April 2009 Archives

Lesson #32 - Civil Disobedience & Philosophy

|

Civil Disobedience: I did not pick this topic because it fits neatly with the philosophers that we are currently studying, or because I want you all to go out and cause trouble... Instead, I think the philosophical perspectives used to justify civil disobedience by some are both interesting and timely. In addition, I think it fits nicely with some of what you have studied as juniors in US history and English.

Here's what we'll do:

Define "civil disobedience"
- breaking the law in pursuit of a higher good...

The organization ACTUP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) has a website with a brief history of acts of civil disobedience. Take time to read the web page alone or with a partner. Consider each of the examples as "justified" or "not justified". Be prepared to defend your choices.


Discuss: Feel free to chat about these in smaller groups or simply ponder them yourself.

  • "When is it right, if ever, to break laws and oppose the state? What are the boundaries between legitimate dissent and lawlessness?"

  • "Can civil disobedience lead to anarchy? to relativism? to fanaticism?"

  • "I would be willing to . . ."

  • "What are the responsibilities of the citizen when it comes to respecting legitimate authority?"

  • In the current political "climate" in America, are there issues for which you believe civil disobedience is appropriate? Under what terms would you participate?


Going to the sources: Pick either of the following (or both) and skim them...

"On the Duty of Civil Disobedience" by Henry David Thoreau. This site from the Henry D. Thoreau homepage provides some context for the selection.


"Letter from a Birmingham Jail" by Martin Luther King, Jr.


Consider these issues for your source:

  • What is the historical context for this writing?

  • Do you agree or disagree with the author's main points?

  • Would you have been willing to make the same sacrifices? Why or why not?

  • Identify three "bumper stickers" from the work. (In other words, pick three quotes which best sum up the work.)

Lesson #31 - Noam Chomsky and Ayn Rand

|

Who says that there is no room for Current Events in Philosophy class? Here's an article on Karl Marx from the most recent issue of Foreign Policy:  "Thoroughly Modern Marx." Apparently, sales of Das Kapital "have shot up" in the recent economic downturn.

More from Noam Chomsky: In addition to his philosophical works, Noam Chomsky has written extensively on US foreign policy and other issues. He has labeled himself both an "anarchist" and a "libertarian socialist." Take a look around The Noam Chomsky Website, as that contains a long list or articles, debates, etc. Browse around a bit and see what you think.

DO THIS: I'll give you ten minutes to browse through the articles, debates, interviews and whatever else interests you from the site. Select one to read.

You'll be asked to briefly summarize what you've read, and you are invited to critique, criticize or support his ideas as well. We'll just go around the room.

I'd also direct your attention to the transcript of his CNN "On 9-11" debate with William Bennett.

Given his potential to stir up controversy, I thought Wikipedia's entry on Noam Chomsky was pretty interesting.

>>>>>

Here's another article relevant for today: "'Atlas Shrugged' author sees resurgence." The author being referred to is Ayn Rand, and she's our final "Philosopher For a Day."


Ayn Rand and Objectivism: Truly, technology meets philosophy today. You really should check out the web page for The Ayn Rand Institute: The Center for the Advancement of Objectivism. Some specific things you might find interesting are:

  • Essentials of Objectivism: This is the best concise introduction to the basics of Rand's philosophy that I have seen.
  • Op-Eds: The group writes extensively on current issues.

DO THIS: Pick one of the categories of interest to you from the menu on the right. Read any one of the pieces that catches your eye. Be ready to share their perspective and your reaction to it.

Lesson #30 - Ethics Debate Work Day

|
Between the Cabaret rehearsal and miscellaneous sports and absences, it looks like more than half of the class is out today. Consider this to officially be a "work day" for your Ethics Debates. Remember that those will start in two weeks.  I'll recopy the directions and claimed topics below...

Ethics Debates: Don't forget about these. Here are the topics which have been claimed...

THESE TOPICS HAVE BEEN CLAIMED:
Cheating in sports
Marijuana legalization
Animal testing
Same-sex marriage
Euthanasia

* You will work in pairs on this.

