Good and Evil Final Exam (1)
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Athabasca University, Athabasca *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
502
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
8
Uploaded by KidAntelopeMaster851
Shreya Patel (N01360086)
Good and Evil (HUMA-3005-OBW)
Final Exam Questions & Answers
December 7th, 2023
“With friends like Job’s friends, who needs enemies!” (This is an expression that
basically communicates that friends are not doing what they should be doing as friends,
but are behaving in ways that are more like the ways enemies behave). Explain how
someone might reach this conclusion upon reading the Book of Job. Do you agree with
the conclusion? Why or why not?
A moving story that explores themes of suffering, faith, and the intricacies of human
relationships—particularly during difficult times—is found in the Hebrew Bible's Book of
Job. A good man named Job endures unspeakable hardships and loses everything—his family,
his fortune, and his health. Friends arrive to console him and give advice when he's upset. But
because of how they relate to Job and how they deal with his suffering, the saying "With
friends like Job's friends, who needs enemies!" comes about. After sitting with Job in silence
for seven days, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar—Job's friends—show via actions and words that
ultimately lead to the conclusion. But as soon as they begin talking, their tone shifts to one of
accusation, as though Job had done something wrong to merit this kind of hardship.
Nevertheless, Job refuses to acknowledge his guilt and queries the source of his anguish. His
friends don't provide him with consolation or comfort; instead, their accusations cause him
more distress. He feels abandoned and misunderstood. It is partly because of this lack of
comprehension and compassion on the part of those he looks to for assistance that he feels
more like an enemy than a loyal friend.
Several facts lead one to conclude that having friends like Job's pals is the same as having
enemies:
Insufficient Empathy:
Job's companions are unable to genuinely feel his pain. Rather than
extending empathy and understanding—which are crucial in friendships during hard times—
they hold him responsible for his misfortunes.
A judging attitude rather than a helpful one is implied by their belief that pain is a direct
outcome of sin. Genuine companions typically provide consolation without promptly
attaching hardship to individual transgressions.
Betrayal of Trust:
Job looks to his friends for compassion and understanding, but instead he
gets criticism and charges. This betrayal of confidence exacerbates the sense of loneliness
and abandonment that one may feel from enemies.
But whether one agrees with this conclusion in full may depend on several factors:
Arguments opposing the conclusion:
Cultural and Historical Context:
Some contend that Job's companions tried to explain
things within the framework of the paradigm they understood by adhering to the common
wisdom and religious beliefs of the period.
Impact vs. Intentions:
Job's friends may have sincerely wanted to assist him, but they may
not have had the knowledge or resources to deal with his circumstances.
In the end, the realization that having friends that are similar to Job's friends
corresponds to having enemies emphasizes how crucial empathy, comprehension, and support
are in friendships. The story emphasizes the value of genuine friendship in the face of
hardship, stressing that true friends offer support and understanding as opposed to criticism
and accusations.
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
Why does Immanuel Kant think that we can never be certain that any of our actions are
morally good actions? Do you agree or disagree with Kant on this point? Explain your
answer to this second question either way. (This will be discussed in class on 5 December
2023.)
Immanuel Kant's philosophical framework, in particular his stress on the significance
of goodwill and moral obligation, is the basis of his perspective on morality and the assurance
that our actions are ethically right. According to Kant, deeds are ethically commendable not
only for their intended purposes but also for their outcomes. In line with his moral theory, an
action is morally just if it is motivated by duty and the categorical imperative, which is a
principle that requires us to act per rules that may be universal laws devoid of conflict. Kant
is sceptical about being able to tell with certainty whether our deeds are ethically right for
several reasons.
Subjectivity of Moral Assessment:
Kant accepts that human judgment is inherently
subjective. What one individual considers to be ethically right may not be the same for
another. The certainty of establishing the morality of activities generally is complicated by
this subjective lens.
Kant acknowledges the imperfection of human nature. He is aware that moral judgment can
be tainted by emotions, biases, and other outside influences because people are flawed.
Because of these inborn flaws, we may not always act in a way that is entirely consistent with
our moral obligations.
Complexity of Moral Reasoning:
Complex moral reasoning is required to evaluate an
action's moral merit. Because of Kant's focus on the purpose underlying deeds, it is possible
that deeds with the best intentions do not always fully conform to the rules of universal
morality.
Regarding whether or not one agrees with Kant's viewpoint:
Agreeing:
Taking into account the intricacy of moral judgments, I could agree with Kant's
point of view. A variety of factors indeed impact human behaviour, and our subjective
viewpoints might make it difficult for us to assess the absolute moral value of the things we
do. It is difficult to uphold universal moral principles, and even with the greatest of
intentions, we may stray from these goals due to our flawed nature.
