Teaching Ethics & Philosophy classes now, in 2026

At our moment in history:

This is a class that will teach, model, encourage, and require ways of engaging controversial, debated issues that are currently countercultural, out of the norm, and rejected by many people.

These ways of engaging issues include:

1. seeking to deeply and accurately understand claims, views, and arguments, especially those from people who we might disagree with;

2. insisting that people give reasons in support of those views: just “saying stuff” and merely asserting views—without giving any reasons, evidence, or support—will never be acceptable;

3. learning (learning!) some basic logical concepts and skills from critical thinking to help us evaluate those reasons given, to see if they provide good reason to accept whatever view or claim is being advanced: these include arguments from people we might disagree with, and arguments that we ourselves might currently accept;

4. given our understanding of logic, critical thinking, and the arguments given, we can develop skills at developing better arguments than what we often hear, when better arguments can be made, and explain why these are better arguments.

Doing all this requires developing character traits that, again, are widely rejected as valuable, such as:

• patience,

• self-control,

• understanding,

• calmness,

• reflection,

• charity,

• honesty,

• humility—honestly, there is a lot many of us don't know; we likely have some mistaken views,

• fallibility—honestly, we might be mistaken in the evaluation of our own actions: it's possible that we are doing some wrong actions, just as people in the past have done wrong,

• courage,

• consistency,

• self-awareness,

• responsibility,

• gravitas: taking serious issues seriously,

and more.

Why would we do this? Why would we want to do this?

A partial answer is because intellectual skills and attitudes like these have contributed to moral progress—society getting better, morally—and they are part of what's needed for making the future morally better also. They are also many of the skills and virtues of a philosophical person, and this class is an invitation to living a more philosophical life.

Academics turn to TikTok in search of new ways of engaging public

Academics turn to TikTok in search of new ways of engaging public

Scholars with large followings on app say it is a good way to change misconceptions about what they do

Published on 

January 14, 2026

Last updated 

January 14, 2026

Patrick Jack

Twitter: @paddywjack

. . . .

. . academics from many different fields are increasingly setting up profiles and growing their audiences for a variety of reasons.

Nathan Nobis, professor of philosophy at Morehouse College, shares “Philosophy 101” videos on everything from the morality of killing animals to the ethics of religion.

In addition to educating his own students, he is driven by educating the public on both these topics and on being an academic itself, he told Times Higher Education. 

“Many people have no real idea what academics do or they have many misconceptions about what they do, and often this is because like they’ve never interacted with any of them. So, I think in general, the more academics are out there trying to show some of what they do, the better.”

Conversely, Nobis said TikTok is a good way of receiving feedback from the general public, which in turn can help academics make a better case that what they do is valuable and should be supported.

“An academic can either be trying to meet the public where they’re at or not, and I don't suppose the not is really doing much good.”

Ethics and God: the Divine Command Theory and the Euthyphro Dilemma

Also here.

Author: Nathan Nobis
Categories: Ethics, Philosophy of Religion
Word count: 992

Editors’ note: this is our second essay published on the divine command theory. The first is Because God Says So: On Divine Command Theory by Spencer Case. We hope readers will appreciate multiple presentations on this theory.

Some people claim that ethics depends on God: unless there’s a God who makes actions right and wrong, no actions would be objectively right or wrong, good or bad.^[1]

Such people often accept the Divine Command Theory of ethics (hereafter, DCT). According to DCT, wrong actions are wrong because God forbids them and right actions are right because God commands them.

This essay introduces this ethical theory and the most important responses to it, which date back to Socrates’ discussion in ancient Greece with a man named Euthyphro.

Earth, Wind, and Fire. Reasons. 1975. Still image from music video. 

Dehumanization and Abortion: Quick Thoughts

Some notes for a class. 

1. The accusations (Google to find them?):

"Pro-choice people are like Nazis! They are like the KKK! They are like slaveholders!"

 

"Pro-choice people deny that fetuses are human! They deny that fetuses are 'human beings'! They dehumanize, just like Nazis and people who owned slaves!"

"It hasn't gone well when people deny that some humans are human!"

"It hasn't gone well when people deny that some people are people!

Questions:

• could any of this be true? If so, how would we know? If not, how would we know?
• If saying anything like this is part of an argument, is that argument good or bad?

