Philosophy 101 Study Questions

Summarize the bases upon which Rachels, Wilson, and Singer challenge our views about morality. (Devote a clear, short, and distinct paragraph to each author.) Whose challenge do you find most interesting or provocative and why?

James Rachels challenges the view that moral codes are relative to culture in the sense that we are unable to make legitimate moral criticisms of the moral codes of any culture, including our own. Specifically, he examines the "cultural differences" argument, which infers from the multiplicity of moral codes the absence of any universal moral code. Besides pointing out that this argument is not valid, Rachels provides reasons for thinking that we can in fact make such criticisms. Specifically he claims that moral codes have the purpose of promoting the welfare of a culture's inhabitants. Whether or not a code is having such an effect is an empirical matter, and it is a legitimate moral criticism to claim that it is failing in this regard.

E.O. Wilson challenges the view that moral codes are transcendent. Specifically he challenges the traditional view that what gives a behavior it's moral properties has nothing at all to do with the minds of human beings, and can be determined by contemplating the nature of goodness, freedom, and rationality without examining the structure of our brains or our evolutionary origins. Wilson claims that this way of explaining morality is based on an entirely implausible view about human agency. In his view, moral relationships can be explained in terms of the conditions needed for cooperative relationships to evolve. Our current capacity for moral behavior must be explained in terms of the structure and function of the human brain, and the genetic means by which such functions and structures have evolved.

Singer challenges the view that we can trust our moral intuitions to tell us what is really right and wrong. He notes that we now know that our moral intuitions evolved under much simpler and primitive social conditions than exist today. Hence, we must be prepared to ask whether our sense of right and wrong may actually undermine the purpose of moral behavior. For example, most people feel a much stronger sense of duty to their offspring than to the offspring of others. We can understand this propensity in evolutionary terms: people who take care of their own first tend to be better represented in future populations. However, a complex democratic society like ours is predicated on the view that all human lives have equal moral value. Hence, our strong sense of duty is not a reliable indicator of what is moral, and must sometimes be ignored.

For me, Wilson's view is the most interesting and provocative. This is because Wilson is arguing against the very strong philosophical and religious tradition that claims that our moral nature is what separates us from other animals. Wilson is claiming that our moral nature can only be understood by first understanding that humans are animals, and he allows that other animals also exhibit rudimentary moral relationships.

What is usually meant by the claim that science is value free? In what sense, if any, is this true? In what sense, if any, is this false or misleading? Specifically reference the views of at least 2 of the authors we are reading on this subject.

That claim that science is value free usually means that science does not permit it's conclusions to be influenced by what our values may make us want to believe. For example, the fact that we value an active life style may cause us to believe that exercise produces lasting health benefits. However, science can not simply assume this to be the case and go about collecting data that justifies it. Until the necessary studies are done, the effect of exercise remains an open question. As Koertge explains, for anything that our values particularly incline us to believe, science must be particularly alive to disconfirming evidence.

The claim that science is value free is true as stated above, however it can be misleading if it is taken to suggest that values in no way influence the nature or direction of scientific research. A few of the authors show that scientific objectivity itself must be understood in terms of a commitment to certain values. For example, Douglas Allchin identifies epistemic values like reliability, testability and precision that form the core commitments of scientific methodology. Hugh Lacey identifies impartiality, neutrality, and autonomy as basic behavioral values essential to the evaluation of theories. Koertge emphasizes the values of universalism and communality, among others.

Lacey notes that all of these values are held within science because they tend to contribute to the fundamental goal of exercising predictive control over nature. He suggest that this goal may actually incline scientists to pursue certain kinds of research that seem to hold the promise of providing more control, and that is not always a good thing. Specifically, he argues that research into genetically engineered crops is more highly funded than research into organic farming methods because genetic engineering appeals to the desire to control nature, whereas organic farming, which may be more sustainable in the long run, is predicated on the need to adapt to nature.

In what sense does Stephen Jay Gould appear to agree with Pope John Paul II on the relation between science and religion? What do you take to be significant differences that remain between them? In what sense and on what basis does Dawkins reject the views of both Gould and the Pope?

