IMHOTEP Bioethics - Morehouse College

Some sample exam questions

2009-06-09T09:17:00.001-07:00

1. What are the basics of utilitarian ethics and Kantian ethics? How do utilitarians make moral decisions? How do Kantians make moral decisions?

2. What arguments are given against certain kinds of experiments on humans? What arguments are given against certain kinds of experiments on animals? How are these arguments similar and different?

3. What is the argument that Peter Singer presents in his “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”? What are some of Gregory Pence's criticisms of that argument?

4. What are some of the health disparities between the races that Annette Dula summarizes? What does she argue ought to be the response to these disparities?

5. In general, how should one address moral issues? What methods of thinking are useful?

Day 4

2009-06-09T07:30:00.001-07:00

Day 4

2009-06-08T09:04:00.000-07:00

Today people seemed to vote that they'd like to discuss abortion/stem cell research/cloning (which can all be related in various ways) and/or euthanasia/physician assisted suicide.

Here is a reading on abortion:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/abortion.htm

James Rachels, "Active and Passive Euthanasia," JAMA
http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/Rachels_Euthanasia.pdf

Day 3

2009-06-08T07:25:00.001-07:00

For Monday

2009-06-05T07:54:00.000-07:00

Monday, June 8, 2009

11:00 a.m.-11:50 a.m.

Nabrit-Mapp-McBayLecture Room II

Poverty and Global Public Health: Charity or Justice inResource Allocation?

READINGS:

1. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer, The NY Times.http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/19990905.htm

2. Gregory Pence, Ch. 4. “UTILITARIANS VS. KANTIANS ON STOPPING AIDS,” from The Elements of Bioethics (McGraw Hill, 2006)http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/pence.pdf

3. “Racism and Health Care: A Medical Ethics Issue,” Annette Dula, from A Companion to African-American Philosophy (Blackwell, 2003).http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/dula.pdf

4. Introduction to sections on “Resource Allocation” in Singer and Kuhse(eds.) Bioethics: An Anthology (Blackwell, 2007)http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/resource-intro.pdf

WRITING ASSIGNMENT 3 (due at the beginning of class):

A number of philosophers, health-care professionals and activists have argued that we are morally obligated to focus greater attention on the needs of people living in poverty and absolute poverty, both domestically and abroad. What are their arguments? What challenges do these positions face? What, if anything, are we obligated to do to address the needs of these differing populations? Why?

General Intro to Ethics materials

2009-05-28T08:50:00.000-07:00

Here are some of the materials I use in my Intro to Ethics course:
http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/teaching
Many moral issues are related and so insights gained thinking critically about one topic can help give insights into other topics, esp. in terms of the methods used in thinking about them.

For our next meeting

2009-05-28T07:11:00.000-07:00

For our next meeting, please watch these videos, as well as the readings below:

http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/2009/04/040509_4.html
Peter Singer
This Princeton University professor became internationally recognized in 1975 when he published his book Animal Liberation. In his new book, The Life You Can Save, Singer again steps out of the academic world and stirs international debate by asking: why can't we save the millions who die of poverty-related illnesses every year?

Pledge to save the lives of people living in extreme poverty at http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com/

Peter Singer's home page
http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/

Day 2: Animal and Human Experimentation

2009-05-28T07:02:00.001-07:00

Here's the Powerpoint from today:
http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dfrz2qdt_15f9jbgqft&invite=1587540991

Here are those two organizations mentioned:
Americans for Medical Progress: http://curedisease.com/
PCRM: http://pcrm.org/resch/

The paper below by me might be of interest: "Rational Engagement, Emotional Response and the Prospects for Progress in Animal Use 'Debates'" (in WORD) for Jeremy Garrett, ed., Animal Research in Theory and Practice (MIT Basic Bioethics Series. 2009). [Final version , shortened a bit]. Here's a draft of an APPENDIX that addresses more arguments.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

8:00 a.m.-8:50 a.m.,

Nabrit-Mapp-McBay Lecture Room II

Human & Animal Experimentation

READINGS:

1. Rollin, Ch. 4., “Ethics and Research on Human Beings,” in Science and Ethics.

2. Tom Regan, “Empty Cages” (widely reprinted): http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/regan-emptycages.htm

3. Bernard Rollin, Ch. 5, “Animal Research,” in Science and Ethics.

4. “The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research,” Carl Cohen, The New England Journal of Medicine, 1986, 315: 865-870. http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/cohen.pdf

WRITING ASSIGNMENT 2 (due at the beginning of class):

First, summarize the arguably morally worse experiments done on human beings. Give what you think is the best explanation for why these experiments were morally wrong; give reasons why your explanation is best. Second, summarize the arguably morally worse experiments done on animals. Give what you think is the best explanation for why these experiments were (or are) morally wrong; give reasons why your explanation is best. Third, explain how your explanations for the wrongness of certain kinds of human experiments relate to your explanation of the morality of certain kinds of animal experiments: does one have implications for the other and vice-versa? Explain the relations. 3 pages.

