CFP: Everyday Ethical Arguments: Beginning Discussions on Moral Issues

Students' opinions on debated ethical issues are often supported by reasons which professional philosophers find not just simple, but simplistic. For abortion, some students will feel that the issue is completely settled by the claim that people have a right to control their bodies. For animal ethics, some will assert confidently that it's OK to eat animals because doing so is "natural." For gun policy, students will try to resolve the debate by saying that we all have a right to defend ourselves against harm. 

Let's call these types of arguments "everyday arguments"—the arguments that people give before they study the issues. Everyday arguments tend to beg the question or depend on unstated premises that, once revealed, can easily seen to be false or implausible. Even when everyday arguments contain the seed of a good argument, they often need to be refined and supplemented.  

Everyday arguments pose a serious pedagogical problem: the canonical works in philosophy rarely address them, precisely because they are so often flawed. This makes it difficult for students to meaningfully engage with, for example, Judith Thomson on abortion, Tom Regan on animal rights, or Jeff McMahon on gun control. To students who see these issues as simple and settled by the reasons they have already brought to the discussion, these texts will seem, at best, unnecessarily complicated and, at worst, to miss the point.   

The tendency of professional philosophy to ignore everyday arguments also conveys that philosophy doesn't care about their reasons or experiences. It alienates people from philosophy at a time where we need more than ever to show the relevance of our discipline. Philosophy teachers should address everyday arguments so that students are in a better position to appreciate and engage in more advanced discussions of the issues, meeting the students where they are. To do this, though, we need materials. So . . .

A CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS / CALL FOR PAPERS

The editors of this project—Dan Lowe (University of Michigan) and Nathan Nobis (Morehouse College)—who are both Editors at 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology—are seeking contributions to this project which will be an open-access online educational resource and, if there's adequate interest, a print book. 

Each topic's discussion will have a standard organization, roughly this:

1. background information about the topic, such as empirical facts and legal standards, stated briefly;
2. lists of what's often said: doing this is wrong because . . this is permissible because . . doing this is an obligation because ...,  etc.
• these lists should be developed on the basis of observations of real people's arguments, whether it be in classes, online, or personal interactions: we should not try to figure out what "the folk" think from the armchair;
• however, this would not any kind of official research that would require IRB approval: any links to online materials where these claims are made "in the wild" could included, although this is not necessary;
3. evaluating these reasons as arguments:
• question-begging claims or arguments identified;
• the remaining arguments stated in standard form—a logically appropriate premises-conclusion statement of the argument—and then evaluated, premise by premise, including disambiguating premises;
4. laying out a more constructive approach to the issue: what does the debate really hinge on? What questions would we have to ask to make progress on it? What would better arguments look like?
5. suggestions for further reading: further discussions of everyday arguments and better, more scholarly arguments and resources on the topics.

Each topic will only have one chapter or section, so there's the possibility of multi-authored sections, with different contributors building on existing content to make the section's discussion more comprehensive.

Contributors who do any kind of teaching in philosophy—at any level—are welcome to submit. 

Potential contributors: please develop your materials using the Google Doc template file of the project's webpage: please "make a copy" or "save as" to get your own version of the file, which can also be downloaded in a variety of formats: you don't need "access" to it. Please be attentive to the headings and use them. If your submission is accepted, we will use your file to merge your materials into a "master" file. 

Deadline for initial submissions: February 1, 2025. 
Questions? Please email Nathan Nobis.