* You will clear an appropriate topic with me. You will write a resolution which presents that topic for discussion and debate. That is simply a sentence that "frames" the debate. For example: "Capital punishment" is not a resolution. "The United States should abolish capital punishment" would be a resolution.

* One of you will prepare the affirmative side, and one of you will prepare the negative side for the resolution.

* You will do three things. First, you will each prepare a one-page maximum word document outlining key arguments and issues supporting your side. You will be responsible for getting me that document before noon on the class day of your schedule debate.

* Second, you will "begin" our debate with a four to five-minute "speech" supporting your side of the resolution. It should cite at least three sources of evidence; at least one of which is a contemporary expert, and one of which is a philosopher we have studied. It may be written out or delivered from notes.

* Third, you and your partner will compose a series of questions, topics, situations, etc. to guide our discussion.

Figure that you have approximately half of a class period, as we schedule two of these per day.



Lesson #29 - Now It's Nietzsche...

|

Rumor has it that we may be joined by Noam Chomsky today. Ayn Rand is set to wrap things up for us next Tuesday.

Ethics Debates: Don't forget about these. Here are the topics which have been claimed...

THESE TOPICS HAVE BEEN CLAIMED:
Cheating in sports
Marijuana legalization
Animal testing
Same-sex marriage
Euthanasia

>>>>

Friedrich Nietzsche: We had the presentation last week as well. Let's take a look at some of the Writings and Quotations by Nietzsche. I'm thinking some dramatic readings and spirited discussions are in store...


Nihilism: Here are a couple of "definitions" of the concept. Notice that both make value judgments on the term.

"A common unofficial description of nihilism is the 'belief in nothing'. But a far more useful one would substitute 'faith' for 'belief' where faith is defined as the "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." A universal definition of nihilism could then well be the rejection of that which requires faith for salvation or actualization and would span to include anything from theology to secular ideology. Within nihilism, faith and similar values are discarded because they've no absolute, objective substance. They are invalid, serving only as yet another exploitable lie never producing any strategically beneficial outcome."

"Nihilism is the characteristic value-disease of our times. The word comes from the Latin root for "nothing", with more ancient connexions with the word for "trifle". Nihilism is the general phenomenon of human values having no evocatory power, in that questions about meaning fail to yield answers that are trustworthy or in the truth, but rather a void of senseless silence."


Excerpt from Looking at Philosophy by Donald Palmer: I warn you, this is tough. I'd like you to spend maybe 15 minutes on this secondary source. Work with someone if you prefer. Try to understand what Nietzsche is saying on several of these topics for when the group comes back together...

  • What does he mean by "perspectivism"?
  • What did Nietzsche mean by the "will to power"?
  • What role does "lying" play in the philosophy of Nietzsche?
  • Do you agree with his view of "der Ubermensch," the "overman" (or Superman)?
  • What does he mean by "the death of God"?
  • Was Nietzsche a nihilist?

Want to join the Friedrich Nietzsche Society? Here it is.

Sophie's World - Blog Entry #6

| | Comments (15)

On this entry, I'm concentrating on material from the "Marx" through "The Big Bang" chapters. (You're obviously free to draw on insights or knowledge picked up later in the reading as well...)

I'll expect a comment of one good paragraph or more. (To me, that means 5-6 sentences at a minimum.) You do not need to worry about perfect grammar, spelling and punctuation, but they should be understandable. Remember that this is a public site, and you are responsible for the content of your postings. Assume that each comment is worth 5 points.

YOUR COMMENT SHOULD BE POSTED BEFORE CLASS TIME ON TUESDAY, APRIL 28th IN ORDER TO RECEIVE FULL CREDIT.

You may write on any ONE question of your choice. (If you want, you can certainly post another comment on a different question as well... First, however, focus on answering one question in sufficient depth, etc.)

NOTE: If I use a page reference, it's from the smaller paperback version that most of you seem to have. I'll also be sure to reference the specific chapter.


1. In "Marx," we see his famous quote that "Philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways; the point is to change it." What does this have to do with Sophie, Hilde and/or the Major at this point in the book?

2. Is it too much to say that the Major is like God? Why or why not?

3. In "Darwin," the chapters closes with excerpts from both Goethe and Thomas Hardy poems. Pick either one and tell us why you think Gaarder includes it at this point in the novel.

