Thursday, June 4, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Saturday, May 23, 2009
serial adultery
Limbaugh was first married on September 24, 1977 to Roxy Maxine McNeely, a sales secretary at radio station WHB in Kansas City, Missouri. They were married at the Centenary United Methodist Church in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. In March 1980, McNeely filed for divorce, citing "incompatibility." They were formally divorced on July 10, 1980.[3]
In 1983, Limbaugh married Michelle Sixta, a college student and usherette at the Kansas City Royals Stadium Club. They were divorced in 1990, and she remarried the following year.[3]
On May 27, 1994, Limbaugh married Marta Fitzgerald, a 35-year-old aerobics instructor. They were married at the house of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who officiated. They were separated on June 11, 2004.[91] Limbaugh announced on the air, "Marta has consented to my request for a divorce, and we have mutually agreed to seek an amicable separation." The divorce was finalized in December 2004.[92]
Watch
"God told me the sick must die"
How do we know that God really didn't tell him this? If God did tell him this, would what he did be morally acceptable? Morally necessary?
How do we know that God really didn't tell him this? If God did tell him this, would what he did be morally acceptable? Morally necessary?
Friday, May 22, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
American Idol
Here's my friend's unedited comment about the quotation below:
"...that since American Idol is the crowd favorite we are doomed by this.
It seems that things get averaged out in the end."
"The competition also validates the concept of collective intelligence
popularized in James Surowiecki's 2005 book The Wisdom of Crowds
(Anchor Books). He argues that the sum of many independent votes is
often superior to any one vote, even if made by the greatest expert.
For Netflix, the vast number of independent ratings allows for
surprisingly good predictions. The power of this collective
intelligence is also being harnessed in, for instance, Amazon.com's
product recommendations and the collaborative editing of the online
encyclopedia, Wikipedia. With the rise of social networks on the Web,
we can expect to see and contribute to even more powerful examples in
the coming years." (20 May 2009)
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/may09/8788/3
"...that since American Idol is the crowd favorite we are doomed by this.
It seems that things get averaged out in the end."
"The competition also validates the concept of collective intelligence
popularized in James Surowiecki's 2005 book The Wisdom of Crowds
(Anchor Books). He argues that the sum of many independent votes is
often superior to any one vote, even if made by the greatest expert.
For Netflix, the vast number of independent ratings allows for
surprisingly good predictions. The power of this collective
intelligence is also being harnessed in, for instance, Amazon.com's
product recommendations and the collaborative editing of the online
encyclopedia, Wikipedia. With the rise of social networks on the Web,
we can expect to see and contribute to even more powerful examples in
the coming years." (20 May 2009)
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/may09/8788/3
Monday, May 18, 2009
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Read this
Is this morally wrong? Can we make a moral judgment about this? Should we?
WARNING. EXTREME CONTENT.
Do not read this if you are easily offended.
WARNING. EXTREME CONTENT.
Do not read this if you are easily offended.
This week's topic
Sexuality.
Please prepare some questions around this (very broad) topic and I'll attempt to address them this week in class.
Please prepare some questions around this (very broad) topic and I'll attempt to address them this week in class.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
An older final exam
(Posted by request)
TEST INSTRUCTIONS
In your best penmanship, please print your name on the front page of each blue book.
Your answers will be evaluated based upon the following criteria:
• Clarity of thought
• Organization (Week 1: introduction with thesis statement, body, conclusion)
• Demonstrated use of applied theory (Week 2: Utilitarianism, Deontology, Egoism; Week 3 Milton Friedman’s TSROBISIIP.; Week 5: Rawls; Week 6: Nietzsche, Pascal, Anselm; Week 8: Relativism; Week 9: Evolutionary biology and Pinker)
• Critical thinking (Week 1 and 2: PP/C, argumentative structure, validity and soundness, “How to Make an Argument” paper)
• Use of real world current events from your readings (NYTimes, the blog, other sources)
From the syllabus regarding the final exam: “formulate a clear, cogent and relevant ethical argument in defense of your position.”