Stephen Jay Gould and Pope John Paul II clearly agree that science and religion are not in conflict. They provide similar reasons for this. Gould claims that religion and science have entirely different, non overlapping domains of inquiry, or "magisteria." This thesis goes by the acronym NOMA. According to Gould, the domain of science is restricted to the empirical world, whereas the domain of religion is restricted to spiritual and ethical matters.. The Pope claims that God gave humans two distinct ways of knowing the world: reason and faith. Because of their origin and purpose, all apparent conflict between them is necessarily erroneous.

Although Gould believes that the domains are distinct, he notes that they are not separated by a great distance, so there are times when the borders will be crossed in ignorance. For example, he notes that if Catholicism still holds the doctrine of original sin as an actual physical event that literally caused mans current physical characteristics, then it is trespassing into the magisterium of science.

Dawkins completely rejects NOMA. He argues that standard Christianity contains numerous beliefs, like the resurrection, that are meant to be understood as literally true descriptions of an empirical reality. Moreover, he rejects Gould's view that science can shed no light on moral or spiritual questions. For Dawkins, morality is an empirical phenomenon that is just as subject to empirical inquiry as anything else.

What is the singularity? Compare Bill Joy and Max More with respect to (a) the level of concern it warrants and (b) the specific measures we should take to deal with it.

The singularity is a theoretical point in humankind'ss future whereupon accelerating levels of technological growth and scientific knowledge vastly exceed current human limits, fundamentally altering humanity in the process. Many experts agree that the singularity will soon be upon us, but despite this agreement, expert's opinions are very different on the possible methods and implications of its arrival. Most do agree that the
singularity will be strongly related to robotics and intelligent machines or perhaps extreme genetic manipulation. The use of nanotechnology is also
cited as a possible factor in the advent of the singularity.

Bill Joy and Max More are both strong proponents of the theory behind the singularity, though their opinions are different on what it will mean
for humanity. Both experts agree that it warrants a great amount of concern; human life will be changed drastically, for better or worse, and they both argue that such a big event ought to command our attention. Both Joy and More also recognize the potential dangers in researching such
powerful technologies, though this is where their arguments diverge on the matter.

Bill Joy greatly fears what the coming of the singularity will mean for humanity. He believes that humanity could be surpassed, subsumed, and ultimately replaced by their very creations, in the case of advanced intelligent robots; regarding nanotechnology and genetic manipulation, Joy believes the inherent dangers are simply too great to justify continued scientific research. Joy suspects that a simple research error could spell the end of life on earth, or at least human life. Ultimately, Joy argues for relinquishment or a halt to all scientific research relating to the three major research fields he describes: genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics.

Max More claims to be well aware of the dangers inherent in such powerful technologies as described by Joy, but where Joy thinks that humanity is not equipped to deal with the dangers, More argues that we are taking sufficient precautionary measures against any kind of world-shattering mistakes. Although the stakes are high, More says that research in the aforementioned areas has progressed too far to turn back, and that steps can only be taken (and are being taken, he says) to prevent disasters, and ease humanity into the coming change.

Read this short article from the New York Times. Summarize the issue it raises and show how two of the articles from the Sex and Reproduction readings bear on this issue.

“Wanting Babies Like Themselves, Some Parents Choose Genetic Defects” by Dr. Darshak Sanghavi illuminates a seldom seen side of fertility treatment. Most people assume that any detectable genetic defects would be undesirable and inhibit the quality of life of the person afflicted, but this article spotlights the choice parents can, and do, make to have children with genetic defects like themselves rather than children that are “defect” free. The use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (P.G.D.) enables parents to select embryos for In-Vitro Fertilization that have genetic defects the same as their own. Parents can select a child that will be deaf or have dwarfism so they will fit into the culture that fits into their own lives.

