledge (Bambrough 217). He places focus on five objections.

Respecting the Naysayer

Is it really that important to represent the other side of an argument fairly when writing your own argumentative paper? Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein happen to think so, and make a sound argument for it in their book They Say I Say: The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing. In their chapter on introducing a naysayer to your argumentative paper, Graff and Birkenstein assert that even though it is appealing to make little space and support for opposing views to your argument, it is your duty as the author of the paper to represent them fairly (Graff and Birkenstein 2010, 86).

What If the Anesthesia Put Others at Risk?

In “Proof”, written by Renford Bambrough, a scenario is proposed in support of the existence of moral knowledge. Bambrough poses that there is a child in need of surgery that would be painful for him in the absence of anesthesia, and as Bambrough sees it, there is not doubt that this child should receive it (as cited in Shafer-Landau, 2012, p.218). As someone with beliefs more aligned with moral skepticism, I wondered whether or not this really was objective proof of moral truths. As risky as it may be, I thought that I would at least enter the conversation on this matter.

Just today I found an article about the health risks to recovery room hospital staff associated with exposure to waste anesthetic gas exhaled by recovering patients (Cook, 2013). “Beware the Hidden Dangers of Anesthesia” starts off by stating that anesthesia in the operating room isn't the only area where these gases can cause harm, and that even nurses in the recovery room may be at risk of exposure to these gases which have potentially harmful health effects (Cook, 2013). These effects include mild problems such as nausea and headaches, but also more serious complications like sterility, miscarriages, cancer, and liver disease (Cook, 2013). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health claims that this problem is even more pronounced in facilities that lack proper ventilation, and the organization also suggests that systems be developed that monitor the concentration level of anesthetic gases in breathing zones (Cook, 2013).

Do Movies Play a Role in Motivating us to Act Morally?

This past weekend the Oscars took place and while awards were being given out for best picture, best actor/actress, and a number of other things; one of the undertones of the awards was the underlying message in some of the movies. Movies such as Lincoln, Argo, Zero Dark Thirty, and Django Unchained, were all up for the award of best picture along with other candidates, but what all of these films had in common were that they each focused on key principles of morality that we have been discussing as of late in my Ethical Theory class. The movie Lincoln had the moral undertone of oppression and how the enslavement of others is objectively wrong; the same goes for the movie Django Unchained. Zero Dark Thirty focused on the moral undertone of torture and despite its benefits is it still morally right to do. The movie Argo focused on the moral undertone of dogmatic approaches by two powerful institutions during the 1980’s which was the American movie industry and the Central Intelligence Agency.

Bambrough's Evaluation of Typical Argument Against Moral Knowledge

Shafer-Landau's compilation of ethical readings, The Ethical Life, contains an excerpt from Renford Bambrough's 1979 book Moral Skepticism and Moral Knowledge in which Bambrough presents and tries to debunk five typical arguments moral skeptics use to deny the possibility of moral knowledge. In addition he also offers his own argument for the existence of moral knowledge.