4. At the conclusion of "Our Own Time," Alberto shows Sophie a copy of the book, Sophie's World. What should we take away from this? How can one find a book about oneself in a book about oneself? What would happen if Sophie started reading the book?

5. Pick something from "The Garden Party," and tell us why you thought it was particularly interesting and/or important.

6. Where ARE Sophie and Alberto throughout "Counterpoint?" I mean more than just saying, "In Oslo." Have they become real? More real? How do you describe what is going on here?

7. Did you feel like the final lines of the novel "resolve" the whole mystery, or do they just make it deeper? Why?


Lesson #28 - Marx and Nietzsche

|

Bertrand Russell is scheduled to make an appearance today...


We met Karl Marx last week. You have all studied the ideas of socialism and Marxism to some degree in several classes. Here, we'll give you a chance to share what you think.

Some of you may want to visit the Marxists Internet Archive. If it was written by a Marxist, you can probably find it here...

Questions for discussion:

  • In an "ideal" world, what would be the strengths and weaknesses of a socialist society?
  • In our world, what are the strengths and weaknesses of socialism?
  • Should Marx' ideas be relegated to the "dustbin" (or "ash-heap") of history? Why or why not?
  • Are there ideas of Marx which should be more a part of American society?
  • What should be the goal of a state or society? How should it pursue "happiness"?

>>>>>>

Friedrich Nietzsche: We had the presentation last session as well. Let's take a look at some of the Writings and Quotations by Nietzsche. I'm thinking some dramatic readings and spirited discussions are in store...


Nihilism: Here are a couple of "definitions" of the concept. Notice that both make value judgments on the term.

"A common unofficial description of nihilism is the 'belief in nothing'. But a far more useful one would substitute 'faith' for 'belief' where faith is defined as the "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." A universal definition of nihilism could then well be the rejection of that which requires faith for salvation or actualization and would span to include anything from theology to secular ideology. Within nihilism, faith and similar values are discarded because they've no absolute, objective substance. They are invalid, serving only as yet another exploitable lie never producing any strategically beneficial outcome."

"Nihilism is the characteristic value-disease of our times. The word comes from the Latin root for "nothing", with more ancient connexions with the word for "trifle". Nihilism is the general phenomenon of human values having no evocatory power, in that questions about meaning fail to yield answers that are trustworthy or in the truth, but rather a void of senseless silence."


Excerpt from Looking at Philosophy by Donald Palmer: I warn you, this is tough. I'd like you to spend maybe 15 minutes on this secondary source. Work with someone if you prefer. Try to understand what Nietzsche is saying on several of these topics for when the group comes back together...

  • What does he mean by "perspectivism"?
  • What did Nietzsche mean by the "will to power"?
  • What role does "lying" play in the philosophy of Nietzsche?
  • Do you agree with his view of "der Ubermensch," the "overman" (or Superman)?
  • What does he mean by "the death of God"?
  • Was Nietzsche a nihilist?

Want to join the Friedrich Nietzsche Society? Here it is.

Lesson #27 - Back to Existentialism and Marx...

|
This will look a lot like the last blog entry, as we spent a lot of the time on Tuesday getting things squared away for the rest of the quarter...

REMINDERS: Look for the Sophie's World - Blog Entries #4 and #5. They are already up. You can also find specific information for the "Squashed Philosophers" and "Popular Culture and Philosophy" assignments on their respective "pages." We'll have a schedule available on Tuesday so you can sign up for particular days. The links are over to the right on the blog page, or you can get there from "Assignments" as well.


Existentialism- An Introduction: This is a pretty interesting web site, and it is clearly coming from a pro-existential persepctive.

First, here is the list of five "diamond point" central ideas of existentialism.

  • Mankind has free will.
  • Life is a series of choices, creating stress.
  • Few decisions are without any negative consequences.
  • Some things are irrational or absurd, without explanation.
  • If one makes a decision, he or she must follow through.

Second, we'll look at the contributions of some famous existentialists lower on the page. Scroll down so that you can find these names.

