Syllabus Showcase: Introduction to Ethics Online, Matt Deaton

Disclaimer: Dr. Deaton is a series editor at the Blog of the APA. The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of the American Philosophical Association or the Blog of the APA.

Immersed in a 3-D virtual learning simulation, young Spock is pressed to define terms from science, math, engineering. Then one from philosophical ethics: “An action is supererogatory when it is morally praiseworthy but not morally required.”

In the next scene Spock pummels bullies for insulting his mom, and later exacts revenge on time-traveling Romulans for destroying his home planet. But despite his violent streak, Spock would have made a fine ethicist. Half Vulcan, his reasoning skill is impeccable. Half human, he’s attuned to his moral intuitions. Confident, yet humble, and brave enough to change his mind when given good reason – these are the traits of good philosophers.

Citing slightly nerdy pop culture icons is just one strategy I use in my online Phil 2306: Introduction to Ethics at the University of Texas at Tyler. Another is taking the time to explain what philosophy is, how ethics fits in, and how it’s done.

Philosophy is the reason-based attempt to answer life’s big, non-empirical questions. So think of yourself as a scientist lacking the luxury of testable data, and with one primary tool – your thinker.

There’s no substitute for engaging the ideas directly. So read. Underline sparingly. Summarize in your own words. If it feels like everything’s going over your head, that’s normal. Your subconscious is picking up more than you know.

Now, here’s what arguments are. Here’s how to analyze them. Here’s how to build your own. And here are some common mistakes.

Enough prep. Time for Ethics in a Nutshell: The Philosopher’s Approach to Morality in 100 Pages.

No, ethics isn’t about following the law. We actually get to decide what the law should be, which is far more fun.

No, philosophical ethics isn’t necessarily hostile to religious moral reasoning. The two can actually be quite complementary. But feel free to mentally segregate them if you prefer.

Now, here are some theories: Utilitarianism, Kantianism, Care Ethics, Virtue Ethics. Here are their supporting arguments. Here’s how to apply them.

Sometimes they give conflicting recommendations. So here’s a way to decide which course of action is “all-things-considered” morally best.

Here’s the indispensable role of our moral intuitions. Here’s why we should treat like cases alike. Here’s how to analyze and build moral arguments by analogy.

Ready for a deeper dive into Utilitarianism and Kantianism, a taste of political philosophy, some policy questions? Me too! Enter Harvard Professor Michael Sandel’s Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?

How do the trolley scenarios contrast with the goatherd dilemma from Lone Survivor? Do you agree that the Original Position Agents behind Rawls’s Veil of Ignorance would reject feudalism, Libertarianism and Strict Material Egalitarianism? Ooh, and the discussion questions:

• Is paid surrogate mothering morally problematic?
• Should the decedents of German Nazis continue to pay restitution to Israel?
• Should the decedents of slave owners do the same for African Americans?
• What role should religious moral reasoning play in the public forum?
• Did Kant break his own rule when he implied it was OK to tell a misleading truth?

Now let’s close out the semester with a deep-dive into a real issue. Possibly the toughest issue. Definitely the most divisive. But you’re ready.

First, let’s set aside the loaded terms. “Baby” is too warm. “Fetus” too cold. How about Unborn Developing Human? UDH is a little awkward, I know. But give it a chance.

Now, score the following scenarios to the extent the details would render an abortion more or less just or unjust, more or less morally permissible or problematic. No, you can’t rate them all 5/5 if you lean pro-choice. No, you can’t rate them all 0/5 if you lean pro-life. Read the scenarios carefully. Look for the differences that make a moral difference.

There’s a case where the ectopic (tubal) pregnancy will kill the mother if it continues, and the UDH is in any case doomed. There’s another where the mother’s considering aborting to avoid postponing a vacation. What did you think of the one where she has invasive cancer of the cervix, or the one where the couple didn’t use contraceptives because they thought she was infertile, or the one where the mother was raped and is a known prostitute?

The old “pro-this vs. pro-that” paradigm is proving a grossly oversimplified myth, no? I agree. Let’s see if the ethicists can help.

Liking Jarvis-Thomson’s arguments by analogy? Me too. Surprised Noonan doesn’t rely on religious premises? Me too.