Peter Singer sheds more light on some of the qualms of this debate in his article “Shopping at the Gene Supermarket”. He makes the argument that society views health as more desirable than genetic defects, not to discriminate against the disabled or devalue them, but to enlighten the opposition to the flaws of thinking otherwise. He argues against the idea that cochlear implants are the genocidal tool to eliminate the Deaf, and points out that this medical technology helps people live better lives. In choosing an embryo that would lead to a deaf child, as the deaf couple mentioned in both articles did, they are making a choice contrary to Singer’s “preventive principle” that rejects the idea of genetic make-up being right just because it is the outcome o f the “genetic lottery” or in this case genetic choice. Although his conclusion on an individual level shows the genetic supermarket has its value in giving people better lives, he has misgivings about the negative implications in a broader society. Choosing genes for height, beauty, intelligence or other aesthetic qualities could lead to genetically different social classes. If only the rich are able to pay for genetic enhancements and the poor are left with the luck of the genetic lottery it would not take very many generations before the differences dramatically changed society. Of course, if the preceding article continues to bear weight there will always be a minority group maintaining the genetic diversity by opting for genetically defective children.

Shannon Brownlee’s article “Designer Babies” takes a more cautious perspective than Singer’s. She emphasizes the cost involved in P.G.D. and IVF treatments makes then inaccessible to many people that would otherwise utilize them, so those parents that have the means may feel entitled to all the information technology can afford them and feel justified in selecting the embryos that give them exactly the type of child they want. She likely does not feel that eugenics would become widespread as rapidly as Singer because of the exorbitant price tag. Genetically defective versus genetically superior embryos is not Brownlee’s biggest concern however, rather a symptom of a bigger ethical problem. The fertility industry in the US is financed through private funds. The research being done is without federal funds and therefore without federal regulation so no one is verifying data or experimental technology. Brownlee feels that too much fertility research is being done on the patients (and their embryos) and the patients are footing the bill, without the desired results. Other countries have more stringent policies that ensure research, reliable data, and ethical conformity to limit genetic engineering, policies that would likely disallow selecting embryos for genetic defects. She argues that such policies are desperately needed in this country before fertility experiments go too far.

Identify and summarize three distinct common misconceptions about the nature of human well-being as discussed in the work of Gladwell, Groopman, Eckman et al, Nesse or Gilbert. (Reference three of these authors).

In each of the articles I read, Gladwell’s Getting Over It, Groopman’s The Grief Industry, and Gilbert’s Affective Forecasting, all present the reader with a common misconception about the nature of human well-being.

The common misconception about human-well being displayed in the article Getting Over It, is that all humans who experience something extremely traumatic are clearly effected by it each day of their lives and that what happened to them in the past continuously haunts them forever. Although many people who haven’t experienced a traumatic experience such as death or suicide might think this of people who have, this is clearly a common misconception that is proved through this article. This is not true for all cases, some people are in fact haunted by a traumatic experience forever, but most are not. The main character in “The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit” is a prime example. He goes on to live his life and care for his family after accidentally killing his best friend in combat. To someone who didn’t experience this, you might think if this happened to you, you wouldn’t be able to continue living. For Rath, who experienced this, it does not destroy him or leave him permanently traumatized. Instead, he looks toward the future knowing there is nothing he can do about it but to try and care for what is in his life now and forget what he can never do anything about. The same goes for the example about the three psychologists who publish the article about childhood sexual abuse. They found that most victims of CSA are not forever traumatized but go on with their lives.

The second article, The Grief Industry, displays the common misconception about counseling and critical stress debriefing. The misconception here is that after someone experiences something traumatic, like people jumping from buildings after the Twin Towers were struck, should go through some kind of counseling to be able to deal with everything they encountered and get over their experience more quickly. Many businesses even have their own grief counselors to try and help their workers. Through this article and the people in it, many of them who experienced something traumatic eventually got over it and said counseling had nothing to do with it. Actually, many had been numb when the counseling took place. One man simply says it was the fact that his family relied on him and that life must go on. It wasn’t the debriefing and counseling that mad him better. After several months, the flashbacks and sense of chocking just went away. It had nothing to do with the “grief industry”.

Finally, the third article, Affective Forecasting, displays the misconception that as people we can predict how we will feel and for how long of a period of time after something happens to us. This something doesn’t have to be traumatic, it can even be happy. The idea that humans can predict they will feel great for a long period of time after something like a promotion is simply false. Although one might feel very happy after a promotion, that period of time they are happy is not as long as they predicted. That person returns to their normal state much faster than they had predicted. So even though we are the only animals that can peer into our futures and learn from our mistakes before we make them, we are not perfect and cannot fully predict how we will feel or determine for how long.

Watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle," and relate it's content and methods to two articles from the readings on Scientific Values and/or Fringe and Pseudoscience. In your view, does the movie succeed in casting reasonable doubt on any of the central claims concerning climate change made by Schneider and Heller? Explain why or why not.

The content of “The Great Global Warming Swindle” can be related to Douglas Allchin's article “Values in Science”, as well as Elizabeth Anderson's article on scientific values. Both of these articles similarly conclude that value driven science is in fact a positive thing. They both offer that different values supply different points of view, and with different points of view, further tests and scientific inquiry for reinforcement of a certain claim. Further, that different values in science encourage checks and proof in order to make convincing claims. This seems good and well when taking into consideration certain scientific inquiry that makes claims because it encourages that those claims be tested and checked, but in reality, values in science don't work in such a positive, reciprocating way. The global warming debate is a perfect example of how values in science tend to obscure the facts for political gain or personal interest.

“The Great Global Warming Swindle” presents the view that the global warming issue has been exaggerated and even imaginated to a degree; the view presented in the program is that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax.

The science presented in the program is convincing, but so is the science in other programs, for example, the science presented in Schneider and Heller's program that argues the opposite. This is where values in science become a problem; not so much in the fact that there are different scientific views brought about by different values, but that there is clearly a pick-and-choose of that science presented to a layman audience who, in many cases, can't help but be convinced. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to suggest that though it is not practical to ask that science be completely objective, as that would hinder scientific progress, it is practical to ask for an objective presentation of the facts to the public laymen audience that these sciences are presented to as the results and conclusions of these scientific findings often have a hand in social and political issues. If science is going to be part of the political debate, and the outcomes of those political debates being influential to how that science affects us, it is important that there is an objective study undertaken and presented to the non scientific audience. Though how this might be done, I do not have a simple answer.

I am doubtful of the claims suggested in each of the two videos on global warming. “The Great Global Warming Swindle” presents information and conclusions that refute the claims made by Schneider and Heller, and vice versa. Without doing my own research on the subject, outside of the information provided by these programs, I am unable to take a firm position.

In the world that we live in today, it is safe to assume that we are being lied to, and what may seem scientific might in fact be worthless, inefficacious, though exciting statistics that are presented solely to manipulate the audience in various ways.

(1) Such biased scientific research and reporting is clearly in violation of the strict scientific values described by Douglas Allchin in his essay, Science and Values, in which he emphasizes the importance of epistemic values such as objectivity, which includes organized skepticism, disinterestedness, openness and transparency. The research behind the popular scientific explanation of the climate crisis does not seem to reflect these values and instead, according to those interviewed in The Great Global Swindle, serves many as a front to acquire funding for research and credibility. Regardless of the validity of the scientific perspective of those interviewed in the film, it seems unveiling the true data behind global warming trends is of little importance to the public. In keeping with Allchin's views, the issue at hand is a matter of societal value rather than strict scientific fact, and, as is evident in the public support for climate control measures, is determined by which school of thought provides the most palatable spin on their argument.

In The Ways in Which Sciences are and are not Value Free, Hugh Lacey provides another set of values which are essential to ethically successful scientific research, and also are entirely abandoned by the idea of politically charged environmental research. One of Lacey's pillars of scientific values, autonomy, specifically deals with the separation of quality science and political agendas. The Great Global Swindle is fraught with testimonials from scientists arguing against popular global warming theory. In their arguments they suggest that in the debate over climate control and global warming, scientists in support of the popular political view that we humans are placing a dangerously large carbon footprint on our environment receive the bulk of government funding for research proving those ends, leaving those with conflicting ideas without the means to conduct appropriate research. Such political bias flies in the face of autonomy, one of Lacey's reasons why sciences are value free.

(2)In my opinion, the evidence presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle while thorough and convincing, does not cast reasonable doubt on the central claims presented by Thomas Heller and Stephen Schneider.

From the scientific standpoint, Stephen Schneider and the professionals in the film seem to agree on most topics concerning global warming with the exception of the human influence on the process. I believe that though scientific research based on past trends (not computer models) shows that human addition to greenhouse gasses is minimal, it is a fact that the human carbon footprint does exist, and does, however minimally, escalate the problem; thereby warranting global attention and action. In that respect, those interviewed in the film do not eliminate the credibility of the claim that the human contribution to global warming should be diminished.