2. What is meant by "human"?

A. "Human" = biologically human: biologically human as a characteristic; biologically human organism. 

Does anyone think that fetuses in biologically human women are anything other than biologically human? No. No!

What else might “human” mean?

B. "Human" = a person; a someone; something with high moral intrinsic value; something (someone) that's usually wrong to kill. 

Can anyone just assume that embryos and beginning fetuses are “human” in that sense? No. 

If one assumes this, one is “begging the question.” One is assuming that embryos and beginning fetuses are persons who are wrong to kill just like enslaved people, Holocaust victims, etc. 

So what is to be a person? Some thinking activities:

• Make a list of actual people, as well as (logically or metaphysically) possible people: what do they have in common that makes them people?

• Compare this list to clear non-persons: what’s the difference?

• What might end your existence as a person? What would have to stop for there to no longer be a person there? That indicates what a person is. 

Given all this, are embryos and beginning fetuses people (or even person-like)?

If not, can they be dehumanized . . meaning de-personalized, or de-valued (when they should be valued, for their own sake, because they are intrinsically valuable?).

3. Required readings: David Livingstone Smith, 

• Abortion and Dehumanization, 
• Abortion and Humanity, and 
• Are “Human” Embryos Human? 

How do core examples of dehumanization differ from how anyone considers embryos and fetuses?

• Dehumanization: What is it to Dehumanize People? by Dan Peterson

3. Turning it on its head: does not allowing women to have abortions, when they want them, dehumanize them?

4. Related: could Klingons be dehumanized?

Star Trek: "Human rights. Why, the very name is racist."

There's a scene from the 1991 film Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, where one of the Klingon characters states, "Human rights. Why, the very name is racist." 

She says this in response to the suggestion that people on planets throughout the universe have "human rights." 

Want to become a better philosophical thinker? A more philosophical person?

If someone wants to be a skilled philosophical thinker, here are some skills and virtues that are needed for that. 

Restraint and self-control: we are familiar with behavioral impulse control, but we also need to control our reactions in speaking and even thinking and not react without adequate understanding. Not patiently seeking that understanding makes thinking about complex issues more difficult. Being able to consider an idea, and ensuring that you understand it accurately, before reacting, is important. 

Defining terms is essential: if someone uses a word that could be used in different ways, the conversation needs to stop and that term defined and then that meaning "stuck with" for that portion of the conversation. Not doing that leads to people talking past each other. Switching back and forth between meanings leads to people being confused and talking past each other, each using the same word(s) but thinking about different ideas.

Think slowly and patiently: attempting to think quickly and aggressively tends to lead to people not being careful in their use of terms and so winding up on different issues, again talking past each other.

Related to defining terms in defining issues, and the ability to distinguish potentially related, but distinct issues is essential. E.g., (a) being justified in holding a belief and (b) explaining to others why that belief is justified and (c) explaining to others why that belief is justified in a way that they will be convinced (in some context) are all different activities. Not understanding that these are distinct activities leads to confusion. Furthermore, each issue and argument is distinct: e.g., that one argument for a conclusion is a bad argument doesn't entail that all arguments for that conclusion are bad; that one definition of a term isn't ideal doesn't preclude there being a better definition. Keeping distinct issues distinct is important.

Not knowing important philosophical results impedes thinking about issues where those ideas are applied. E.g., not being familiar with arguments for global skepticism has consequences for understanding epistemic justification; not being familiar with theories of epistemic justification precludes understanding fallibilism; not being familiar with the potential sources of justification, and possible structure of justification will preclude thinking about how different types of particular beliefs (e.g., mathematical beliefs, religious beliefs, etc.) are or might be justified (or not!). Not understand more fundamental issues prevents applying those basics to more complex, higher-order issues.

All and all, a lot progress in philosophical skill-building is developed by calmly and coolly seeking to understand what's meant when people say things ("What do you mean?") and then trying to assess the reasons that are given, and might be given, for and against various views ("Why think that?"). 

In many important ways, becoming a better philosophical thinker is like learning a musical instrument or learning how to play a sport well: there are real things to be learned, and those things need to be learned and intentionally put into practice, and any bad habits and unproductive ways of engaging that seem "natural" need to be identified and work needs to be put in to overcome them. None of this is easy but the results are often worth it.