Cultural Relativism is Objective Truth

In the analog The Ethical Life, by Russ Shafer Landau, a piece by Renford Bambrough is presented in support of objective truth. Bambrough brings up common arguments against universal objective truths and tries to disprove them. One point is the argument is “our moral opinions are conditioned by our environment and upbringing” (Bambrough 1979). The argument he brings up is of cultural relativism and whether or not relativists have a strong arguments. He brings up two arguments that moral skeptics use when trying to prove cultural relativism and disproves them. The first argument is one from the ancient historian Herodotus, when he wrote about two tribes in the Persian Empire. Two tribes differed in the way that they dispose of bodies. One tribe burned bodies and the other buried their dead. Bambrough says that moral progress in this field of burying dead versus burning the dead does not require that there be one universal truth for the issue (Bambrough 1979). I disagree with his conclusion. Maybe some people do not care about what happens to them when they die, but other cultures think it is very important. Ancient Greeks had an entire ritual for burying their dead. In the war with Troy, the two sides stopped fighting for a week so the Trojans could bury Prince Hector properly within the Trojan traditions. In the modern day, most people have a funeral that is important in the grieving process for family members of the dead. Most cultures have a funeral process for their dead, but they differ among cultures making the objective morality of dealing with dead bodies depend on the cultural truth. The next argument Bambrough makes is one about marriage. He says that in some societies, where women outnumber men, it is ok to marry more than one woman. Bambrough goes on to say that a moralist who says that monogamy is right no matter the circumstances, which is wrong. He compares it to someone in the Northern Hemisphere who would say that it is cold everywhere during Christmas, or a person from the Southern Hemisphere saying that it is warm everywhere during Christmas (Bambrough 1979). This means that some people do not take into account the circumstances of other people,and think that they are right. These people do not acknowledge that other cultures have different circumstances that change their truth. I disagree with Bambrough and think it is possible for cultures to acknowledge other cultures. Going back to his example with the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, I do not see how someone could say that during Christmas the whole world is cold or warm. Christmas is not supposed to be associated with weather but rather a day which is one of darkest of the year, sunlight wise. Jesus is supposed to resemble the light during this dark day. It is an objective truth that the Southern Hemisphere is warmer, on average, than the Northern Hemisphere during the month of December, and this cannot be disputed. I believe that most people know this and are capable of acknowledging this and believing in it.

Common Sense Tells Us...

Bambrough's argument against moral skepticism is highlighted in The Ethical Life.  He argues five main points made by skeptics towards moral objectivity.  Overall, Bambrough relates that his argument is similar to that of G.E. Moore's.  Moore's argument consisted of proving the existence of an external world by pointing out he obvious.  He had two hands, these are both material objects.  Since there are at least 2 material objects; there is a materialistic, external world.

Obligation to Do What's Right?

Link to article: Apathy towards injured kid

This article reports an accident in China, where a 2-year-old girl was hit twice by two vans one after another. The little girl was left bleeding on the road side for over 15 minutes and eventually died in the hospital. During the time she lied bleeding on the road, 18 people walked by, saw her injured body, but chose to do nothing to help the kid. Millions of people around the world have decried this “lack of morals” in the Chinese society.

Similarities in Criticisms Against Moral Objectivism and Religion

The last chapter we read from Shafer-Landau's The Fundamentals of Ethics was about the division of moral skepticism that completely denies the existence of any objective moral truths called nihilism. This week's chapter is centered on the criticisms moral skeptics such as nihilists and ethical relativists use to attack moral objectivism. One group of people that Shafer-Landau mentions in both chapters that I found to be a particularly interesting example is atheists. In the chapter on nihilism he relates them to nihilists by saying that "Atheists are, in fact, error theorists about religion" (Shafer-Landau 2013, 308). In the next chapter he looks into the criticism some atheists have against moral objectivism which can be summarized into: Morality cannot be objective because God does not exist (Shafer-Landau 2013, 329). This follows the reasoning that in order for a law to be objective it needs to be authored or created by something with greater capabilities than a human being. I'm not sure if I agree with the atheist argument against moral objectivism or their general belief that God does not exist. However, I think the atheist perspective and their stance on the existence of God is a very interesting one that could help us understand and make comparisons to the perspective of moral skepticism. This is why I decided to look into the level of present day atheism in different countries as well as examine some of the main arguments that atheists make to defend their view point.

Nihilism and The World Around You

Shafer-Landau in chapter 20 of the Fundamentals of Ethics describes moral nihilism as those who “deny that there are any moral qualities (Shafer-Landau 306).” To simplify what Shafer-Landau said moral nihilism is the belief that says that nothing is right or wrong that there are no good or bad moral actions only facts. Shafer-argues this point by expressing that “Facts exists; values don’t” like the table is made of wood would be an acceptable fact, but since “values cannot be factual, and so cannot be true (Shafer-Landau 306).”