From an economic standpoint, Heller's argument stands up to criticism of current global strategies outlined in the film as well. According to Heller, one of the keys to promoting a greener future is the re arrangement of the environmental "policy regime" and implementation of economic incentives to reduce the use of fossil fuels partially responsible for the human carbon footprint call for the involvement of developing nations in an effort to compromise a feasible means of environmentally cautious development in underdeveloped areas. The film gives an example of restricted development in which such a compromise was not imposed, and it seems environmentalists were the ones negotiating rather than representatives with developmental interests in mind, which is precisely what Heller proposes to eliminate. Heller is in agreement with the critics in the film, to an extent, in believing that environmental decisions are politically charged. He differs in that he believes this is the way it should be, and rather than focusing on scientific fact, it is prudent to pursue political and economic means of dealing with the value based issue.

Diamond, Landes, Cowan and Williams all discuss changes in human history that permanently and significantly altered the relation between humans and their environment. Briefly summarize each. (Note: Treat Cowan's article succinctly. The many changes she speaks of can be summarized as stages of one general transformation.)

Diamond, Landes, Cowan and Williams’s changes are the capacity to use a spoken language, religious values manifesting themselves in free market, the industrialization of significant parts of the world, and the human effort to create a “new habitat” in which to live, respectively.

Diamond, knowing that the use of a formalized language led to the great ability to cooperate with other human beings by being able to share information and ideas, believes that language gave human beings the push they needed to be able to manipulate nature to work for them, instead of having to work in cooperation with nature. Communication is the way that people advance everything from science to art, without the ability to communicate ideas, there would be no way to vastly improve techniques that are by all means improvable, as is demonstrated by the Neanderthal’s general stagnation of development of tools for over 60,000 years, until humans advanced them very heavily.

Landes states that a big change in human history is how Judeo-Christian religion taught that people must do things for themselves in order to survive, that nature was for humans to use at will, and that time was linear instead of cyclical. He also stressed that a free market is essential to advance technology and “conquer” human’s surroundings in order to make jobs as quick as possible. This quickening, through advances in technology, allowed people to get ahead in life, as opposed to the relative freeze in China due to advances in technology being phased out, because of their inability to help the government control the people.

Cowan’s change is that of society from an agricultural one to an industrial one. The industrial city is not as much dependant on nature as an agricultural city because the industrial city has many parts, each part unable to do the other part’s jobs. This leads to advances such as irrigation that make droughts and floods not as disastrous. It spreads things out so that any natural disaster is not life threatening, and people can go about their lives without worry.

Williams discusses the “new human habitat” in terms of how our society has been changed by the recent information technology boom in order to live in a world that is separate from nature’s processes. By employing this new habitat we are attempting to build ourselves into the world, to make the world more like us, so that we will not need to bend to our environment’s “will,” but make it bend to our own. It is the next logical step, the furthering of the goal of industrialization, to make a world for humans that is devoid of nature, in which our environment has no role to play but one that suits our needs.

Bush, Sclove, Winner, and Feenberg all discuss effects of technology in terms of the desirability of exerting social control over it's development. Briefly summarize the effects that most concern each author.

Bush, Sclove, Winner, and Feenberg believe, respectively, that women’s status in society is being eroded, those in society are being manipulated, freedom is being lost, and the environment is being destroyed, due to technological advances that are not being monitored to look for harmful side effects before their employment.

Bush believes that technology was developed by men in order to improve the quality of life for men and women. She believes that technology cannot solve the problems of women, however, and that it sometimes even has the effect of lowering female’s status in society, and that simple technology changes and advances cannot solve any of the major problems that face humans today.

Sclove discusses that technology has the effect of benefiting or harming the use of other technologies, such as the telephone replacing telegraphs and helping computer networking. In this way, new technologies have the ability to influence human societies, by limiting what technological advances humans choose to pursue after developing basic artifacts, such as advancing electric versus gas-powered refrigerators after deciding to largely employ electric powered ones.

Winner states that technology is always changing the world, and if humans fail to realize that, then human freedom will be a thing of the past. This is because new technology, such as computer programs that can monitor humans and “determine” whether they are performing up to standard, creates an environment where there is no freedom to do a certain job outside the parameters of what is considered standard, thus losing whatever freedom we had to be individual human beings.

