Public Philosophy presentation

“Feminist Philosophical Fact-Checking” at the Official Blog of IJFAB: the International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics and “Are Embryos “Babies” and “Children”?” at the blog of the American Journal of Bioethics

Atheism versus non-theism(s)

There a certain type of person (often found online) who has a hard time distinguishing atheism -- believing there is not a God -- from the variety of non-theism -- not believing there's a God. 

I made this image; perhaps it can help. Posting it here since I plan to eventually write up something about this. 

"Feminist Philosophical Fact-Checking"

Something new by me that may be of interest!

"Feminist Philosophical Fact-Checking" at the Official Blog of IJFAB: the International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics

https://www.ijfab.org/blog/2025/01/how-to-be-a-feminist-bioethics-scholar-on-social-media-an-essay-by-philosopher-nathan-nobis/

ChatGPT explains why common anti-abortion arguments and soundbites are mistaken

I am very much opposed to ChatGPT and AI use in educational contexts, but I do wonder if it could help with people who tend to think that expert opinions are a result of some kind of conspiracy or indoctrination or whatever, not a result of actually understanding the issues and arguments. Perhaps people who won't listen to experts will listen to ChatGPT?

ChatGPT explains why common anti-abortion arguments and soundbites are mistaken

Anti-abortion advocates often are willfully resistant to learning about abortion and ethics: they often reject distinctions that are widely known among people who have studied the issues, and enthusiastically accept demonstrably bad arguments. 

Yet, when this is pointed out and explained, they don't accept this and revise their views, believe it or not!

With that in mind, I asked ChatGPT some questions on matters where these types of errors are common. ChatGPT agrees that common responses from anti-abortion advocates are mistaken! 

How might anti-abortion advocates respond to ChatGPT? Will they see it as being duped by a liberal (or is it conservative?) conspiracy in giving these types of responses? Or will they recognize that ChatGPT has a more "fair and balanced" understanding than they do, and rethink their views? 

We might see! Click below for questions and ChatGPT's responses:

1. ChatGPT: Must everyone agree that a human embryo is a "human being," or else they are irrational?
2. Chat GPT: Must everyone agree that a human embryo is a person, or else they are irrational?
3. ChatGPT: Must everyone agree that an embryo or beginning fetus is a "baby" or a "child" or else they are irrational?
4. ChatGPT: Mammal's bodies start at conception or soon after conception. So human mammal's bodies start at conception or soon after. Does that suggest that abortion is wrong?
5. ChatGPT: If someone consents to having sex, knowing that pregnancy is a possible outcome, does that mean that they consent to that pregnancy?
6. Chat GPT: Is an embryo comparable to a sleeping person, in that since it's wrong to kill a sleeping person, is it also wrong to kill an embryo?

What are other questions that should be asked of ChatGPT?

Note: if someone responds, "Whatabout pro-choice people's misunderstandings???" yes, that indeed is a problem too, but this response is likely an attempt to deflect from the more pressing issue, which is misinformed people promoting unjust laws prohibiting and criminalizing early abortions: laws that criminalize morally permissible behaviors are unjust. 

A ranking of intellectual virtues and vices

 A ranking of intellectual virtues and vices: first the "raw data" and then ChatGPT's analysis of it.

Prompt:

For a teaching-related project, I wonder if people would be willing to state what they think the most important intellectual (or epistemic) virtues are, and the most important intellectual (or epistemic) vices are.

3 to 5 ideas of each might be ideal, in the comments.

If you could try to do this without first looking at others' responses, that would be great.

I am trying to get some kind of ranking of importance.

I will share the rankings afterwards.

See below the fold.

Everyday Ethical Arguments: Beginning Discussions on Moral Issues

A call for materials for Everyday Ethical Arguments: Beginning Discussions on Moral Issues

https://ethicalarguments.blogspot.com

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 . . .

See below the fold.

Are Embryos “Babies” and “Children”?

Are Embryos “Babies” and “Children”? 

On the Bioethics Today blog.

Anti-abortion advocates frequently insist that abortion is “killing babies” and “murdering children.” “Heartbeat” bills, or abortion bans, often use this language. Alabama’s Supreme Court even ruled that frozen embryos are children.

While philosophers have much discussed how “persons” and “human beings” are best defined, there is little comparable discussion about defining “babies” and “children.”

Here I argue that embryos and beginning fetuses are not “babies” or “children”: at least, nobody must agree that they are.

See below the fold.

When does human life begin? Well, when does human life end? On euthanasia and abortion.

For the Society of Christian Bioethics conference. Unfortunately, I cannot make the event, so I made a video. 

When does human life begin? Well, when does human life end? On euthanasia and abortion.

See below the fold.

Tim Stretton with "Free Thinking Ministries"

One thing led to another and I recently created two pieces of "content" concerning a Tim Stretton, who is an "apologist" with "Free Thinking Ministries." 

One was on a page of arguments against abortion that he referred me to; another was a video claiming that atheists can't explain why terrorism (!) is wrong and other claims.

The arguments against abortion were very poor and the claims in the video were baseless. 

This is all bad because this person -- like many "apologists" -- presents as an authority on these matters, yet doesn't know what he's talking about. Uninformed people are often duped by all this, and that all contributes to a culture of smug, self-righteous ignorance. That's all bad, for many reasons, and that's an understatement!

(I "tagged" Stretton on this initial content or shared it with him: being a "drive-by critic" -- observing, or at least claiming, that people have bad arguments, but not notifying them of that, is irresponsible. I didn't get any response from him though.) 

Video here and abortion arguments comments below the fold, and at the link.

@nathan.nobis Replying to @nathan.nobis #apologetics #philosophy #ignorance #manipulation #ethics ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis

Confirmation bias, in-group bias, tribalism, & groupthink.

What's it called when people form their views on controversial issues, but only consider perspectives from their own in-group or "tribe" and so they don't get an accurate picture of alternative, rival views, including the views of experts who disagree with them? What are the themes of this type of problem?

ChatGPT said:

The phenomenon you're describing is often referred to as confirmation bias or in-group bias. This occurs when individuals only seek out or give weight to information that aligns with their existing beliefs, often disregarding or dismissing opposing viewpoints. When this happens within a group, it can also be called tribalism or groupthink.

Themes of This Problem:

1. Echo Chambers: Environments where people only hear opinions that reinforce their own, leading to a distorted understanding of issues.

2. Polarization: Increased division between groups, where individuals become more extreme in their views due to a lack of exposure to diverse perspectives.

3. Misinformation: The spread of false or misleading information, often amplified by in-group dynamics, as members may prioritize loyalty to the group over factual accuracy.

4. Intellectual Isolation: A refusal to engage with opposing ideas can lead to stagnation in critical thinking and a lack of nuanced understanding.

5. Trust in Authority: Preference for information from familiar sources or leaders within one's group, sometimes at the expense of expert opinions.

6. Emotional Reasoning: Decisions and beliefs influenced more by emotions and identity than by factual evidence, which can reinforce in-group cohesion but hinder constructive dialogue.

Addressing these themes often requires fostering open-mindedness, encouraging critical thinking, and promoting respectful dialogue across different viewpoints.