philosophy discussions 1-12
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Wilfrid Laurier University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
110
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
7
Uploaded by CountMeerkatPerson329
LESSON 1 DISCUSSION:
PART A: Introduce yourself to the class. What is your name and major? Where did you grow up? Are you on-campus or at a distance? Why did you sign up for Social and Political Philosophy? Which issues related to the subject do you most want to explore?
Hi
my name is Megan and I’m a general science major! I’m currently off campus and doing everything online. I took this class because philosophy is something that has always interested me, and I always have fun in classes like this! I like to see and consider different thought processes and points of view.
PART B:
2. Define philosophy in a way that is most relevant for you. Then elaborate on or criticize 3 of
the quotes below.
I think philosophy is about understanding the different points of view and considering new ways to look at the world and evolve through different thought processes.
a.
“At most, philosophy can be the love of wisdom, the will to truth, a mere quest but never the actual possession of truth. Educators, therefore, ought to clear the field of old conventions, of fossilized ideas that parade as truths and free their students from prejudices.”
I think this statement is true because when you really step back and think about it there’s
no REAL truth. Everyone has a different definition and unique perspective on what they think is true. I’ve always said this about what people think is right and wrong as well. We know what we think to be true but that doesn’t mean the people around us and general society believe the same.
e) Moral argument is a “dialect between our judgements about particular situations and the principles we affirm on reflection.” (Michael Sandel, Justice, p.28)
I agree with this statement. It all has to do with what I said above about how everyone has a different concept of right and wrong. Even though we are given a social construct / set of ‘norms’ that are supposedly ‘right and wrong’ it all comes down to an individual’s thought processes, experience and cognitive function.
d) “Philosophy and history of philosophy are one. You cannot do the first without also doing the second.” – Charles Taylor
This statement reminds me of another statement, “I only know my ideas, of other people’s ideas.” – Bo Burnham
Philosophy and the history of philosophy are 100% part of the same whole. New philosophies
emerge because of new ideas that come from either the agreeance or the distaste of past philosophies.
LESSON 2 DISCUSSION:
Democracy (2.4)
1a. What are the best and worst things about Democracy?
The best thing about democracy is that people feel like they have a say about what happens to them and how their country is run. They get to vote for what they think is best for them. But democracy comes with its fair share of problems. As much as we as a populace don’t like to admit it, we have a problem with changing our minds and getting angry at the people that we vote into office very VERY easily. We sometimes feel that maybe we’d be better off if we didn’t get to pick the people in charge… but, it’s obvious that that kind of society in our country would also not turn out very well. Just as we get mad at the people, we elect to lead us we would be equally if not more so unhappy with the decision we have no say in.
1b. Would you prefer to live in a Liberal Dictatorship
(protects individual rights) or an Illiberal Democracy
? (Authoritarian or theocratic policies enacted by majority vote)
I would rather live in a liberal dictatorship because a society where authoritarianism reigns supreme usually comes with a severe decrease in quality of life. Throughout history there have been multiple examples of societies and cultures collapsing underneath authoritarian and theocratic government systems.
LESSON 3 DISCUSSION:
1a. How might Hobbes criticize Plato’s Republic?
Hobbes would look at Plato’s Republic and feel like Plato was naïve and unrealistically optimistic. Plato was someone who was more of a glass half full rather than half empty type of person. Believing that people were inherently good and that they will always do things that result in good outcomes and actions. Hobbes is seen as more pessimistic. Thinking that people are more drawn to doing what is good for them and only them and believing that human nature is inherently egotistical.
1b. What would be Locke’s main criticism of Hobbes?
Locke would think that Hobbes was too obsessed with government control and argue that the government shouldn’t have complete control over the populace. Locke was more a believer in partial control over the populace rather than a monarchy. He would be concerned for the populace’s individual rights and freedoms and also feel that Hobbes is underestimating people with his pessimistic view on human nature because if he thought more like Plato the need he had for an absolutist government would be virtually non-
existent.
