ANIMALS AND ETHICS

Oral Presentation Assignments: Spring 2015

Below are your Group Presentation assignments. The main purpose of
group presentations is to encourage class dialogue on ethical subjects and to
enable you to build your skills at giving philosophic arguments orally.
Remember that presentations will last about 35 minutes with all
members being equally responsible for the performance. Thereafter the
group should lead a discussion on the issues raised for the remainder of the
hour. (You may also intersperse questions in your main presentation instead
of waiting until after your presentation ends to ask the class questions.)
Please dont merely outline or summarize the books or articles your
presentation deals with. Your presentation should be more focused on
critically evaluating the central arguments, ideas or information discussed in
them. Usually which ideas or materials are of central importance will be clear
good authors usually make this obvious. But becoming clear about what is
most important in a work requires reflection and judgment, and you might
even decide that an author is mistaken about what is most significant in her
or his reasoning.
Critically evaluate should NOT be interpreted as being negative.
Naturally, you might find an authors core reasoning or claims questionable
and, if so, you should bring this out in your presentation. But you might find
this reasoning compelling, in which case you should explain why you think
this. You critically evaluate, not necessarily refute. (You might also disagree
among yourselves about the merits of an authors reasoning. If so, you may
debate this in your presentation.)
Though it may seem painfully long when you start out, in fact 35
minutes is eaten up quickly. You wont have time to present everything you
want, maybe not even all your good points. So aim at giving a clear and
cogent account of your best points. Also, exhibit intellectual empathy. That
is, show that you can see the kernel of truth, or at least kernel of plausibility,
in any significant stance opposing the authors position or your own.
There will nearly always be disagreements between the various views
to be considered in a presentation. Some presentations cover more than one
work, but also you should compare and contrast the views in your assigned
works with those of other authors we discussed earlier. You neednt and
cant go over the ideas of all previous writers, but usually it will be clear
whose ideas clash more markedly with your assigned authors thinking. As
much as possible, the class in general should engage in a dialogue between
the various authors we study.
Even if your oral presentation wont occur until much later in the
semester, you and your group should begin organizing your presentation now.
You can also begin thinking about your longer oral presentation essay.
Once the class discussion begins, presenters can still make further
arguments while answering questions or responding to comments. This will
give you the chance to introduce points you couldnt bring in earlier.
Remember that all members of the class are expected to participate in
oral presentations. The audience should not be passive but should be
prepared to raise critical questions and make comments which help carry the
discussion forward. These are group presentations but they are also class

exercises. So everybody is expected to show up and come prepared to

discuss the works under consideration.
Throughout the oral presentation and attendant discussion I shall be a
silent spectator. I have the floor most the time and its your turn. Whatever
conversation unfolds will be between the group and the rest of the class.
Enjoy.
Ill be happy to meet with your group before your presentation if you
wish.
1. Critically Evaluate Singers Case for Animal Liberation (Consider Freys arguments)
Ajibola, arsura, basinger, beckerman, brukalo

2. Critically Evaluate Scullys Traditional or Conservative Case for Animal Liberation

(Consider Scrutons and Linzeys arguments)
cannon, chapman, cheng, Chilton, cooper, eisenman

3. Critically Evaluate Rachels Darwinian Case for Animal LiberationMoral

Individualism (Consider Wilsons and Cohens arguments)
el-bardley, flansburg, gebhard, ghumman, goodwin

4, Critically Evaluate the Holocaust Analogy in Pattersons The Eternal Treblinka (Consider
the Oliners points about the altruism of the Rescuers.)
hassett, hayes, hemphill, holocobe, kendrick

5. Critically Evaluate Posners and Epsteins Liberal Criticisms of Animal Liberation

(Consider carefully previous arguments about the moral status of animals and related
issues.)
khan, Jae kim, jaesuk kim, larkin, lee
6. Critically Evaluate Foers Liberal Position on Animal liberation
li, lippold, mcteer, obermeier, park
7. Critically Evaluate Lappes stance on Factory Farms and Global Warming.
Parker, reardon, salvidio, sanchez
8. Critically Evaluate the different positions on Animal Liberation activism. (Consider
all readings under II G above).
Sitier, taylor, Zapata, zhou