GL

Transcript Notes

  • Writing Center and tutoring context
    • Center hosts TLS tutoring / SI; offers writing help in a writing center setting
    • Services available: online and in-person appointments, one-on-one or group help
    • Range of writing types: every genre and stage (brainstorming, drafting, editing, refining resumes, application essays, discussion posts)
    • Help with non-class writing projects (e.g., building a website copy)
    • Session formats:
      • Three to forty-five minute sessions (one-on-one)
      • Group projects: up to three students
    • Citation styles supported: APA, MLA, etc.
    • Staffing diversity: not all tutors are English majors; include chemistry, theatre, computer science, biology majors; capable of science writing, thesis writing, etc.
    • Example domains: philosophy, science writing, library research and journal searching, reading and note-taking
    • Emphasis on tailored, human tutoring vs. generic AI advice; tutors can discuss questions, strategies, and specific writing issues
    • Practical tips and reassurance: sessions can adapt to late-turn-in situations or last-minute needs; walk-ins welcome; appointments encouraged
    • Logistics and location:
    • Hours:
      • Monday–Thursday: 10:00 ext{AM} ext{ to } 5:00 ext{PM}
      • Friday: 10:00 ext{AM} ext{ to } 2:00 ext{PM}
    • Location: Glasscock West Room 112, between the Engineering Building and the library; near Cat Alley and parking garage
    • Accessibility and value: free resource; promises more personalized guidance than generic AI
    • Administrative notes: encourage making appointments ahead of time but also accommodate walk-ins; no weekend hours beyond Friday in this context
  • Statements about expectations and value proposition
    • Tutoring emphasizes understanding the writing process and developing strategies for specific issues; not just generic advice from AI
    • The center positions itself as a broad-writing-support hub: writing for classes, job applications, personal projects; even if not for a class, still available
  • Transition to ethics content and course structure
    • Reading and discussion planned: theory-focused through October, then shift to applied ethics
    • Emphasis on theory: two core components of moral philosophy occur in ethics discussions
    • Practical goal: provide tools for navigating moral problems in life; distinguish between evaluative theories and practical how-to questions
    • Acknowledgement of persistent disagreements in moral theory (abortion, immigration, education costs, vaccines, etc.)
    • The aim is to expose students to multiple major ethical accounts and teach evaluation of theories rather than endorsing a single view
  • Core ideas about ethics discussed in the lecture
    • There is no escape from valuing: even rejecting ethics or declaring nihilism implies a valuational stance
    • Two main components of ethical thinking:
    • The nature of morality or what is good; definition of goodness (often contested across theories)
    • The practical question of what we ought to do; how we should act or live
    • If everyone agreed about what is good, practical disagreements would be fewer; in reality, disagreement arises from different accounts of the good
    • The presence of multiple, often conflicting accounts helps explain perennial debates (abortion, immigration, education funding, vaccines, etc.)
    • The course will review case studies and dramatic examples to illustrate ethical reasoning and to extract basic grounding ideas
  • Ethical reasoning and case-study approach
    • Use a mix of theoretical framing and real-world cases to illuminate how ethical reasoning operates
    • Aims to reveal common rationales and fallacies in ethical argumentation
    • Caution about difficulty: some “popular” or common-sense views can function as roadblocks to sound ethics; these will be identified and examined
  • Preview of case studies in the textbook
    • Case 1: Baby Teresa (anencephalic infant)
    • Case 2: Jody and Mary (conjoined twins)
    • The instructor intends to discuss and discuss, then move to broader implications and principles
  • Case Study 1: Baby Teresa (anencephalic infant)
    • Medical/biological facts
    • Anencephalic infant: cerebrum and cerebellum missing; parts of skull missing
    • In the U.S., pregnancies with this condition are often detected; many are aborted; of those not aborted, about half are stillborn; those born alive usually die within days
    • Donor organ viability issue: organs must be harvested quickly, or they atrophy and become unusable
    • Florida legal context
    • Florida law forbids organ transplantation from a donor until the donor is declared dead
    • Raises questions about what “death” means in this context and the timing of organ harvesting
    • Key questions and options
    • Who should decide? the state, doctors, parents, or doctors with parental input? And in consort with the doctors?
    • What should be done with the organs? Should parents decide to donate, or should the state intervene? Could parental decisions be overridden for the child’s best interests?
    • Potential tension between parental autonomy and child welfare; paternalistic interventions sometimes occur when the state overrides parental beliefs for a minor child
    • If organs are viable, harvesting before death could save others; if not viable, harvesting would be pointless
    • Early student responses and discussion
    • Some students argued parents should decide to donate; others highlighted potential conflicts (e.g., religious beliefs, the burden of birth and death timing)
    • The teacher notes the possibility that organ viability depends on timing, which can complicate the ethical calculus
    • Arguments and ethical positions
    • Benefits argument (utilitarian style):
      • Premise 1: P_1: ext{If we can benefit someone without harming anyone else, we ought to do so.}
      • Premise 2: P_2: ext{Transplanting the organs would benefit other children immensely without harming Baby Teresa.}
      • Conclusion: C: ext{Therefore, we ought to transplant her organs.}
      • This argument is valid if both premises are true; the main challenge is whether both premises hold in this case
    • Autonomy/means-end concerns (Kantian and moral autonomy perspectives)
      • Argument: harvesting organs would use Teresa as a means to an end (for others), potentially violating her autonomy and treating her as a repository rather than a person with ends in herself
      • Counterpoint: if Teresa lacks consciousness or autonomy due to brain absence, her autonomy might be limited; some philosophers argue that there may be no autonomous preferences to violate
      • Key nuance: autonomy is traditionally linked to the capacity to form and act on preferences and to have interests; the extent of Teresa’s conscious life is contested
    • Autonomy status of anencephalic infants
      • Claim: Teresa may lack autonomous preferences or interests given the severe brain condition; some argue this reduces or eliminates the autonomy-based objection to organ harvesting
    • Wrongness of killing argument (morally thick deontological claim)
      • Premise 1: It is wrong to kill one person to save another.