Take a moment close your eyes and think of a World without morals. To today’s standard it would be a world of chaos and something straight out of one of the many post apocalyptic movies where the value of human life is the cost of a bullet or a movement of a blade through human flesh. Every man, woman, and child exist in a world where they have to take what you can for yourself before some one else takes it for themselves World. This is what I believed was the fatal flaw “if widespread acceptance of a moral theory would yield disastrous results, then that theory is false (Shafer-Landau 310).”  As you can see from how I picture it moral nihilism would result in disastrous results and therefore has proven to be false.

 But Shafer-Landau points out a very interesting argument. For instance if celibacy is moral and everybody practiced it and refrained from having sex, then no babies would be born, therefore the worlds population would start decreasing. With a continued decrease in population and no babies to fill the void of the dead, towns would die out followed soon by cities then countries and finally the entire human population of the World. This is if I am not mistaken a disastrous result from following a moral theory that is widely accepted and hasn’t been proven to be false yet. Therefore the argument of disastrous result cannot be used to disprove of the moral theory of moral nihilism.

The next way I tried to disprove moral nihilism is the fact that people are moral in their ways of life but some are just more apparent than others. So I sat down by the Hub and watched people’s actions for a while. I saw a guy pick up a book that a girl dropped talked to her for a while wrote down her number and parted ways surely that is a sign or morals, helping someone without asking for anything in return. But then after thinking for a while this action could be interpreted as a guy trying to get something for himself, in this case the woman’s number, instead of helping someone else out.

Does Shafer-Landau Subjectively Support Moral Objectivity?

            In Chapter 21 of The Fundamentals of Ethics, author Russ Shafer-Landau describes the top ten arguments against moral objectivity. This chapter is structured similarly to the other chapters, except for the fact that an author bias is prominent for the first time. Back in Chapter 20, Shafer-Landau foreshadowed his personal ethical stance in his conclusion when he does not completely rule out the nihilism point of view, “Most of us (especially we textbook authors!) hope this isn’t so.” (Shafer-Landau 2010, 318)

In this conclusion, Shafer-Landau states that, “Our discussion of these ten arguments has not revealed a single one that confirms the existence of objective moral values.” (Shafer-Landau 2010, 337) However, in this chapter the author does a great job of disproving the arguments against objectivism. At the beginning of this section, Shafer-Landau easily discredits the more popular arguments against objectivism. Nevertheless, the arguments against objectivism escalate in complexity as the chapter progresses. In this post, I will be discussing Shafer-Landau’s successful disproval of the moral skeptic argument that moral motivation undermines moral objectivity and how this example reflects his ethical stance.

Can you reject moral objectivism based off of personal opinions?

Are people entitled to believe whatever they would like to?  Are all of their opinions equally plausible? Russ Shafer-Landau explores ethical objectivity in his book The Fundamentals of Ethics.  I believe that "Equal Rights Imply Equal Plausibility" was one of the stronger arguments from the chapter, Ten Arguments Against Moral Objectivity. The argument given in the section begins by stating that, “If everyone has an equal right to an opinion, then all opinions are equally plausible." (Shafer-Landau 2012, 323)  One can see that this is most likely the way that most people in our society were raised; constantly being reminded by your parents that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion and that everyone is right when they give their opinions.  For that reason it would make the first claim seem plausible without reading into it any further.  

Nihilism, Objectivism, Relativism...Which Way Are You Leaning?

In class today, we left off at the start of a very interesting discussion. After reading the arguments for and against each philosophical view, we were asked where we saw our own views falling into place. There didn't seem to be any one theory that had overwhelming support behind it, nor one theory in which the entire class had completely dismissed.

At the start of this class, I was more of a subjectivist. For me, morality was all relative and no one person's moral principles could be superior to another's. In this belief I was grounded-- that is-- until we studied Shafer-Landau's chapter on "Ethical Relativism". Unable to refute the arguments raised by the author to my views, I turned to outside literature, but still was unable to come up with anything that could hold up against these objections. Now, however, I feel that my personal views may lie closer to those posed within nilhilism's error theory. The fact-value distinction in which Shafer-Landau notes drew me into nihilism (306). Also, since I agree that moral claims are "truth apt" yet all false because of the nonexistence of moral truths, error theory was more appealing than expressivism.