Please answer one question from each of the three sections below. If you choose to answer the bonus questions then please answer both questions. Please print legibly.
Section 1
1) Politicians from across the spectrum, community leaders, and many citizens have argued that the most important issue facing this country today is whether or not the US should remove troops from Iraq. Statement to defend or to constructively engage: The United States has a moral obligation to the people of Iraq. What, if any, obligations does the United States (people, NGOs, citizens, politicians, republicans, etc.) have towards Iraq? Should the US continue to station troops in Iraq? Why or why not? In your response, please focus more on the moral aspect of the question rather than the practical/logistical aspect. Finally, in your answer, please list at least three of the countries that physically border Iraq.
2) In our discussion about Rawls’ ideas, we learned that Rawls states that one cannot (should not) barter one’s liberties for economic prosperity. Do you agree? Please give examples of other countries that have done this. Has it worked? What does it mean to “work”? Is bartering one’s liberties for money morally defensible? Why or why not?
3) In our discussion about Rawls, we learned that Rawls defines justice as fairness. Rawls’ argument is something like, “any rational person can derive some basic rules of justice,” and he goes on to state a system for economic justice. Under Rawls’ system, would a flat tax be ethically justifiable? Why or why not? Defend your position.
Section 2
1) Ethicists have recently drawn upon the work of evolutionary biologists. However, even before one can begin to discuss the contributions from biology, one needs to understand the rudiments of evolution. Explain the basics of evolutionary theory, and discuss how it differs from ID. In your answer, please also explain the idea of an evolutionary tree (discussed by Dr. Adam Goodman) as it relates to humans and to apes. Why didn’t apes evolve into humans?
2) What’s Steven Pinker’s take on morality, ethics and evolution? His NYT article “The Moral Instinct” (posted on the blog twice and discussed in class on multiple occasions), what are his basic arguments? What is he trying to say? Why does he believe what he believes? He discusses five “primary colors of our moral sense”. What are these? (If you don’t remember them then don’t worry about it. You can refer to them without naming them). Do you buy his argument? Why or why not?
Section 3
1) From the February 23rd blog:
“Firefighters have demanded a change in guidelines for helping obese people after being called to a house four times in one week to lift a 41-stone man [574 pounds]. On one occasion, 10 firefighters had to move Robert Marsden two feet across his bed at his home in Grangemouth, Stirlingshire. Fire brigade leaders have complained their crews should not be dealing with such matters when they could be called out to an emergency.”
If Robert Marsden calls firefighters and they do not come to his aid, and he consequently dies, are the firefighters and their managers morally responsible for his death? Does it make a difference that his condition is self-inflicted? Why or why not?
2) From the February 24th blog:
“Wikipedia, the free online encyclopaedia, is refusing to remove medieval artistic depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, despite being flooded with complaints from Muslims demanding the images be deleted.
More than 180,000 worldwide have joined an online protest claiming the images, shown on European-language pages and taken from Persian and Ottoman miniatures dating from the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries, are offensive to Islam, which prohibits any representation of Muhammad. But the defiant editors of the encyclopaedia insist they will not bow to pressure and say anyone objecting to the controversial images can simply adjust their computers so they do not have to look at them.”
About Wikipedia:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an introduction to the Wikipedia project for visitors. There is also an encyclopedia article about it at Wikipedia.
Wikipedia (pronounced /ˌwiːkiˈpiːdiə/ or /ˌwɪkiˈpiːdiə/) is a multilingual, web-based, free content encyclopedia project. The name Wikipedia is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a type of collaborative website) and encyclopedia. Wikipedia's articles provide links to guide the user to related pages with additional information.
Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world. Since its creation in 2001, Wikipedia has grown rapidly into one of the largest reference Web sites. There are more than 75,000 active contributors working on some 9,000,000 articles in more than 250 languages. As of today, there are 2,252,219 articles in English; every day hundreds of thousands of visitors from around the world make tens of thousands of edits and create thousands of new articles to enhance the knowledge held by the Wikipedia encyclopedia. (See also: Wikipedia:Statistics).