LESSON 4 DISCUSSION:
1a. Should Dudley and Stephens be hanged for killing and eating Parker? Or should their act of desperation be partially or fully excused due to the extreme circumstances? (p.31-33)
I don’t believe that Dudley and Stephens should be hanged for killing and eating Parker. This is because I believe that they did this purely out of necessity. Dudley and Stephens saw that Parker was going to die anyway
because he was already sick and going to eventually die a slow death. I think that under any other circumstance
that they wouldn’t consider any malicious acts towards other individuals, this was just an extenuating circumstance where options were limited, and time was valuable.
1b A Utilitarian would agree that normal society should have rules against murder and cannibalism because such prohibitions serve utility and overall happiness.
However, in this special case, such rules are contrary to utility. Does morality require everyone to starve?
This question is very hard to answer because when visualizing this answer, I can’t effectively imagine my own self being in a situation like this. But I think that morality doesn’t apply here as something that can keep them from making the decision to eat Parker. Again, they did this purely out of necessity and desperate times call for desperate measures. I feel like when put in situations like this logic and reasoning / thinking about right and wrong/ potential consequences flies out the window and is essentially null and void.
1c. What sort of rules should govern such situations? For example, is killing and cannibalism okay if everyone agrees to draw lots? Or is it better to kill and eat someone who is dying anyway?
I think in this situation there should be extensive thought processes and conversations that go into making these decisions rather than the ‘I say we do this so, we do it.’ Type of mentality that comes from Dudley and Stephens making the decision on their own based on opinion on human life value. I don’t necessarily think that
they are justified in their actions because of the way they decided to make their decision. I would be more open to the decision if the only deciding factor was that Parker was ill and close to death instead of them perceiving him as less than and thinking of him as someone who was worth nothing because they believe that they are more important.
LESSON 5 DISCUSSION:
7a. Do you agree with Sandel that there are some things money shouldn’t be able to buy? Yes, I agree that there are things money shouldn’t be able to buy. I think this is because there are limits to what anyone should be able to buy and sell. Unfortunately, in some parts of the world money can be spent to acquire just about anything you could think of... good or bad. There are moral limits that are sometimes not universally recognized and enforced. 7b. What are the best candidates for such status, and by what criteria? The main things that I believe should not be bought and sold are human lives.
In the past the human race has had a lot of turmoil around the subject of slavery, and ownership of property. A human should not be allowed to spend their money to possess another individual in any context. 7c. Should prostitution/sex work be legal? Or rich donors “buying” Ivy league college admission for their kids?
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
I believe that prostitution/ sex work should be legal, but only if both parties are aware, consensual, and understanding of what they are doing. I think it’s a matter of professionalism and how the worker presents themself and their business, and the individual’s personal safety. LESSON 6 DISCUSSION:
5a. What is the best way of defining the least advantaged?
There are many ways of defining the "least advantaged", i think that the 'least advantaged' are made up of the bottom 20% of the population in terms
of wealth which in turn can be made up of those with disabilities, on welfare,
those in areas of poverty and those affected by crime in their day to day life.
5b. Should distributive justice focus on maximizing wealth for the least advantaged, for the average person, or maximizing utility for all?
I believe that distributive justice should focus on maximizing utility for all. This way everyone is technically given the same opportunities and everyone is accountable for what they do with their life and no one is left in the lurch trying to dig their way out and find new opportunities that are potentially dangerous to their mental and physical wellbeing.
LESSON 7 DISCUSSION:
1a. Why did Rousseau deny that "advances in the arts and sciences" have led to a "purification of morals"?
Rousseau denies this claim because he believes that advances in the arts and sciences in civilization corrupt the
concept of individuality because we in turn are weighed down by our own society and the advances that come in our arts and sciences, mainly technological advancements, come with new ways that we are connected to and influenced by external sources and the expectations of the rest of society whilst always being broadcasted. These advancements harbor self centeredness and a sense of what I can only describe as “main character syndrome”.
1b. Do you believe in Moral Progress?