Feenberg accepts that technology is controlled democratically in the most basic way. He states that the public viewpoints are what ultimately count, no matter how irrational they are. He says that the biggest effect that comes out of that technology are the harms to the environment, which many people looking out for their own interest do not take into consideration. This is the area that democracy must take into consideration the effects of any technological advances and control those developments in order to help mankind’s environment survive, thus extending the lifetime of the human race.

All the authors in this section offer an account of technology as it relates to humanity and the control of one over the other.

Corlann Bush offers a perspective from a feminist point of view, one where women should un-think and rethink ideas and concepts that were once perceived to be true. One idea that Bush raises is the idea of a “tech-fix,” the idea that technology itself can mend or fix social problems or inequities. Bush illustrates this by presenting the idea that technology affects women differently from men with examples of Native American women and the washer and dryer idea. Bush offers a critique that says that a feminist should think of technologies not as tools, triumphs, or threats because it lulls people into acceptance and ignorance and sadly, according to Bush, we do nothing in either case. Bush finally offers a new definition that provides a more universal framework to technology that answers the questions of equity as well the contexts that technology falls into.

Where Bush offers a view from a certain frame of thought, Richard Sclove offers an idea of technology that asks about the ramifications of technology and its affects on society. Sclove offers the idea that technology as it is perceived today is a multi-functional system, one with primary and intended purposes to ones with secondary and unintended purposes as well. Polypotency is the word that probably best descirbes this phenomena and leads Sclove into the idea that technology is in fact a social structure itself much in the way governments and religious institutions control people. Technologies are an omnipresent entity that to various extents affects our livelihood despite our desires to avoid it. But in contrast to this Sclove says that technology is an influential factor, not a determinant one, thus is a key to a social structure, one that affects you without you necessarily knowing it.

Langdon Winner offers a similar but more powerful concept of technology than that of Sclove. Winner describes the nature of technology, its consequences, and the role it plays as a “member of our society.” Though this may seem strange to treat technology as such, Winner gives solid examples of where this has occurred. Winner elaborates on a story about a telephone operator and the role of the “electronic supervisor.” Winner presents the idea that the role of human and machine has, for all intensive purposes, switched where machines and computers are responsible for regulation and humans required to work fatser and more efficiently. Winner offers a method of discourse, a way to think about technology and future political culture, with three maxims. The three maxims basically asks that people think before they act, consider results that may in the future affect humanity.

Unlike the three authors before, Andrew Feenberg provides a view of technology that says that it is through human desires and rationalizations where the future and evolution the of technology lies. Feenberg provides an argument of technology, first by presenting a determinist viewpoint and then proceeds to show examples of where it fails. After stating basic tenets of determinism such as linear progress and progress measured from lower the higher advancement. Feenberg presents the constructivist stance that says that it is people that effect design and influence technological development. Feenberg uses the evolution of the bicycle as an example of the human will over an autonomous technological inevitability, safety being that primary human concern.

Jonas, Dyson, and Strong all identify specific ways in which technology has the power to do moral harm and moral good. Briefly summarize each author's view concerning what is necessary to accomplish the latter.

Jonas, Dyson, and Strong believe respectively that (1) we must change our definition of ethics to encompass the future, (2) we must stop developing unnecessary goods for the rich while increasing necessary goods for the poor, and (3) stop being a slave to our technology, in order to accomplish moral good through the use of technology.

Jonas believes that without reform to how we view ethics, there will be disastrous consequences to future generations. Jonas states that, while in the past we have judged an action good based on immediate outcomes and repercussions of our actions, the real test in the coming (which is already here as of now) technology age is to be able to judge actions based on the long term consequences that will arise in the future. Without the ability to judge based on future events, the whole balance of the world is in danger of being irrevocably destroyed by human beings whose actions appear to cause no harm, but whose actual harm does not show up until 20 or 30 or even hundreds of years in the future. When we learn to think about the future, only then can there be good that comes out of our technological inventions and experiments.

