Module 3 Discussion

Everyone

One reply is due by Thursday (100-350 words, 5 points)

Discussion Leaders: 

Answer the prompt below. Then post two replies . 

• Your answer is due by Tuesday (150-400 words, 10 points)
• Two replies are due by Thursday (100-350 words, 5 points each). 

To see which discussions you are leading (and to sign up), go to Collaborations and complete the google document there. 

Discussion Board Grading Criteria

Initial posts and replies earning most or full points will do all or most of the following:

1. Timing
1. Be on time or early so others can reply and engage in conversation.
2. Content
1. Add something new to the conversation
2. Be meaningful and substantial (quality matters, not quantity)*
3. Give complete answers to the Discussion Prompt (for initial posts)
4. State facts that are true. Present accurate description of others’ views
3. Logic & Reasoning-  Includes one of the types of comments listed AND says what kind of comment it is:
   • Clarification question
   • Clarification of someone else's argument or terms (such as an example or story)
   • Reasons to support a claim
   • Objection
   • Response OR
   • Application
4. Tone & Style
1. Use respectful and kind language
2. Clearly explain which part of a post you are replying to (for replies)
3. Acknowledge other people’s ideas
4. Cite sources when you can. (Ideas you get from the reading should mention the reading. Include page numbers if you can, but due to time constraints this isn’t necessary. Ideas you get from an online websearch should mention which pages you visited. Ideas you get from fellow students should mention those students.)

*Ideas on how to make your post meaningful:

• Share your own personal or professional experience to add insight to the conversation
• Describe how the lectures have changed your mind in important ways
• Make connections between several different posts and build on the conversation
• Incorporate a moral framework 
• Incorporate the reading
• Object to claims made in other posts, or respond to objections
• Mention the details of the examples under discussion and explain how these details are relevant
• Connect with material from previous Modules, or other classes you have taken

For more details and grading criteria, see Discussion Board Guidelines for Phil 122 

Prompts

Discussion leaders, pick one prompt from below. Answer all the questions there and be sure to cite all sources. At the beginning of your post, state very clearly which prompt you are answering.

Prompt 1 - Utilitarianism

"No Pain, no gain!” as Jane Fonda would say. We all know that sacrifices, challenges, and, yes, pain, are required for us to reach our goals and our full potential. John Stuart Mill and Peter Singer know that, too. Mill, especially, pointed out that we should aim for long-term wellbeing, not short-term pleasures. So, you might wonder what they mean, as Utilitarians, when they say, “pain is morally bad.” You might also wonder what they mean by “happiness.” Let’s use this discussion to explore some of these nuances of Utilitarianism.

For this prompt, first give an example of an instance where pain was good. It could be a story from your own life, a hypothetical thought experiment that you make up, or any other kind of example. Second, answer this question: was it the pain itself that was good, or the consequences of the pain? Explain your answer. Third, give an example of an instance where the pain was not good. What is the difference between your two examples? What can these examples and your analysis tell us about Utilitarianism? Specifically, what can it tell us about the claim that we should “maximize happiness” and “minimize suffering?”   (Be sure to cite all sources.)

Prompt 2 Endangered Species

One major theme of environmentalism in the public eye is saving endangered species. In this prompt, we will explore different views about why it is important to protect endangered species and whether it is important at all. First, explain what reasons Aldo Leopold, a holist, would give for saving endangered species. Second, explain what reasons Tom Reagan, an individualist, would give for saving endangered species. Third, what are some differences and some similarities between these reasons? Fourth, which reasons do you find most compelling? Why? Cite all sources. Are there any additional reasons you would consider? (In the discussion we can explore objections to these reasons, though you are welcome to mention objections in your post if you have space. For example, are there reasons you think we should not invest in saving endangered species?).

Prompt 3 Criteria for moral considerability

According to Peter Singer, what features determine whether someone is a moral patient? According to Tom Regan, what features determines whether someone is a moral patient? What view do you find more persuasive, and why? Do you agree with Singer or with Regan? Why or why not? What do you think makes someone a moral patient and why? Give some examples of moral patients, in your view. (In your answer, be sure to define “moral patient” and give examples. Cite all sources.)