Should Wikipedia remove the images of the Muslim Prophet Mohammad? Why or why not? Is there a moral obligation to not offend the religious beliefs of others? Why or why not? Who is subject to this obligation? Businesses? Individuals? Non-profits? Governments?
3) Recently, a company marketed a quart size bottle of soda as a “Giant Quart,” even though the liquid content of the bottle was exactly a quart. Is this ethical? Why or why not? In your answer, be sure to employ one of the theories you learned in class, and please employ other relevant newsworthy items to back up your response.
TEST INSTRUCTIONS
In your best penmanship, please print your name on the front page of each blue book.
Your answers will be evaluated based upon the following criteria:
• Clarity of thought
• Organization (Week 1: introduction with thesis statement, body, conclusion)
• Demonstrated use of applied theory (Week 2: Utilitarianism, Deontology, Egoism; Week 3 Milton Friedman’s TSROBISIIP.; Week 5: Rawls; Week 6: Nietzsche, Pascal, Anselm; Week 8: Relativism; Week 9: Evolutionary biology and Pinker)
• Critical thinking (Week 1 and 2: PP/C, argumentative structure, validity and soundness, “How to Make an Argument” paper)
• Use of real world current events from your readings (NYTimes, the blog, other sources)
From the syllabus regarding the final exam: “formulate a clear, cogent and relevant ethical argument in defense of your position.”
Please answer one question from each of the three sections below. If you choose to answer the bonus questions then please answer both questions. Please print legibly.
Section 1
1) Politicians from across the spectrum, community leaders, and many citizens have argued that the most important issue facing this country today is whether or not the US should remove troops from Iraq. Statement to defend or to constructively engage: The United States has a moral obligation to the people of Iraq. What, if any, obligations does the United States (people, NGOs, citizens, politicians, republicans, etc.) have towards Iraq? Should the US continue to station troops in Iraq? Why or why not? In your response, please focus more on the moral aspect of the question rather than the practical/logistical aspect. Finally, in your answer, please list at least three of the countries that physically border Iraq.
2) In our discussion about Rawls’ ideas, we learned that Rawls states that one cannot (should not) barter one’s liberties for economic prosperity. Do you agree? Please give examples of other countries that have done this. Has it worked? What does it mean to “work”? Is bartering one’s liberties for money morally defensible? Why or why not?
3) In our discussion about Rawls, we learned that Rawls defines justice as fairness. Rawls’ argument is something like, “any rational person can derive some basic rules of justice,” and he goes on to state a system for economic justice. Under Rawls’ system, would a flat tax be ethically justifiable? Why or why not? Defend your position.
Section 2
1) Ethicists have recently drawn upon the work of evolutionary biologists. However, even before one can begin to discuss the contributions from biology, one needs to understand the rudiments of evolution. Explain the basics of evolutionary theory, and discuss how it differs from ID. In your answer, please also explain the idea of an evolutionary tree (discussed by Dr. Adam Goodman) as it relates to humans and to apes. Why didn’t apes evolve into humans?
2) What’s Steven Pinker’s take on morality, ethics and evolution? His NYT article “The Moral Instinct” (posted on the blog twice and discussed in class on multiple occasions), what are his basic arguments? What is he trying to say? Why does he believe what he believes? He discusses five “primary colors of our moral sense”. What are these? (If you don’t remember them then don’t worry about it. You can refer to them without naming them). Do you buy his argument? Why or why not?
Section 3
1) From the February 23rd blog:
“Firefighters have demanded a change in guidelines for helping obese people after being called to a house four times in one week to lift a 41-stone man [574 pounds]. On one occasion, 10 firefighters had to move Robert Marsden two feet across his bed at his home in Grangemouth, Stirlingshire. Fire brigade leaders have complained their crews should not be dealing with such matters when they could be called out to an emergency.”