Day 1: Intro to Ethics

2009-05-27T07:08:00.000-07:00

Here is the Powerpoint from Day 1:
http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/imhotep1.ppt

Our discussion of the three little sample arguments today is found in this paper:
"Rational Engagement, Emotional Response and the Prospects for Progress in Animal Use 'Debates'" (in WORD) for Jeremy Garrett, ed., Animal Research in Theory and Practice (MIT Basic Bioethics Series. 2009). [Final version , shortened a bit]. Here's a draft of an APPENDIX that addresses more arguments.

The moral theory building exercise is discussed here, as are other intro to ethics matters:
http://ethicsandanimals.googlepages.com/lectures.htm#_Lecture_1:_Introduction

Day-Date

Topic(s)

Required Readings & Writing Assignment

Wednesday, May 27, 2009,

8:00 a.m.-8:50 a.m.,

Nabrit-Mapp-McBay Lecture Room II

Introduction to Ethics; Introduction to Logic;

Values in Science

READINGS:

1. Bernard Rollin, Preface, Ch. 1, “The Waxing and Waning of Faith in Science,” Ch. 2, “Scientific Ideology and ‘Value Free’ Science,” in Science and Ethics (Cambridge UP 2006).

2. James Rachels, “Some Basic Points About Arguments” from The Right Thing to Do (McGraw Hill): http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-on-arguments.pdf

3. Rachels, “A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy,” from The Right Thing to Do (McGraw Hill): http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-intro-to-ethics.pdf

4. Tom Regan, “The Case for Animal Rights,” (widely reprinted) (provides an overview of ethical theory and a defense of theory of moral rights for humans and animals who are “subjects of a life”): http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/regancase_for_animal_rights.pdf

5. Ch. 3, “What is Ethics?” in Science and Ethics (Cambridge UP 2006).

WRITING ASSIGNMENT 1 (due at the beginning of class):

Rachels, Regan and Rollin survey some influential moral theories. Which theory or theories are best – in terms of explaining the basic difference between right and wrong actions? Why? Explain the theory (or theories) and why it (or they) is (or are) best. Explain why other theories are inferior. Defend your view with reasons. 3 pages.

Syllabus

2009-05-27T07:06:00.000-07:00

Project IMHOTEP

Summer 2009

BIOETHICS / VALUES IN SCIENCE

Syllabus

Available at http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/Imhotep.htm

Or, with graphics, at http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/Imhotep.pdf

COURSE INFORMATION

INSTRUCTOR,

CONTACT INFO.,

OFFICE HOURS

Day-Date	Contact Hours	Time	Location
Wednesday, May 27, 2009	1	8:00 a.m.-8:50 a.m.	Nabrit-Mapp-McBay Lecture Room II
Thursday, May 28, 2009	1	8:00 a.m.-8:50 a.m.	Nabrit-Mapp-McBay Lecture Room II
Monday, June 8, 2009	1	11:00 a.m.-11:50 a.m.	Nabrit-Mapp-McBay Lecture Room II
Tuesday,June 9, 2009	1	11:00 a.m.-11:50 a.m.	Nabrit-Mapp-McBay Lecture Room II

Nathan Nobis, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor, Philosophy, Morehouse College

Adjunct Assistant Professor, Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Morehouse School of Medicine

NathanNobis.com

nathan.nobis@gmail.com

TELEPHONE:

404-825-1740 cell

Office Hours:

TBA

Course Description:

“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience,

but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”
- Martin Luther King Jr., Morehouse College, ‘48

This mini-course introduces students to the methods and results of philosophical bioethics. Our topics will include an overview of logical argument analysis and moral theories (hypotheses or explanations for what makes right actions right and what makes wrong actions wrong); human and animal experimentation; global bioethics, poverty and resource allocation; and a final topic (or topics) of students’ choice, e.g., abortion, stem cell research, cloning, euthanasia or some other issues(s). We will focus on developing students’ logical skills in identifying and evaluating moral arguments in bioethics. This involves finding clear and precise conclusions on moral issues, clear and precise reasons or premises given in their favor and assessing whether these premises provide adequate support or evidence for these conclusions. This skills-based approach will help provide students with the intellectual and moral tools needed to begin more effectively addressing further bioethical issues and for further learning and research on the issues discussed in class.