  • Camus
  • de Beauvoir
  • Dostoevsky
  • Heidegger
  • Kafka

Let's try to put them in a historical context, and explain their significance. In particular, tell us why they are considered to be existentialists.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

We will meet Karl Marx today. You have all studied the ideas of socialism and Marxism to some degree in several classes. Here, we'll give you a chance to share what you think.

Here are some quotations by Karl Marx.

Some of you may want to visit the Marxists Internet Archive. If it was written by a Marxist, you can probably find it here...


Questions for discussion:

  • In an "ideal" world, what would be the strengths and weaknesses of a socialist society?
  • In our world, what are the strengths and weaknesses of socialism?
  • Should Marx' ideas be relegated to the "dustbin" (or "ash-heap") of history? Why or why not?
  • Are there ideas of Marx which should be more a part of American society?
  • What should be the goal of a state or society? How should it pursue "happiness"?

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ethics Debate guidelines: You've seen this before, but it's time to start thinking/planning...

THESE TOPICS HAVE BEEN CLAIMED: None so far...
Cheating in sports
Marijuana legalization

* You will work in pairs on this.

* You will clear an appropriate topic with me. You will write a resolution which presents that topic for discussion and debate. That is simply a sentence that "frames" the debate. For example: "Capital punishment" is not a resolution. "The United States should abolish capital punishment" would be a resolution.

* One of you will prepare the affirmative side, and one of you will prepare the negative side for the resolution.

* You will do three things. First, you will each prepare a one-page maximum word document outlining key arguments and issues supporting your side. You will be responsible for getting me that document before noon on the class day of your schedule debate.

* Second, you will "begin" our debate with a four to five-minute "speech" supporting your side of the resolution. It should cite at least three sources of evidence; at least one of which is a contemporary expert, and one of which is a philosopher we have studied. It may be written out or delivered from notes.

* Third, you and your partner will compose a series of questions, topics, situations, etc. to guide our discussion.

Figure that you have approximately half of a class period, as we schedule two of these per day. (THESE WILL BE STARTING MONDAY, MAY 4th)

Exam #2 - Due Friday, May 22nd

|

You will write on four questions of your choice. You are allowed to use your notes, Internet resources, and handouts; even your copy of Sophie's World if you would like.

You should complete and submit these exams by May 22nd. It is assumed that you will write in complete sentences, etc. I would expect most answers to be in the 300- 500 word range. You may dispense with formal introductions and conclusions. You do not need to offer formal citations if you use quotations from primary sources, but it should be clear from where you got your information.


1. You've just completed your second year of studies at the Academy founded by Plato. It's fallen into Roman hands, and they say it's time for you to declare your major. Of course, you say "PHILOSOPHY," but they want more specifics. You're allowed to focus on Epicureanism, Stoicism, Cynicism, or Skepticism. Make your choice by demonstrating an understanding of that philosophy and explaining how it best fits your current (and/or future) personality and plans.

2. Take a good look in the mirror. Are you an ethical person? In answering this question, you need to incorporate at least three specific ideas, terms, or philosophers that we discussed during the course.

3. John Rawls advanced an ethical concept called the "veil of ignorance" where he argued that "justice" was best achieved when people "decide upon social rules whilst behind a 'veil of ignorance' which prevents their knowing anything about their own situation in the hypothesized society." In other words, you would attempt to decide what is "just" without considering yourself and your own situation at all. Choose one of these leaders: Barack Obama, Tim Pawlenty, Hillary Clinton or another of your choice, and determine whether you believe their leadership style is consistent with Rawls' theory of social justice.

4. Do you think you're an "existentialist?" Citing the ideas of at least two existentialist philosophers, explain why you do or do not believe that you are "one of them."

5. Our recent war with Iraq remains controversial. On the last exam, you were asked to analyze the campaign against Augustine's criteria for a "just war." (Actually, I skipped that question this year.) That's old school. The utilitarians are in charge now, and they want you to demonstrate your understanding of their approach by determining whether or not the US-led coalition war in Iraq was ethical. (Obviously, you're not expected to take every consequence, benefit, and harm of the war into account.)

6. Niccolo Machiavelli is hired as the Mounds Park Academy Assistant Upper School Director. (Ignore the part about him being long dead and all.) Using real (or potentially real) issues, explain how you think life around MPA would change. (Be sure your answer demonstrates an understanding of Machiavelli's philosophy.)