Disagreement:
While human judgment is subjective, some would contest Kant's assertion
that there are situations in which an action can more obviously be in line with generally
recognized moral norms. People can rationally determine whether their activities are in line
with moral duties by using moral reasoning and assessing actions based on their intent and
outcomes.
In conclusion, Kant's claim that we can never be completely sure if everything we do
is morally righteous illustrates the subjectivity and complexity that come with moral
judgments. Whether or not one agrees with Kant's position relies on how one interprets
human judgment, the nature of morality, and the application of general moral concepts to
everyday situations.
Explain precisely why Baudrillard thinks that the spirit of terrorism is “everywhere”
rather than a geographically specific phenomenon. Do you agree with Baudrillard on
this point? Why or why not?
The French sociologist and philosopher Jean Baudrillard had a nuanced understanding
of terrorism, seeing it as a symbolic act that crosses particular geopolitical borders and is
intricately woven into modern society and culture. According to Baudrillard, the spirit of
terrorism is "everywhere" because it responds to different cultural, social, and political
conflicts that are present throughout the world, operating outside of conventional ideas of
location or particular causes.
He thought that the concentration on media, hyperreality, and
the mass distribution of images and information in contemporary society has made it easier
for terrorists to thrive. Baudrillard argues that the pervasiveness of media coverage magnifies
the effects of terrorist activities, transforming them into spectacles that draw viewers in and
incite dread, lending authority and importance to deeds that might otherwise go unreported.
According to Baudrillard, terrorism is a complex phenomenon impacted by a variety
of cultural, sociological, and personal elements rather than being exclusively limited to
certain geographical areas or political views. He maintained that cultural conflicts, identity
crises, or the pursuit of power and notoriety can all be contributing factors to acts of terrorism
in addition to economic and political ones. I concur that the notion that terrorism originates
from a variety of cultural, religious, and ideological ideas is consistent with Baudrillard's
point of view. Baudrillard's theory is consistent with the idea that certain people or groups
may resort to extreme actions due to strong convictions and goals.
Although Baudrillard's perspective acknowledges the pervasiveness of terrorism as a
result of power conflicts and a variety of cultural beliefs, some would argue that it
oversimplifies the complexity of terrorism. Critics may contend that although cultural and
sociological elements are important, the origins and spread of terrorism are also greatly
influenced by geopolitical circumstances, historical grudges, economic inequality, and
particular political agendas. Although Baudrillard's viewpoint sheds light on the symbolic and
ubiquitous character of terrorism, a more nuanced understanding of the issue necessitates
taking into account a wide range of contributing elements.
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
What did Nietzsche mean when he said that God is dead, and what did he think was the
danger that comes with this death? Why is it that agreement with Nietzsche on this
point does not depend upon or imply the absence of religious faith (why, in other words,
can someone be a believer and at the same time agree with Nietzsche that God is dead,
as some believers in fact do)? Do you agree with Nietzsche? Why or why not?
When Nietzsche said, "God is dead," he was using a metaphor to describe how
traditional religious beliefs were fading and how religious values were becoming less
important in a world that was becoming more and more influenced by reason, science, and
secularism. He thought that the emergence of modernity and the Enlightenment had
undermined the validity and significance of religious dogma, which had resulted in the loss of
confidence in a transcendent deity and the disintegration of conventional moral and
meaningful systems.
Nietzsche perceived the possibility of a moral and existential crisis as the threat posed
by the "death of God". He maintained that the loss of guiding principles and values that once
gave people and communities meaning and purpose could result from a collapse in religious
belief. Nietzsche feared that nihilism, an existential condition in which conventional values
are viewed as meaningless and leave people adrift in a meaningless world, might result from
the lack of a transcendent moral framework. But accepting Nietzsche's claim that "God is
dead" does not automatically mean that one does not believe in religion. While some
believers continue to hold fast to their particular understanding of God or spirituality, they
nevertheless acknowledge the erosion of traditional religious authority and orthodoxy. If they
maintain their faith or spiritual views, they may agree with Nietzsche's criticism of
institutionalized religion or the diminishing role of religion in society norms and ethics.
Individual viewpoints determine whether or not one agrees with Nietzsche's claim.
His criticism of the loss of a common moral framework and the diminishing impact of
religion on society's values may strike a chord with some. Some disagree, claiming that
although conventional religious organizations may no longer hold as much power, spirituality
or personal faith is still alive and well and can still be important to people in their quest for
morality and meaning. I respectfully disagree since, to me, God is eternal and alive.
Nietzsche is not merely a nonbeliever. He's a committed atheist. Faith in God stunts
development. Nietzsche says that I should give up on my faith in God and concentrate instead
on developing my morals, establishing my objectives, and achieving personal perfection. This
is a false belief or worldview.