How Far Have we Really Come: How to address the issues of race in America

"Don't let your past come back to haunt you". That saying has stuck in my head since the first time I heard it at the age of 10. I always believed that if we reflected on our past to much it would prevent us from moving on to what our future has in store for us. Yesterday, however, my view has somewhat changed when it comes to that saying. This is due to Dr. Sundiata K. Cha-Jua. I had the fortunate pleasure of attending Dr. Cha-Jua's lecture yesterday, "Resurrecting Ghosts of the Past: Building Black Studies on its Radical Intellectual Tradition". Dr. Cha-Jua's lecture focused on the problems that exist for African Americans in the American society and how black studies in the collegiate curriculum can fix this. Before I go into more details though, let me first give a brief background of Dr. Sundiata K. Cha-Jua.

A Cultural Divide

In 2006 a woman named Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani was sentenced to death. Although the death penalty is a highly contested subjected this is not what I am focusing on instead the argument here is the method of the death penalty in this case it takes place in Iran where a woman was convicted of adultery and involvement in the murder of her husband. This conviction carries the sentence of death by stoning, which is highly contested worldwide.

This is a great example of cultural relativism as seen in Shafer-Landau’s Fundamentals of Ethics because in Iranian culture this is an acceptable way to carry out the execution because of how Islamic law dictates it. But in a different cultural setting, anywhere that is not an Islamic state, would see this as inhumane and terrible way to carry out the death sentence.

Source-

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/11/22/iran.stoning.sentence/index.html

Better World and Moral Progress Synonymous?

Is it a fair observation when Russ Shafer-Landau describes, in The Fundamentals of Ethics, 2nd edition, how societal, moral progress appears to have existed in the United Sates following a reduction in racist and sexist attitudes? (295).  I like to think so.  Contrarily, ethical subjectivists and cultural relativists reject that speculation.  Ethical subjectivists and cultural relativists make up the two subdivisions of the broader term: ethical relativism (290).  Shafer-Landau explains how ethical relativists adopt the viewpoint that some moral claims are true; however, morality is a human construct and would cease to exist if humanity became extinct (291).  Furthermore, ethical subjectivists assume the idea that morality is constructed by an individual’s commitments and ideals, while cultural relativists believe morality is ultimately determined by a society’s guiding principles.  Moving on, Shafer-Landau enlightens us by providing several implications both parties face when broken down and analyzed.  One in particular, the idea of moral progress, caught my attention.  According to both ethical subjectivists and cultural relativists, all acknowledged guidelines, whether on an individual or societal level, are morally correct.  Next, Shafer-Landau introduces controversy by questioning the existence of moral progress if all assumed standards are ethically right (296).  Wouldn’t previously viewed moral progress such as the earlier example simply be a shift of ideals rather than ethical progression?  Without a definite standard, progress becomes immeasurable.

This seems like a very disheartening conclusion, in my opinion.  If we as societies and individuals are incapable of moral progress, what will the future behold? Putting aside my opinion that there exists an eternal, divine standard for ethical morality, Shafer-Landau’s arguments are sound and logically conclusive. Conversely, I do think his wording can manipulate his readers (which is a very important skill when writing a persuasive argument).  For starters, moral progress is discussed from a societal level in the previous example, in a context that suggests it is synonymous with the world becoming a better place.  If there is no standard to measure moral progress, does that necessarily mean that the world cannot become a better place? Theoretically, individuals and societies could experience moral change, without measured progress, and the world, as we know it, could become safer, more tolerant, cleaner, etc.  Although no progress has taken place, wouldn’t ethical subjectivists and cultural relativists like those improvements?  The so-called improvements may only be deemed good because ethical relativists like them, but, nevertheless, the world would become a better place even in the absence of moral progress.  My point is, although Shafer-Landau concluded for both ethical subjectivists and cultural relativists that moral progress is impossible, we cannot mistake this conclusion to portray a subliminal message disregarding the possibility of the world becoming a better place; or at least a safer, more tolerant environment.