7. Ronald Reagan once said that the ideas of Karl Marx have now been consigned to the "ash heap of history." My question is simple: Should the ideas of Karl Marx be/ have been consigned to that "ash heap?" Your answer should demonstrate an understanding of the basics of Marx's philosophy.

8. Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism was the last major "school" of philosophy that we considered. You've been invited to appear on an episode of The Jerry Springer Show dedicated to a discussion of her philosophy. Assume that the other guest radically disagrees with your own assessment of Rand's philosophy. Discuss.

9. The International Criminal Court has developed a technology to raise people from the dead for the purpose of making them stand trial. Fredreich Nietzsche has been brought back and charged with genocide. The prosecution argues that his idea of a "master race" of "ubermensch" (Superman) and his concepts of the "die Herren" and "die Herden" were cornerstones of Nazi philosophy and actions. The defense argues that he is not responsible for how others interpreted his ideas and that he played no direct role in any of the events perpetrated by the Nazis. You're a member of the jury. What do you decide? Why?

10. Sophie's World was first published in 1991, making the title character approximately 30 years old right now. I want you to imagine and explain some of what Sophie's been up to since the end of the book. In particular, you need to incorporate the ideas of at least three different philosophers from the book in your "story" of what she's been up to and how these experiences in philosophy influenced her life.

11. This is for those of you who are shy, or those of you who talk all the time and want to talk even more. Express your position on any of the "Ethical Debate" topics other than your own. In stating your position, you need to make use of the concepts or views of at least two philosophers that we have learned about. (You can argue that they would either support or contradict your own view, but be sure to show why their ideas are relevant to your discussion.)

Sophie's World - Blog Entry #5

| | Comments (18)

On this entry, I'm concentrating on material from the "The Enlightenment" through "Kierkegaard" chapters. (You're obviously free to draw on insights or knowledge picked up later in the reading as well...)

I'll expect a comment of one good paragraph or more. (To me, that means 5-6 sentences at a minimum.) You do not need to worry about perfect grammar, spelling and punctuation, but they should be understandable. Remember that this is a public site, and you are responsible for the content of your postings. Assume that each comment is worth 5 points.

YOUR COMMENT SHOULD BE POSTED BEFORE CLASS TIME ON MONDAY, APRIL 20th IN ORDER TO RECEIVE FULL CREDIT.

You may write on any ONE question of your choice. (If you want, you can certainly post another comment on a different question as well... First, however, focus on answering one question in sufficient depth, etc.)

NOTE: If I use a page reference, it's from the smaller paperback version that most of you seem to have. I'll also be sure to reference the specific chapter.


1. As we begin "The Enlightenment," the book is certainly raising metaphysical issues about the nature of reality. At this point, do you consider Sophie to be "real?" Hilde? Explain why you believe as you do.

2. Is it more than a coincidence that Sophie and Alberto are saying things like, "We are right now starting from scratch. We don't even know whether we think..." in a chapter called "The Enlightenment?" What about this time in the history of philosophy makes this an appropriate fit for the uncertain feelings of these two characters?

3. You read and learn a lot about Kant's philosophy. Comment on what you think of it.

4. In "Kant," Sophie and Alberto's visitors include Little Red Ridinghood and Winnie-the-Pooh. What purpose do you suppose they serve in advancing the plot of the novel? Are they randomly placed here, or do you think there is more significance?

5. In "Romanticism," Alberto says, "We are but shadows in the major's soul. And it is no easy matter for a shadow to turn on its master, Sophie... Only an angel can rebel against God." What do you make of this? What is the relation between the "Creator" and the "Created?"

6. "Philosophy is the mirror of the world spirit" is written on the last page of "Hegel." Recall the earlier use of the brass mirror as well. What do you think Gaarder is trying to tell us?

7. Sophie asks in "Kierkegaard," "Is it the red or the blue bottle that gives the true picture?" Alberto answers that both do, but that's too easy. Which of the two do you feel offers the more true picture? Why?


