Philosophy Midterm #2 Prep
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of California, Berkeley *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
Pages
4
Uploaded by CaptainThunder13740
Week of February 26: Study Questions
“A meaningful life is one that is actively and at least somewhat successfully engaged in a project
(or projects) of positive value” (Wolf, p. 94). Explain the key elements in this analysis in your
own terms.
A meaningful life is a life that has a positive purpose and impacts yourself/others around you. It also
involves personal action and initiative. Actions may be "projects" (e.g. financial, fitness, academic, etc.
goals)Wolf would say that you need a positive account and positive value (value within oneself and/or
community) within the aforementioned projects.[personally I find the question "what is a meaningful life"
entirely subjective]. note: Wolf also describes an UNmeaningful life as a waste/unrewarding life, so with
that in mind, a meaning life would be the opposite. [if you say this, note what an unmeaningful life is !]
What is missing from the case that Wolf calls “the Blob”? What about the cases that she
classifies under the headings of “Useless” and “Bankrupt”?
Blob: A blob is a passive person whose entire existence is sitting in front of the TV, drinking beer, and
watching sitcoms. MISSING: active engagement (therefore no success or positive value)
Bankrupt: missing Success/or somewhat successfully engaged [example: scientist wanted to have a
medical breakthrough BUT someone beat someone to it].
Useless: no positive value - dominant activities seem pointless, useless, empty.
Discuss the relation between the meaningful life and the moral life. Do you agree with Wolf that
lives can be “meaningful even if they are, on the whole, judged to be immoral” (p. 97)? Why or
why not? (Consider some concrete examples.)
Meaningful life: Wolf - "A meaningful life is one that is actively and at least somewhat successfully
engaged in a project (or projects) of positive value", it has things they can look back on with satisfaction,
has things to live for at the moment
If we are just “tiny specks in a vast universe” (Wolf, p. 105), why might it be important to
engage with values that come from outside ourselves? Is Wolf correct to think that this kind of
engagement gives our lives a point, even if it doesn’t render them cosmically important?
It's important to "..." bc we should recognize that we're not the only individuals that matter. First, morality
requires impartiality regarding the concerns of others. If there really are distinctions of value, then we
should actively pursue projects/relationships of value. Even if a life is not cosmically important, it can
still be meaningful to oneself and others bc meaningfulness is internal; also from cosmic POV we no
longer see ourselves as the center of the universe, so we see other people's values as equally important;
world is a value-filled place; find a value anchor. If we are but just a speck, anything we do is
insignificant. It's important to harmonize with the facts, a fact can give us meaning. Wolf thinks living a
life w positive value allows with the ideology of that we are tiny spec. Together we are more than a speck.
None of us are the center of the universe, we are not the only source of values. If we only went after what
we think are important, but if we seek what objectively is important. World does not revolve around one
person, and you are not always right so look what is right outside of you
Explain the significance of the Maria Lugones case for the understanding of integrity. Do you
agree with Calhoun that Lugones has integrity despite the fact that aspects of her identity are in
conflict with each other?
Integrity - being true to oneself; as opposed to being willing to betray/abandon it during times of
conflict/pressure. Maria Lugones case - conflicting identities w being Latina + lesbian - they can't be
integrated into a single, consistent outlook on life or a "self." Agree, bc Lugones is honoring both of her
identities (both of her "selves"). She isn't compromising. She's not abandoning one to fully embrace the
other. This proves that the "integrated self" view of integrity is limited and not always accurate.
What threatens integrity is “our own vulnerability to other people—their bribes and threats,
authoritative demands, reproaches and accusations of unreasonableness, their lower standards
that make it easy to get away with violating our own, and their collective construction of a world
that calls upon us to act against our ideals” (Calhoun, p. 143). Explain this passage in your own
Words.
definition: Integrity - being true to oneself; as opposed to being willing to betray/abandon it during times
of conflict/pressure. However, we become willing when we substitute others' judgment for our own. We
become increasingly vulnerable when we face social pressures; e.g. we are coerced or a (perceived)
authority figure is making this demand on us. We can be tempted to give in to others' judgment and
demands, sell out, etc. Also, the world may require different things than what an ideal world would
require. Our integrity is also at risk if we blindly follow others' examples. When the people around us
have different standards than our own, it's tempting (even if they're not explicitly asking us to do so, e.g.
peer pressure). It's also hard to follow our own standards when the world asks us to follow different ones.
I - stand for something publicly, while also acknowledging others, not necessarily bending. Social norms -
pressure to conformity - resist those
Explain and assess Calhoun’s contention that integrity is a social rather than a personal virtue.
How exactly does this virtue make us fit for “community membership” (Calhoun, p. 149)?
Calhoun defines integrity as the capacity and willingness to "stand for something" before others. By this
definition, integrity is essential to common projects that benefit everyone in a society such as ensuring
fairness in our elections, or protecting civil rights. Since these are issues that everyone cares about and
affects everyone, integrity is a social virtue that makes us productive and virtuous members of a
community. If these kinds of social pressures threaten integrity, then integrity is a social rather than a
personal virtue. Being that integrity is a virtue, it inherently has positive value. It can allow people to
follow and stand by morals and other [aspects] important for community upkeep/formation; It allows us to
be members of a community.
Week of March 4: Study Questions
What is the most significant difference between Scheffler’s Doomsday and Infertility scenarios?
What role does the difference between them play in his argument?
Doomsday: you have a normal lifespan, but the earth will be destroyed by an asteroid thirty days after
your death (Killing everyone). Infertility: the human species becomes infertile; everyone currently alive
will live a normal lifespan, but there will be nobody who comes after us. afterlife conjunction: the absence
of an afterlife that would profoundly affect our ability to find meaning and value in our own activities.
