The paper describes two practical exercises (and their learning outcomes) requiring students to consider certain concrete decisions made by managers in business and professional life. The first exercise requires students to consider that competitive economic exchange inevitably puts managers in situations where they cannot accurately predict the outcomes of their decisions, and often results in harm to innocent people. In this practical exercise, seven discussion situations are described and students are asked to make decisions that take into account the individuals affected by these managerial decisions. Students are asked to consider various ethical theories and devise creative solutions so as to avoid unnecessary harm. The second exercise places students in roles that represent shareholders and stakeholders and asks them to consider the relocation of a manufacturing company to their community.

This paper describes two collaborative projects that illustrate the value of learning symbolic logic and provide students (and instructors) a break from the routine work of learning new symbols or proof techniques. The first project has students work together to reconstruct the argument in Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”. This project has the benefit of showing students that what they are reading in college has an underlying logical structure and that their knowledge of conditionals, conjunctions, etc. functions in real, argumentative discourse. The second project introduces students to four key concepts: self-reference, paradox, and metatheory, and then exposes them to key metatheoretic concepts (consistency and completeness) and to Gödel’s incompleteness proof.

Similar to learning the grammatical structures of a foreign language, one problem that students face in learning logic is that many of the operations and concepts they need to learn require more practice to fully master. To solve this problem, the author proposes the use of “repetitive exercises”, exercises that aim to develop a familiarity with a concept or operation through repeatedly focusing on that concept or operation. According to the author, the best method for implementing these exercises is the use of on-line teaching environments, specifically WebCT, which allows instructors to develop exercises that they deem appropriate and allows for mechanical grading. Finally, the paper provides an overview of why WebCT is preferable to the use of Blackboard, and notes that the major drawback to the online solution is its poor support for the symbols used in propositional and predicate logic.

This paper describes the Reason! method of argument mapping (along with the associated Reason!Able software) and measures its effect on the California Critical Thinking Skills Test. The result of the author’s study is that students who use the Reason! method, rather than other methods of teaching critical thinking skills, perform better on the California test. What accounts for the effectiveness of Reason! method is its use of argument maps, a method of representing arguments using a two-dimensional diagram involving boxes and arrows. In addition to describing the method, and presenting empirical data that supports the Reason! approach, the author provides an assessment of the various strengths and weaknesses of the method and details its use at the University of Melbourne.

This paper describes how an ethics instructor might use Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” to teach Kant’s duty-based ethics. For example, themes like the lack of beneficence of Victor toward his creature and Victor’s uneven development of his talents can be used to introduce students to criticisms of Kant’s view that beneficence is an imperfect (or wide) duty or that we have an imperfect duty to cultivate, not only our scientific abilities, but also non-scientific ones. In addition, “Frankenstein” can be used to consider Kant’s prohibition on making false promises, physically abusing one’s body, suicide, as well as Kant’s stance on the abuse of non-rational animals.

This paper describes the case-based approach to teaching philosophy of science courses and argues for its merits. The paper first presents a case study that debates whether the “shock features” of the Slate Islands in Lake Superior were formed by meteorite impact or have an endogenous origin, e.g. from explosive volcanic activity. Next, the virtues of the Slate-Island case are considered, e.g. the case is focused insofar as what is at stake is relatively clear and the case illustrates the truisms that creditable scientists disagree and the claims made in natural science are probable rather than indubitable. Finally, the paper argues for the case-based approach to teaching the philosophy of science by responding to two objections: (i) that case studies get in the way of doing philosophy and (ii) that students won’t be able to understand scientific literature well enough to reflect upon how it relates to science in general.