Lesson #26 - Existentialism / Marx and Socialism

|

REMINDERS: Look for the Sophie's World - Blog Entry #4 posting. It's already up. You can also find specific information for the "Squashed Philosophers" and "Popular Culture and Philosophy" assignments on their respective "pages." We'll have a schedule available on Tuesday so you can sign up for particular days. The links are over to the right on the blog page, or you can get there from "Assignments" as well. We'll also have you complete the first participation evaluation today.


Existentialism- An Introduction: This is a pretty interesting web site, and it is clearly coming from a pro-existential persepctive. There is a lot of information here. We'll do a couple of things with it.

First, here is the list of five "diamond point" central ideas of existentialism.

  • Mankind has free will.
  • Life is a series of choices, creating stress.
  • Few decisions are without any negative consequences.
  • Some things are irrational or absurd, without explanation.
  • If one makes a decision, he or she must follow through.

Second, we'll look at the contributions of some famous existentialists lower on the page. Scroll down so that you can find these names.

  • Camus
  • de Beauvoir
  • Dostoevsky
  • Heidegger
  • Kafka

Let's try to put them in a historical context, and explain their significance. In particular, tell us why they are considered to be existentialists.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

We will meet Karl Marx today. You have all studied the ideas of socialism and Marxism to some degree in several classes. Here, we'll give you a chance to share what you think.

Here are some quotations by Karl Marx.

Some of you may want to visit the Marxists Internet Archive. If it was written by a Marxist, you can probably find it here...


Questions for discussion:

  • In an "ideal" world, what would be the strengths and weaknesses of a socialist society?
  • In our world, what are the strengths and weaknesses of socialism?
  • Should Marx' ideas be relegated to the "dustbin" (or "ash-heap") of history? Why or why not?
  • Are there ideas of Marx which should be more a part of American society?
  • What should be the goal of a state or society? How should it pursue "happiness"?

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ethics Debate guidelines: You've seen this before, but it's time to start thinking/planning...

THESE TOPICS HAVE BEEN CLAIMED: None so far...


* You will work in pairs on this.

* You will clear an appropriate topic with me. You will write a resolution which presents that topic for discussion and debate. That is simply a sentence that "frames" the debate. For example: "Capital punishment" is not a resolution. "The United States should abolish capital punishment" would be a resolution.

* One of you will prepare the affirmative side, and one of you will prepare the negative side for the resolution.

* You will do three things. First, you will each prepare a one-page maximum word document outlining key arguments and issues supporting your side. You will be responsible for getting me that document before noon on the class day of your schedule debate.

* Second, you will "begin" our debate with a four to five-minute "speech" supporting your side of the resolution. It should cite at least three sources of evidence; at least one of which is a contemporary expert, and one of which is a philosopher we have studied. It may be written out or delivered from notes.

* Third, you and your partner will compose a series of questions, topics, situations, etc. to guide our discussion.

Figure that you have approximately half of a class period, as we schedule two of these per day. (THESE WILL BE STARTING MONDAY, MAY 4th)



Lesson #25 - Existentialism

|

"Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. Such is the first principle of existentialism." - Jean-Paul Sarte

REMINDERS: Look for the Sophie's World - Blog Entry #4 posting. It's already up. You can also find specific information for the "Squashed Philosophers" and "Popular Culture and Philosophy" assignments on their respective "pages." We'll have a schedule available on Tuesday so you can sign up for particular days. The links are over to the right on the blog page, or you can get there from "Assignments" as well.


"Philosopher for a Day" presentations: As I mentioned last class, we'll use today to get caught up on a number of these. John Stuart Mill should be back to join us. In addition, we'll meet the existentialists Soren Kierkegaard (Connor), Fyodor Dostoyevsky (Joss) and
Jean-Paul Sartre (Paul).


Existentialism- An Introduction: This is a pretty interesting web site, and it is clearly coming from a pro-existential persepctive. There is a lot of information here. We'll do a couple of things with it.

First, here is the list of five "diamond point" central ideas of existentialism.

* Mankind has free will.
* Life is a series of choices, creating stress.
* Few decisions are without any negative consequences.
* Some things are irrational or absurd, without explanation.
* If one makes a decision, he or she must follow through.

Second, we'll look at the contributions of some famous existentialists lower on the page. Scroll down so that you can find these names.

