I’m working on a philosophy discussion question and need an explanation and answer to help me learn.
1. At some point, it will occur to you that there is this oddity in the argument: most people living in a civil society never ACTUALLY contract. That is, they never promise to obey its rules. They are just born into those rules. This probably includes you. So, are you bound by Hobbes’ argument? Why or why not?
2. Are there universal, natural laws of morality? And if there are, can we discover these laws through our powers reason and reflection, or do we require revelation? (Remember – you can’t just give a yes or no answer. You must back up that yes or no with reasons, examples, explanation and in a word argument. If you haven’t already, start trying to do
this by quoting the thinkers in this unit, or by drawing on the arguments of lecture.)
3. At the tail end of his reply to what I called the bestial” objection to Utilitarianism, Mill argued, “A being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy, is capable probably of more acute suffering, and certainly accessible to it at more points, than one
of an inferior type; but in spite of these liabilities, he can never really wish to sink into what he feels to be a lower grade of existence.” (241-242) One take away
point of this argument was to understand Mill as defending the claim that human beings are better off directing themselves at the higher pleasures of the
mind and intellect; for only the latter can really make them happy. This is a foundational preference,
according to Mill.
However, it became a bit tricky to say WHY Mill thinks
humans have this preference. That is, we made sense
of his argument to prove THAT we have this
preference (the thought expirment of Socrates vs.
The Pig…. but WHY does he think we have this
preference. We considered some possible answers:
Pride
A love of liberty and personal independence
A love of power and excitement
But we noted that Mill answers differently. He says,
we have this preference in virtue of “a sense of
dignity”, which we possess in “some proportion” to
our higher faculties (242).
What do you make of this cryptic claim?
4 . Help interpret Kant’s “dealer” (i.e. shop-keeper) example at 397. If you are one of the first people participating in this board, feel free to get credit by simply describing the example. Everyone else: what is the point of the example? What is meant to show or
illustrate? What part of Kant’s argument is it
supporting? And is it a persuasive example? Why or why not?
5. It is sometimes objected (by Utilitarians) that Kant’s
theory makes unintuitive absolute prohibitions against
certain actions, like torture. For example, some think
that it is unintuitive to say that, in the face of extreme
bad consequences, we must NEVER EVER torture or
lie or kill innocent persons.
Two questions:
1) Does Kant’s theory really have this result? If so,
which actions really do end up in this category (or in
other words, which maxims does the Categorial
Imperative ALWAYS strike down)?
2) If this really is Kant’s position: what reply can he
make to this objection?
Note: for those of you with Utilitarian sympathies, you
can get credit in this board by pressing the defenders
of Kant. That is, by politely challenging their attempts
to answer these two questions, especially #2.
6. Nietzsche’ Challenge
A challenge to what?
To say why he is wrong! To show that there is more to
“ethics” than he thinks. Defend the idea of duty! Or
the requirement about the happiness of others! Or
that being a noble person is in the end more like what
Plato said – being virtuous is more than just being “a
will to power”! Or if none of these seem right, and you
think Nietzsche was onto something, then pursue that
path. Whatever you do, don’t have NO path.
So get to it: Lodge an objection, explain Nietzsche’s
mistake, or defend him in this discussion board.
7. To be or not to be…a determinist. Now that you’ve had
a chance to think about determinism, what do you
think? Is it a persuasive theory – why or why not? In
this discussion board, please answer this question by
arguing why the mind IS reducible to the physical
brain, or IS NOT so reducible?
8 Is there room in our lives for “mysterious” beliefs?
People often say that “God works in mysterious ways”
– but why do we tolerate such explanations in religion,
when we don’t seem to do so in other areas. Only
imagine that you asked a doctor – “Why will this
medicine make me better?” And the answer was, “I
don’t know, it’s mysterious.” Would you take the
medicine? Or what if just before you got on a plane,
the captain said, “I have no idea why the plane stays
in the air – its mysterious.” Would you get on the
plane? Specifically, is it ok in philosophy? What if
someone told you, “It is your moral duty to kill these
families, but I can’t tell you why. No one knows. It’s
mysterious.” Would you accept this?
In short, when is it ok to use “mysteriousness” as an
answer to a question? Why is it permissible in these
instances and not in others?
9. Here again is the Basic Problem of Evil:
1. If God is omnipotent, then God is able to prevent
evil
2. If God is omnibenevolent, then God wants to
prevent evil
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows how to
prevent evil.
4. If a 3 “O” God exists, there is no evil.
5. There is evil.
6. Thus, a 3 “O” God does not exist.
Is this argument persuasive? Why or why? Be clear
and precise in your comments (e.g. stating which step
of the argument you are challenging or defending),
and most importantly, be respectful and civil in your
exchanges with others. Religion can be a sensitive
topic for many people!
10: Paul Taylor, via Jorge Garcia, frames racism in the
term disregard. Do you find this term satisfactory?
Why or Why not? If not, what would you add to fully
capture what racism is and does?
In your response, remember these three pillars in
critical conversations:
Be charitable to the readings, videos, and to
your colleagues’ comments.
Be proactive in thinking about your questions
and comments; try your best to make sure
that they are not harmful to your classmates.
Discomfort, misconceptions, and ignorance
are all ok; we are growing together in
discussing these topics.
11. Paul Taylor, via Jorge Garcia, frames racism in the
term disregard. Do you find this term satisfactory?
Why or Why not? If not, what would you add to fully
capture what racism is and does?
In your response, remember these three pillars in
critical conversations:
Be charitable to the readings, videos, and to
your colleagues’ comments.
Be proactive in thinking about your questions
and comments; try your best to make sure
that they are not harmful to your classmates.
Discomfort, misconceptions, and ignorance
are all ok; we are growing together in
discussing these topics.
12. So…..just how powerful is God? Here’s a paradox to
test your intuitions: Can God create a rock so heavy
that God him/herself cannot lift it?
13. Laurence Blum argues that the special evil of racism
lies in its historical tie to the “social and systematic
horrors” of slavery, apartheid, Nazism, etc., in 2 ways:
1. The fact of that connection
2. Because present racism reminds us of that
connection.
Do you agree? Why or why not? And if not, what do
you think is the distinctive harm of racism? Or, if you
think racism involves no distinctive evil, you can play
the role in this discussion board of skeptic.
But remember – like religion, the topic of race and
racism is an especially sensitive one. I expect civil,
charitable, and respectful discussion.
14: Our new question is this: In the years since Mclntosh
published “White Privilege” she has noted that she
wishes she would have included the need for
intersectionality in our discussions of privilege
because many of her examples also assume the
perspective of the middle class. Intersectionality is
the idea that individuals’ experiences of privilege
and/or disadvantage differ depending on where their
identity is located “at the intersection” of several
aspect of identity. For example, a black woman from
the upper class has different experiences from a black
man from the lower class because the experience of
racism is different depending on other factors such as
class and gender. Why do you think it is important to
consider the many aspect of an individual’s identity
when we talk about privilege and disadvantage?
Intersecting Axes of Privilege, Domination, and Opression
Attractive
Upper and Upper-Middle Class
Politics of Apper
Male and masculine,
Fema@ and femnine
Ganderism
Domination,
infertie,
Jes
Dark:
English as a second language
Working class, poor
^ Previous
Coloniam.
Anti-semitiam
Pro-natalism
Gentie
Non-Jew
Fertle
Domination
Female
Péople of Color
‘Non-Europe an Origin
Next