Most significant difference: With infertility after you won't be able to have kids so your family lineage
dies with you. In doomsday, nothing is stopping you to procreate, however they will inevitably die
alongside you with your passing. Scheffler's idea: the missing Afterlife matters to us in Infertility, because
it deprives us of the characteristics of a meaningful existence ie.
How might the end of the human species after we are gone affect concretely the meaning or
value of our own activities, here and now? (Use some specific examples.)
Exs From Lecture:Multigenerational teleological projects ie. working to find a cure for cancer: without an
afterlife, such activities lose their point: they will never reach their conclusion (since that would take
many generations); and there will be no future people to benefit from them. Traditions: collective,
multigenerational practices organized to preserve and advance important human values. These activities
too might seem to lose their point without an Afterlife: no prospect any longer of ensuring that one's
values continue on into the future. If the end of the human species were to happen after my lifetime, I
would personally stop all long-term goals. A specific example would be stopping my own personal career
goal, which is to become a lawyer. The sole reason why I want to become a lawyer is to provide for my
family. I come from an immigrant family, so being that I am generation zero of my family lineage here in
America, my goal is to provide a good foundation for later generations. Becoming a lawyer would
provide financial stability for that. If the end of the human race were to come fairly soon after my
lifespan, I don't necessarily see why I need to continue my career path. Furthermore, I think I would stop
college altogether. We go to college to get a better-paying job to provide for ourselves and/or our families.
However, why put yourself through financial and emotional suffering just so it will all be meaningless in
the end? The value of wealth we hold in society will no longer exist if we know the human race will end.
Scheffler writes: “if by the afterlife we mean the continuation of human life on earth after our
own deaths, then it seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that, in some significant respects, the
existence of the afterlife matters more to us than our own continued existence” (p. 26). Does this
strike you as a plausible assertion? Why or why not?
I feel that this is definitely a plausible assertion. When Scheffler states, "the existence of the afterlife
matters more to us than our own continued existence", I have to definitely agree because he touches on
the 'footprint' you leave behind. No one would like to not be remembered and this is why you leave try to
leave a legacy in the first place. It also ties in with familial obligations. Within your family, of course, you
would want them to be well off when you inevitably die; this is why we work so hard to give our children
the resources and what they need to keep the family legacy alive/thriving.
“For all practical purposes, climate change damages are insensitive to individual behavior”
(Jamieson, p. 181). Explain this idea. Does it follow from this that we should make no efforts to
adjust our personal lifestyles in response to concerns about climate change?
In this statement, Jamieson summarizes the idea that one individual's actions-even if they are living a high
carbon-footprint lifestyle-are a mere drop in the bucket compared to the problem of climate change as a
whole. In this way, one individual's actions cannot make much of a difference. However, this does not
lead to the conclusion that we should make no effort to adjust our personal lifestyles in response to
concerns about climate change. As Jamieson explains, we can be contributing to climate change, even if
our individual actions cannot be said to be causing it. Considering this, we should reduce our carbon
footprint to contribute to the solution of climate change. As Jamieson proposes, "we want to act in ways
that would be defensible if everyone in our position did likewise; and a green lifestyle seems more
defensible in these terms than a large carbon-footprint lifestyle."
What are some elements in what Jamieson calls “respect for nature”?
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
The elements in what Jamieson calls "respect for nature,' are "responding to nature as an amoral force; as
an adversary; as an object of aesthetic appreciation; and as a partner in complex interdependent life
processes"
Jamieson writes: “Climate change threatens a great deal but it does not touch what ultimately
makes our lives worth living: the activities we engage in that are in accordance with our values.
The green virtues...can provide guidance for living gracefully in a changing world while helping
to restore in us a sense of agency” (200). Explain and assess this assertion.
Activities shape our morals.Green virtues - are activities that provide guidance on how to adhere to these
morals + agency + caring ab environment. Morality = caring impartiality for other things/people. Making
sure nature is there for others too. Prudential reasons. Assess: Rather than being defeatist, might was well
live our lives w these kinds of values - respect nature bc we live in it (always present); a reflection of how
we value others + ourselves
Week of March 11: Study Questions
Explain the Death in Brunswick case presented by Cocking and Kennett. In helping Carl move
Mustapha’s body, is Dave being a good friend to Carl? Why or why not?
Dave is being a good friend to Carl by showing special concern/partiality for his interests by helping him
get out of a perilous situation in which he could be accused of killing Mustapha and potentially put in
prison. However, this does not mean he was acting morally, since Dave did not show impartial concern to
Mustapha or his family by helping to hide the body.
“[F]riends are characteristically receptive to being directed and interpreted and so in these ways
drawn by each other” (Cocking and Kennett, 284). Explain this idea. Why might the receptivity
to “being directed” by your friend lead you e.g. to lie to a colleague, or to indulge or participate
in your friend’s recklessness?
Movie ticket example. "Mutual Drawing" - very influenced by friends + their interests MD - our friends
aren't moral exemplars, so bending to them can be morally dangerous; we might be tempted to act
immorally e.g. recklessly. MD is crucial to friendship bc: helps to distinguish friendship from other kinds
of relationships that also involve love, attachment, concern for others' well-being
Considering friends who would not be willing to do things for each other that conflict with moral
requirements, Cocking and Kennett write: “There is simply less good, qua friendship, to be had
in a relationship like this” (295). Why do they think this? Does their conclusion strike you as
plausible? Why or why not?
This conclusion does not strike me as plausible because while friends who are willing to go against
morality for each other may build a strong genuine connection with each other, if they are consistently
acting immorally together their friendship will eventually be a source of far less overall good in terms of
their connections with others and personal development. The prudential effects of a friendship like this
will eventually drag them down and get in the way of their own long-term self-interest.