If Robert Marsden calls firefighters and they do not come to his aid, and he consequently dies, are the firefighters and their managers morally responsible for his death? Does it make a difference that his condition is self-inflicted? Why or why not?
2) From the February 24th blog:
“Wikipedia, the free online encyclopaedia, is refusing to remove medieval artistic depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, despite being flooded with complaints from Muslims demanding the images be deleted.
More than 180,000 worldwide have joined an online protest claiming the images, shown on European-language pages and taken from Persian and Ottoman miniatures dating from the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries, are offensive to Islam, which prohibits any representation of Muhammad. But the defiant editors of the encyclopaedia insist they will not bow to pressure and say anyone objecting to the controversial images can simply adjust their computers so they do not have to look at them.”
About Wikipedia:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an introduction to the Wikipedia project for visitors. There is also an encyclopedia article about it at Wikipedia.
Wikipedia (pronounced /ˌwiːkiˈpiːdiə/ or /ˌwɪkiˈpiːdiə/) is a multilingual, web-based, free content encyclopedia project. The name Wikipedia is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a type of collaborative website) and encyclopedia. Wikipedia's articles provide links to guide the user to related pages with additional information.
Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world. Since its creation in 2001, Wikipedia has grown rapidly into one of the largest reference Web sites. There are more than 75,000 active contributors working on some 9,000,000 articles in more than 250 languages. As of today, there are 2,252,219 articles in English; every day hundreds of thousands of visitors from around the world make tens of thousands of edits and create thousands of new articles to enhance the knowledge held by the Wikipedia encyclopedia. (See also: Wikipedia:Statistics).
Should Wikipedia remove the images of the Muslim Prophet Mohammad? Why or why not? Is there a moral obligation to not offend the religious beliefs of others? Why or why not? Who is subject to this obligation? Businesses? Individuals? Non-profits? Governments?
3) Recently, a company marketed a quart size bottle of soda as a “Giant Quart,” even though the liquid content of the bottle was exactly a quart. Is this ethical? Why or why not? In your answer, be sure to employ one of the theories you learned in class, and please employ other relevant newsworthy items to back up your response.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Monday, May 4, 2009
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Lots of reading for Friday
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRb2OKPBswM
http://www.danielpipes.org/3075/islamophobia
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Islamophobia.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005950.php
http://www.cair.com/Issues/Islamophobia/Islamophobia.aspx
http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12808pub19941231.html
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23641599-details/Islam,+hate+and+free+speech/article.do
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7887540.stm
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/02/17/national-post-editorial-board-britain-re-visits-appeasement.aspx
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123482476050494869.html
Geert Wilders: Provocateur or Truth Teller
By Harry Antonides
In a hard-hitting speech in the Dutch Parliament on March 20 Wilders castigated his colleagues for ignoring the presence of Muslims in Holland who promote an extremist version of Islam. He cited a number of verses from the Koran, which refer to Jews as pigs and monkeys and to non-Muslims as enemies that are bound for hell and must be subjugated or destroyed.
He pointed out that such verses violate Dutch law and should therefore be declared illegal. He said that Islam is not only a religion but also a political ideology that seeks to replace political pluralism with a one-party state. Wilders said: “ Islam is an ideology without any respect for others; not for Christians, not for Jews, not for non-believers and not for apostates. Islam aims to dominate, subject, kill and wage war.”
In a hard-hitting speech in the Dutch Parliament on March 20 Wilders castigated his colleagues for ignoring the presence of Muslims in Holland who promote an extremist version of Islam. He cited a number of verses from the Koran, which refer to Jews as pigs and monkeys and to non-Muslims as enemies that are bound for hell and must be subjugated or destroyed.
He pointed out that such verses violate Dutch law and should therefore be declared illegal. He said that Islam is not only a religion but also a political ideology that seeks to replace political pluralism with a one-party state. Wilders said: “ Islam is an ideology without any respect for others; not for Christians, not for Jews, not for non-believers and not for apostates. Islam aims to dominate, subject, kill and wage war.”