Course Objectives:

Upon successful completion of this course, students will:

· Understand basic concepts of logic and moral argument analysis (premise, conclusion, logically valid arguments, sound arguments; clarity, precision).

· Understand basic moral theories (hypotheses or explanations for what makes right actions right and what makes wrong actions wrong), how one might develop a moral theory (e.g., by inference to the best explanation from clear, confident cases) and how one might critique a moral theory or moral principle, i.e., argue that it is false (e.g., by the method of counterexample).

· Understand the most important and most-discussed positions or conclusions on the bioethical issues discussed in the readings and in discussion, the arguments given in favor of these conclusions, the critical responses to these arguments, and be able to evaluate these arguments and provide reasons in favor of one’s views and reasoned responses to those who disagree.

Required Text:

Bernard Rollin, Science and Ethics (Cambridge University Press, 2006)

http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521674188

§ AVAILABLE USED at Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Science-Ethics-Bernard-E-Rollin/dp/0521674182

§ AVAILABLE USED at Abebooks.com: http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=rollin&sts=t&tn=science+and+ethics&x=33&y=16

· Other required readings available in a packet, online for download and printing and/or handed out in class.

Course Schedule:

Day-Date

Topic(s)

Required Readings & Writing Assignment

Wednesday, May 27, 2009,

8:00 a.m.-8:50 a.m.,

Nabrit-Mapp-McBay Lecture Room II

Introduction to Ethics; Introduction to Logic;

Values in Science

READINGS:

1. Bernard Rollin, Preface, Ch. 1, “The Waxing and Waning of Faith in Science,” Ch. 2, “Scientific Ideology and ‘Value Free’ Science,” in Science and Ethics (Cambridge UP 2006).

2. James Rachels, “Some Basic Points About Arguments” from The Right Thing to Do (McGraw Hill): http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-on-arguments.pdf

3. Rachels, “A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy,” from The Right Thing to Do (McGraw Hill): http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-intro-to-ethics.pdf

5. Ch. 3, “What is Ethics?” in Science and Ethics (Cambridge UP 2006).

WRITING ASSIGNMENT 1 (due at the beginning of class):

Thursday, May 28, 2009

8:00 a.m.-8:50 a.m.,

Nabrit-Mapp-McBay Lecture Room II

Human & Animal Experimentation

READINGS:

1. Rollin, Ch. 4., “Ethics and Research on Human Beings,” in Science and Ethics.

2. Tom Regan, “Empty Cages” (widely reprinted): http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/regan-emptycages.htm

3. Bernard Rollin, Ch. 5, “Animal Research,” in Science and Ethics.

4. “The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research,” Carl Cohen, The New England Journal of Medicine, 1986, 315: 865-870. http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/cohen.pdf

WRITING ASSIGNMENT 2 (due at the beginning of class):

Monday, June 8, 2009

11:00 a.m.-11:50 a.m.

Nabrit-Mapp-McBay Lecture Room II

Poverty and Global Public Health: Charity or Justice in Resource Allocation?

READINGS:

1. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer, The NY Times. http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/19990905.htm

2. Gregory Pence, Ch. 4. “UTILITARIANS VS. KANTIANS ON STOPPING AIDS,” from The Elements of Bioethics (McGraw Hill, 2006) http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/pence.pdf

3. “Racism and Health Care: A Medical Ethics Issue,” Annette Dula, from A Companion to African-American Philosophy (Blackwell, 2003). http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/dula.pdf

4. Introduction to sections on “Resource Allocation” in Singer and Kuhse (eds.) Bioethics: An Anthology (Blackwell, 2007) http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/resource-intro.pdf

WRITING ASSIGNMENT 3 (due at the beginning of class):

Monday,

June 9, 2009

11:00 a.m.-11:50 a.m.

Nabrit-Mapp-McBay Lecture Room II

Final topic(s) of students’ choice:

· Abortion?

· Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide?

· Cloning?

· Genetic Engineering?

· Something else?

See the for Further Reading links for suggestions for topics and readings.

READINGS:

1. Rollin, Ch. 10., “Ethics and Science,” in Science and Ethics.

Elements of Bioethics, Gregory Pence (McGraw-Hill 2006).

http://www.mhprofessional.com/product.php?search_crawl=true&isbn=0073132772

Public Health Ethics (PHE) is a peer-reviewed international journal with a focus on the systematic analysis of the moral problems that arise in public health and preventive medicine. PHE combines theoretical and practical work from many different fields, notably philosophy, law, and politics, but also epidemiology and the medical sciences.

http://phe.oxfordjournals.org/