* Camus
* de Beauvoir
* Dostoevsky
* Heidegger
* Kafka

Let's try to put them in a historical context, and explain their significance. In particular, tell us why they are considered to be existentialists.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ethics Debate guidelines: You've seen this before, but I thought you might want to start thinking/planning today...

THESE TOPICS HAVE BEEN CLAIMED:
None so far...


* You will work in pairs on this.

* You will clear an appropriate topic with me. You will write a resolution which presents that topic for discussion and debate. That is simply a sentence that "frames" the debate. For example: "Capital punishment" is not a resolution. "The United States should abolish capital punishment" would be a resolution.

* One of you will prepare the affirmative side, and one of you will prepare the negative side for the resolution.

* You will do three things. First, you will each prepare a one-page maximum word document outlining key arguments and issues supporting your side. You will be responsible for getting me that document before noon on the class day of your schedule debate.

* Second, you will "begin" our debate with a four to five-minute "speech" supporting your side of the resolution. It should cite at least three sources of evidence; at least one of which is a contemporary expert, and one of which is a philosopher we have studied. It may be written out or delivered from notes.

* Third, you and your partner will compose a series of questions, topics, situations, etc. to guide our discussion.

Figure that you have approximately half of a class period, as we schedule two of these per day. (THESE WILL BE STARTING MONDAY, MAY 4th)

Lesson #24 - Mill and Utilitarianism

|
NOTE: In addition to getting caught up with Andrew as John Stuart Mill, we've got three of the existentialists scheduled for today: Soren Kierkegaard (Connor), Fyodor Dostoyevsky (Joss) and John Paul Sartre (Paul). Existentialism will be our topic on Wednesday, so I'd like to push them all back until Wednesday. (If you really want to present today, we can make that happen.)

This switch will push all of our remaining presenters back one class period, but I think that makes more sense overall.

REMINDER: Your Blog Entry #4 should be posted today.


"A man who has nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the existing of better men than himself. - John Stuart Mill

John Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism
: We will start with the "Philosopher for a Day" presentation and then we will go from there.


Before we jump into utilitarianism, let's take a look at another of Mill's key contributions. Mill on freedom of speech: Here are some excerpts from a student project that capture Mill's views on the issue.


Let's start our look at utilitarianism with an interesting article: The Singer Solution to World Poverty. Peter Singer is a widely read, and very controversial, ethicist and philosopher. Perhaps this article will help you understand why...


Utilitarianism PowerPoint: OK, it isn't a "real" guest speaker, but it is pretty close. Dr. Lawrence Hinman is Director of The Values Institute at the University of San Diego. Either on your own or with a partner, work your way through the slides stopping to consider the following:

* Slide 5: Do you agree with this basic premise? Why or why not?
* Slide 6: Create one situation (hypothetical or real) where you believe this focus on consequences, rather than intentions, would be immoral.
* Slide 7: How effective do you believe you are in setting aside self-interest to determine the greater good?
* Slide 10: What do you believe has "intrinsic value"? In other words, what are the "units" by which you believe we should measure the "greater good"?
* Slide 11: Would you take candy from this man?
* After Slide 16: Which of the four utilitarians described has a view that you find most persuasive? Why?
* Slides 18-21: After reading about the "decision calculus", I want you to perform one of them. Create a proposed change of policy at MPA. List the "hedons" and "dolors" and attempt to quantify them. "Prove" to us the wisdom or undesirability of the proposed change.
* Slide 24: Be sure that you understand the difference between act and rule utilitarianism.
* Slide 25: Which view of utilitarianism makes more sense here?
* Slide 26: Which better explains the way you make decisions in your life?
* Slides 27-32: Evaluate these critiques of utilitarianism. Which, if any, do you find most persuasive?
* Slide 33: How wide is "your" circle? How wide should it be?
* Slide 34: Do you agree? Why or why not?


Take a look at the Utilitarianism Resources collected here. I'd like you to browse around for a couple minutes and pick one that you find interesting. We'll spend a few minutes looking at sites and then sharing with the group.