      • Premise 2: Harvesting Teresa’s organs would kill her to save others.
      • Conclusion: It would be wrong to harvest her organs.
      • Discussion point: whether this is a logically valid argument depends on the truth of the premises; some would challenge whether harvesting necessarily constitutes “killing” Teresa or whether there is a partial death or brain-death concept
    • Related ethical themes and examples discussed in class dialogue
    • The debate over the definition of death and when organ donation is permissible
    • The practical balance between saving multiple lives and respecting a donor’s life and autonomy
    • Real-world analogies and concerns, such as maternal bodily autonomy, abortion, and the sale or compensation for organs in broader policy discussions
    • The “life is sacred” stance versus practical utilitarian considerations and what counts as harming or killing
    • Pacifism vs necessary self-defense debates used as analogies to illustrate strong stances and exceptions
    • Ethical questions about possible future states (e.g., stem cell or biologic advances changing viability)
    • Reflection prompts and potential lines of reasoning
    • Who has the authority to donate organs in this scenario, and under what conditions should that authority be exercised?
    • If Teresa’s organs could save multiple others but Teresa could not survive, does the balance of harms and benefits justify harvesting?
    • Does Teresa’s potential lack of autonomy justify or condemn organ harvesting, given Kantian concerns about treating persons as ends in themselves?
  • Case Study 2: Jody and Mary (conjoined twins)
    • Facts and medical situation
    • Jody and Mary are conjoined twins joined at the abdomen; one spine; Jody is the stronger twin; Mary is nonfunctioning in vital organs
    • They share one heart and one pair of lungs; separation surgery would save Jody but kill Mary
    • Mary’s organs are nonfunctioning; Jody is mentally alert and capable; Mary’s condition threatens both twins
    • Medical and ethical decision context
    • The parents are devout Catholics; initially refused separation
    • The hospital petitioned against the parents; the separation was performed; the patient outcome was: Jody survived; Mary died
    • Outcomes and interpretations
    • Jody recovered and led a full life; Mary did not survive; doctors noted some organ regeneration in the post-operative period, surprising predictions about Mary’s viability
    • Ethical considerations highlighted by this case
    • Balancing the life and welfare of one child against the life and welfare of the other child
    • The role of parental beliefs versus medical assessment and institutional authority in life-and-death decisions
    • Whether saving one life at the explicit cost of another is ethically permissible, and under what conditions
    • The impact of religious or moral beliefs on medical decisions in life-and-death scenarios
  • Broader ethical takeaways from the case discussions
    • The importance of autonomy and consent in medical decisions involving vulnerable populations
    • The tension between saving lives and the moral status of the individual who would be sacrificed or diminished
    • The role of the state and medical institutions in safeguarding vulnerable individuals when parental decisions may risk harm
    • The interplay between empirical facts (viability, timing, medical outcomes) and normative principles (autonomy, harm, benefit, justice)
    • The limits of abstraction in ethics: real-world cases require careful consideration of context, law, religion, and emotional weight
  • Additional notes and tangents touched in the session
    • Acknowledgement of public debates about organ donation policy and possible changes to ease donation or introduce compensation; these topics will be revisited later in the course
    • Example of everyday life that echoes ethical concerns, such as the death penalty, pacifism, and moral intuitions about life’s sacredness versus the need to prevent greater harms
    • A humorous or offbeat aside about “the chair sneezing” and other classroom dynamics; the instructor uses light moments to frame serious discussions
    • The session ends with a plan to continue the discussion of these ethical topics on Monday, signaling ongoing exploration of the cases and related concepts
  • Real-world relevance and connection to foundational principles
    • Illustrates how moral philosophy interfaces with law (e.g., organ donor rules in Florida) and medical ethics (organ viability, consent, life-sustaining decisions)
    • Reinforces foundational questions in ethics: What counts as good? What should we do? How do we balance competing goods or rights when they conflict?
    • Demonstrates the necessity of evaluating competing moral theories and their implications in concrete situations
    • Encourages students to think critically about autonomy, dignity, consent, and the ends vs. means distinction in bioethics
  • Practical implications for students
    • Critical thinking: analyzing arguments for and against organ harvesting in cases with contested autonomy and viability
    • Application to writing and argumentation: constructing premises, assessing evidence, and evaluating the soundness of conclusions in ethical debates
    • Awareness of how ethical theory informs law, medical policy, and personal decisions in real-world settings
  • Quick reference to essential terms and concepts
    • Anencephalic infant: condition where major brain parts (cerebrum, cerebellum) are missing
    • Donor viability: the readiness and appropriateness of organs for transplantation, dependent on timely harvesting
    • Autonomy: the capacity to form and act on one’s own preferences and interests; ethical concern about using a person as a means to others’ ends
    • Means vs. ends: ethical concern about treating a person merely as a tool for achieving others’ goals
    • Death as a legal/medical concept: the practical implications for organ donation timing
    • Grounding theories of ethics (referenced): characteristics of different ethical accounts (e.g., deontological autonomy, utilitarian benefits, etc.), with the course aiming to evaluate these theories rather than advocate a single view
  • Final note on the course trajectory
    • Expectation of theory-heavy content now, with later emphasis on applying ethical reasoning to concrete problems and case studies
    • Ongoing consideration of multiple perspectives to better understand the complexity of real-world moral decision-making