Ok, these are coming up a lot in the reflection responses (always do), so three clarifications:

1. Yes, the UDH is alive, if all we mean is “responds to stimuli, grows, and can (eventually) reproduce).”
2. Yes, it’s human. What else – equine? Canine? However, human doesn’t = person. In fact, let’s pause and talk about persons…
3. Does it have a soul? Maybe. But let’s set religious questions aside. Public reasons, accessible to anyone independent of a person’s faith commitments or lack thereof, are not only more persuasive, but more respectful. Professor Sandel disagrees, but assume for the sake of this class that Professor Deaton might be right on this one.

Now, two feminist thinkers: Little, who’s generally pro-choice, and Callahan, who’s generally pro-life. And let’s add something on fathers from Harris.

With a few philosophy articles under your belt, which factors are seeming to make a moral difference? A draft list:

1. The Nature of the Conception
   • Was the sex consensual or forced? To what degree?
   • Was conception intentional or accidental? If accidental, were precautions taken?
2. The Mother’s Interests
   • Her health and life
   • Her education, career and other life plans
   • Her very identity
3. The UDH’s Status
   • Never a full person, but always a potential person, possessing some (possibly substantial) value from conception
   • Increasing in value over the course of gestation, as features of personhood emerge and survival becomes more certain
4. The Child’s Quality of Life
   • Biological: Likely healthy or plagued by debilitating, painful disease? How likely?
   • Circumstantial: Born into a loving family in a flourishing, supportive society, or into an abusive family in a famine-stricken, failed state?
5. Impact on the Father
   • Respect for his reasonable assumptions, his investment of emotions and time, his plans and legitimate interests
6. Impact on Third Parties
   • On siblings, grandparents, other family members who’ve earned consideration
   • On society at large as benefactors of future benefits or victims of future harm

That’s a lot to balance! But what if it didn’t have to be? What if there were a way to facilitate choice and life? What if we could essentially solve abortion?

ARTIFICIAL WOMBS. Singer and Wells like them. Sander-Staudt explains that some feminists do, other feminists do not.

Choice and life at the same time sounds like the ultimate win-win. But what about mothers (and fathers) who don’t simply want the pregnancy to end, but for the UDH’s life to end?

Well, Jarvis-Thomson herself anticipated this, and argued that it’s one thing to detach from the violinist, yet quite another to “turn around and slit his throat.” But this is actually an open question – something ethicists are discussing right now.

So here’s an argument from Rasanen that parents jointly have a “right to the death of the UDH” because they own their gametes, and so own any resulting UDH. But here’s a reply from Mathison and Davis that a) it’s inappropriate to think of a potential person as property, and b) even if it were appropriate, owning something doesn’t automatically entail permission to destroy it.

Here’s an interesting take from Overall – that while it wouldn’t be OK to terminate a viable UDH once transplanted into an artificial womb, it would be OK to terminate a viable UDH when it’s still inside the mother.

Which view makes the most sense? That’s for you to decide!

Now reflect, sleep, reflect some more, and argue your case in a capstone course project paper. Begin by summarizing the assigned articles – show that you understand and can build on their foundation. But then take this in whatever direction you think best. Then craft a reasonable objection, author a convincing reply, and you’re done.

Welcome to the fraternity of junior ethicists. Share the philosopher’s approach to morality and help save democracy. And enjoy break – you’ve earned it.

That’s how I introduce philosophical ethics. Syllabus below, with readings hyperlinked to brief YouTube lectures – see friendly advice on how to make your own philosophy lecture vids here and here (it’s worth the trouble and you can totally do it). General advice on teaching philosophy online here.

Improvement suggestions welcome. Find me online at mattdeaton.com. And if I can help you with your ethics class, you’d like a desk copy of one of my books, or you’d like to share your own syllabus in one of these showcase articles, reach out anytime: matt (at) mattdeaton.com. Cheers, Matt

The Syllabus Showcase of the APA Blog is designed to share insights into the syllabi of philosophy educators. We include syllabi that showcase a wide variety of philosophy classes.  We would love for you to be a part of this project. Please email sabrinamisirhiralall@apaonline.org to nominate yourself or a colleague.

Matt Deaton

Matt Deaton is an adjunct professor who's taught exclusively online since 2013. An Air Force veteran and AYSO soccer coach, he's authored five books including Ethics in a Nutshell: The Philosopher’s Approach to Morality in 100 Pages and The Best Public Speaking Book. Editor of the APA Blog's Syllabus Showcase series, find him blogging elsewhere online at EthicsBowl.org.