Sophie's World - Blog Entry #4

| | Comments (18)
On this entry, I'm concentrating on material from the "Descartes" through "Bjerkely" chapters.  (You're obviously free to draw on insights or knowledge picked up later in the reading as well...)

I'll expect a comment of one good paragraph or more. (To me, that means 5-6 sentences at a minimum.) You do not need to worry about perfect grammar, spelling and punctuation, but they should be understandable. Remember that this is a public site, and you are responsible for the content of your postings. Assume that each comment is worth 5 points.

YOUR COMMENT SHOULD BE POSTED BEFORE CLASS TIME ON MONDAY, APRIL 6th IN ORDER TO RECEIVE FULL CREDIT.


You may write on any ONE question of your choice.  (If you want, you can certainly post another comment on a different question as well...  First, however, focus on answering one question in sufficient depth, etc.)

NOTE:  If I use a page reference, it's from the smaller paperback version that most of you seem to have.  I'll also be sure to reference the specific chapter.


1.  Almost nothing in this book is as simple as it first appears.  What do you make of Sophie's dialogue with the computer near the end of "Descartes?"  Is the author trying to tell us some things about technology as well as advancing his plot?  Seventeen years after the book was first written, has the passage of time confirmed or refuted Gaarder's view of technology?

2.  There's a lot of talk about God in "Spinoza."  What here resonates with your own view of God, whether you choose to believe or not?  Are there things here particularly in tension with your views?  Explain.

3.  In "Locke," there are explicit discussions of empiricism and rationalism.  Up until this point in the novel, which perspective do you think Sophie has most displayed?  What about Alberto Knox?  Explain.

4.  Using at least two specific philosophical concepts, ideas or philosophers, tell us what you think Sophie is experiencing and/or coming to understand in "Berkeley."

5.  Things take a bit of a turn, to say the least, in "Bjerkely."  Be honest with us.  Were you surprised?  Did you expect this?  Were you confused?  Irritated?  Amused?  Basically, I want to know what you were feeling and thinking as you moved through this chapter.

6.  Metaphysics or epistemology - you pick.  What do you think Jostein Gaarder is trying to tell us about one of these two "biggies" given the events in the last several chapters>

Lesson #23 - Introduction to Ethical Theories

| | Comments (0)

Welcome back to a "regular" day. I think it has been more than three weeks since we have had one of these. Thanks for putting up with the distraction and chaos of Tuesday.

REMINDERS:
Philosophy Exam #1 is now past due. Blog entry #4 is due Monday.

Be sure you know when you are scheduled to present. Andrew is up today as John Stuart Mill.


Ethics and Ethical Theories: Most of our discussions on ethical issues thus far have probably fallen into the realm of "applied ethics." While that will continue to be a strong emphasis, we'll step back and look at more of the theory behind the study of ethics today.

We've all got notions of their meanings, but let's think about these two questions.

  • What is ethics?
  • What is morality?

On the back of the half-sheet is a quick little survey on morality. We can chat about anything interesting that came up there...

Here's a pretty good overview of one way of looking at common ethical theories... Yeah, it doesn't show very well on the blog, but click on the image and it will open in a pop-up window.

ethics_overview.gif


We're going to dig into four of the approaches in a bit more detail. We'll have you work on one of the four, and then we'll hear back from everyone. (You'll notice that much of what we do in ethics borrows heavily from Professor Lawrence Hinman's work. I think you'll find it both accessible and thoughtful.)

The Moral Point of View - This is a good PowerPoint overview on the whole idea of studying morality.

Basic Moral Orientations - This is another quick PowerPoint overview focusing on various approaches to ethical theory.


You'll work on one of these four theories: (The link will download a PowerPoint presentation.)

Once you've "adopted" your theory for the day, here's what I'd like you to do...

  • Download and take a look at the two introductory PowerPoints on morality. (Links above)
  • Download and work through the PowerPoint for your theory. (Links above)
  • Discuss your views on the pros and cons of each theory.
  • Choose one of the "Case Studies" from before break and assess it from the vantage point of "your" theory.
  • Think of another situation where you think this theory might be particularly relevant and/or useful.
We'll hear back on each ethical theory toward the end of the hour.

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from April 2009 listed from newest to oldest.

March 2009 is the previous archive.

May 2009 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.