I believe in moral progress to a certain extent. I think that the concept is definitely something that can happen, but there is no true way to know these days if peoples morals are real and if they actually believe in what they’re preaching and presenting. Anyone can say anything they want these days and we have to take it at face value. If someone were to dig deeper into their beliefs and their reasoning there can be problems and negative connotations that come with trying to gain a better understanding on opinions and beliefs.
LESSON 8 DISCUSSION:
1a. The difference between Burkes and Joseph de Maistre’s beliefs is that Joseph de Maistre worked in traditional conservatism and Burle was more focused on the evolution of conservatism. Burke found Joseph de Maistres approach to be regressive because it was more focused on the past ways rather
than the new and ever changing ways of conservatism. b. Burkes conservatism differs from libertarianism because Libertarianism favours a minimal state and sees the government unfavourable, and his conservatism seeks to find a balance between individual liberty and government authority. c. Burke defended prejudice. He believed that embracing and keeping all of our old prejudices we can learn more about the world and that through just prejudice one’s duty would become part of their nature. This contrasts with Bentham's beliefs that seeks to combat our prejudices and that we should create a measure for prejudice and the control of moral prejudice. LESSON 9 DISCUSSION:
When Marx said that “religion is the opium of the people.” He meant that religion is being used as a tool to liberate people and make them feel like they are worth something, but at the same time it is also ruining other peoples lives. You become addicted to the high of feeling valued and
being given a sense of purpose by using something that oppresses and destroys other groups of people.
I somewhat agree with this statement of religion. As a religious person myself, I see the exact effect that religion gives people and how it can make them act and what they do, but as someone who likes to explore different thought processes, I also know the history of oppression
and unfavourableness that comes with religious affiliations throughout the past.
LESSON 10 DISCUSSION:
3a. According to Nietzche the death of God is an event caused by the people. the madman claims that the people will kill God through their disbelief in God. He thinks that this is a good thing because people will be able to live their lives without thinking about a higher power and a chance to live without stressing about going to heaven. This is problematic though, because
this means there technically ( in a world where most believe in a higher power) would have nothing to keep us in check and remember our values.
3b. I believe that God is not dead. My answer could simply be backed with the statement “I’m a Christian.” But I think that’s too easy. I feel that as long as there is someone within the world who has faith in God and believes in Him than he is alive. If there was no one in the world left that had faith in him
that could potentially make him be considered as “dead”, but God is very much alive.
LESSON 11 DISCUSSION:
5a. While i think that both of these presidents have good points in their quotes i think that i agree with Obama's just slightly more than JFK's. I think that every action or decision that anyone ultimately makes in any context is spurred by belief, whether it be a religious belief or someone who is not religious. Furthermore, i feel that one can never truly separate their actions from religion because in many contexts religion is used as a compass for morality and can often be a huge factor in the social constructs of nations and individuals lives and wellbeings.
5b. i do agree with Sandels claim because i have always been someone who is
very neutral in the pro-life, pro-choice debate. i have always believed that people can do whatever they want and that it's not my place to tell them what is right and what is wrong. I have seen both sides of this argument and i
have seen the animalism that comes from both sides of the debate and that there is no true neutral argument being presented on either side.
LESSON 12 DISCUSSION:
Taylor: Liberal Democracy vs. Republican Democracy
1a. How does Charles Taylor distinguish between Liberal Individualist views of
democracy and his own Tocquevillian Civic Republican view?
Charles Taylor portrays the liberal individualists as a group in which the people are represented solely by the leaders they elect and And the
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Tocquevillian Civic Republicans are portrayed as a group that challenge the leadership, instead wanting to represent themselves, and advocate for freedom rather than equality.
1b. Which is better and why?
I think that the Liberal Individualist view is the better of the two because there is a sense of security that comes with being governed by chosen leaders. Some may argue that being represented solely by elected leaders is ignoring the individual, but the truth is that any time a leader is put in place, whether it be by election or not, there will always be a small percentage of the populace who are unhappy with the choices that are made and the people in charge.