Dyson states that technology can do bad and good to different peoples at the same time, but that in order to accomplish the general moral good is to get away from making and developing unnecessary goods for the rich, and start making necessities for the poor. These necessities include harnessing the sun’s power to create better fuel, genetically engineering trees to use sunlight to create fuel based on the harnessed sun’s power, and get the Internet to poorer farms so they can do business with the rest of the world. These three will improve the position of the poor around the world and bring social equality.

Strong claims that technology has the ability to add freedom to the lives of humans by “disburdening” them from the need to do repetitive and uncomfortable physical labor. This results in freedom because some basic tasks, which were highly repetitive, used to take a lot of time, and now they are relatively quick. However this freedom is actually an illusion, and we are slaves to other technological devices, which has made our lives more shallow and repetitive through “wasted” time, such as watching television. Technology has the ability to do moral good, however, if we can learn to use this technology to reduce the time on repetitious tasks that can be quickened by technology, while using our freed time from the quickening of these tasks, for more meaningful activities, that will make us happier in the long run. He says that the poor already benefit from this because they do not have the available resources to be able to afford technological advances that are “wasting” their time, unlike the rich, who this problem affects the most.

	Study Question	Due Date	Sample Answers
1	Summarize the bases upon which Rachels, Wilson, and Singer challenge our views about morality. (Devote a clear, short, and distinct paragraph to each author.) Whose challenge do you find most interesting or provocative and why?	7/18	Sample Answer 1
2	What is usually meant by the claim that science is value free? In what sense, if any, is this true? In what sense, if any, is this false or misleading? Specifically reference the views of at least 2 of the authors we are reading on this subject.	7/23	Sample Answer 2
3	In what sense does Stephen Jay Gould appear to agree with Pope John Paul II on the relation between science and religion? What do you take to be significant differences that remain between them? In what sense and on what basis does Dawkins reject the views of both Gould and the Pope?	7/26 10AM	Sample Answer 3
4	What is the singularity? Compare Bill Joy and Max More with respect to (a) the level of concern it warrants and (b) the specific measures we should take to deal with it.	7/31 10AM	Sample Answer 4
5	Read this short article from the New York Times. Summarize the issue it raises and show how two of the articles from the Sex and Reproduction readings bear on this issue.	8/2 10AM	Sample Answer 5
6	Identify and summarize three distinct common misconceptions about the nature of human well-being as discussed in the work of Gladwell, Groopman, Eckman et al, Nesse or Gilbert. (Reference three of these authors).	8/7 10AM	Sample Answer 6
7	Watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle," and relate it's content and methods to two articles from the readings on Scientific Values and/or Fringe and Pseudoscience. In your view, does the movie succeed in casting reasonable doubt on any of the central claims concerning climate change made by Schneider and Heller? Explain why or why not.	8/9 10AM	Sample Answer 7a Sample Answer 7b
8	There are far fewer women scientists than men, especially in mathematically oriented disciplines. Summarize Kimura's main reasons for thinking this is due to innate differences between the sexes and Spelke's main reasons for doubting it. (Note: the relevant Kimura article is "Under-representation or Misrepresentation?" Both this article and "Hysteria Trumps Academic Freedom" are located at the bottom of Kimura's webpage.)	8/14 10AM	Sample Answer 8
9	Why does Pinker think that people have become less violent? Is this view consisten with the explanations of human violence provided by Thornhill and Palmer, Duntley and Buss, or Zimbardo? (Use at least two of these latter three essays.) Explain why or why not.	8/16 10 AM	Sample Answer 9
10	Summarize the main thesis of each of the four highlighted readings in terms of the economics of medicine.	8/21 10AM	Sample Answer 10

	Study Question	Sample Answers
1	Diamond, Landes, Cowan and Williams all discuss changes in human history that permanently and significantly altered the relation between humans and their environment. Briefly summarize each. (Note: Treat Cowan's article succinctly. The many changes she speaks of can be summarized as stages of one general transformation.)	Student Sample 1
2	Bush, Sclove, Winner, and Feenberg all discuss effects of technology in terms of the desirability of exerting social control over it's development. Briefly summarize the effects that most concern each author.	Student Sample 2a Student Sample 2b
3	Jonas, Dyson, and Strong all identify specific ways in which technology has the power to do moral harm and moral good. Briefly summarize each author's view concerning what is necessary to accomplish the latter.	Student Sample 3