The leading Egyptian Sunni cleric Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi (who has sanctioned jihad against American forces in Iraq and suicide bombings against Israeli citizen) has demanded that the Dutch government take action against Wilders and that protecting Wilders “will negatively affect Egyptian-Dutch relations.”
The Grand Mufti of Syria has warned the European Parliament that the film may result in “violence and bloodshed” for which “Wilders will be responsible.” The U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has condemned the film, calling it “offensively anti-Islamic.”
http://www.danielpipes.org/3075/islamophobia
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Islamophobia.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005950.php
http://www.cair.com/Issues/Islamophobia/Islamophobia.aspx
http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12808pub19941231.html
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23641599-details/Islam,+hate+and+free+speech/article.do
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7887540.stm
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/02/17/national-post-editorial-board-britain-re-visits-appeasement.aspx
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123482476050494869.html
Geert Wilders: Provocateur or Truth Teller
By Harry Antonides
In a hard-hitting speech in the Dutch Parliament on March 20 Wilders castigated his colleagues for ignoring the presence of Muslims in Holland who promote an extremist version of Islam. He cited a number of verses from the Koran, which refer to Jews as pigs and monkeys and to non-Muslims as enemies that are bound for hell and must be subjugated or destroyed.
He pointed out that such verses violate Dutch law and should therefore be declared illegal. He said that Islam is not only a religion but also a political ideology that seeks to replace political pluralism with a one-party state. Wilders said: “ Islam is an ideology without any respect for others; not for Christians, not for Jews, not for non-believers and not for apostates. Islam aims to dominate, subject, kill and wage war.”
In a hard-hitting speech in the Dutch Parliament on March 20 Wilders castigated his colleagues for ignoring the presence of Muslims in Holland who promote an extremist version of Islam. He cited a number of verses from the Koran, which refer to Jews as pigs and monkeys and to non-Muslims as enemies that are bound for hell and must be subjugated or destroyed.
He pointed out that such verses violate Dutch law and should therefore be declared illegal. He said that Islam is not only a religion but also a political ideology that seeks to replace political pluralism with a one-party state. Wilders said: “ Islam is an ideology without any respect for others; not for Christians, not for Jews, not for non-believers and not for apostates. Islam aims to dominate, subject, kill and wage war.”
The leading Egyptian Sunni cleric Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi (who has sanctioned jihad against American forces in Iraq and suicide bombings against Israeli citizen) has demanded that the Dutch government take action against Wilders and that protecting Wilders “will negatively affect Egyptian-Dutch relations.”
The Grand Mufti of Syria has warned the European Parliament that the film may result in “violence and bloodshed” for which “Wilders will be responsible.” The U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has condemned the film, calling it “offensively anti-Islamic.”
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Check these out
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Thursday, April 9, 2009
'In 3 weeks I will be put to my death'
'In 3 weeks I will be put to my death'
If you are easily disturbed then please do not read the comments at the end of the article.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
experts
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/26/opinion/edkristof.php
The expert on experts is Philip Tetlock, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. His 2005 book, "Expert Political Judgment," is based on two decades of tracking some 82,000 predictions by 284 experts. The experts' forecasts were tracked both on the subjects of their specialties and on subjects that they knew little about. The result? The predictions of experts were, on average, only a tiny bit better than random guesses — the equivalent of a chimpanzee throwing darts at a board. "It made virtually no difference whether participants had doctorates, whether they were economists, political scientists, journalists or historians, whether they had policy experience or access to classified information, or whether they had logged many or few years of experience," Mr. Tetlock wrote. Indeed, the only consistent predictor was fame — and it was an inverse relationship. The more famous experts did worse than unknown ones. That had to do with a fault in the media. Talent bookers for television shows and reporters tended to call up experts who provided strong, coherent points of view, who saw things in blacks and whites.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)