18 Oct Exam 2 (10%): Curiosity Assignment: We’ve studied reasoning with arguments and also fallacies and we’ve also taken some time to consider deceptive or manipulative present-day political ads and candidate statements. We’ve also read the Euthyphro and learned about the importance of being sure you know what you are doing and thinking (definitions) before acting. With the Apology we have seen political power used unfairly against a man who freely and often questioned the actions of others and found them inconsistent or incoherent. And we have seen Socrates in the Crito deal with the issue of whether it is right for a person who has been wronged to strike out and do wrong to others or even to the State after he has been convicted and sentenced under the (imperfect) justice system of Athens. In the Phaedo we have seen more about the ways of thinking and reasoning (even if they are not all very impressive) about the nature of the self and whether the soul lives on after the death of the body. And, finally, we have read Republic Book 2 on the nature of justice with arguments in favor of Ethical Egoism and the notion that real justice is found in the power of the will of the stronger and those who can manipulate or deceive others to gain power over others and to get whatever the stronger want.
For Exam 2 (Curiosity Assignment) you are to watch the Netflix movie, “Don’t Look Up” and to think about these matters we have studied. In your essay, explain the situation and the various choices of actions that politicians and others take. Explain their motivations and reasons for what they do and reflect on what they should do. Then put yourself in this situation and proceed to answer the question of what you should do and what you think you would do if this were your own personal situation. Whatever choices you make, explain why you propose to make them. (Philosophers always ask the question, Why?) Keep in mind this simple fact: you have one life and most assuredly you will one day die. What are you to do with your time alive?
For this exam, after thinking on this topic, carefully prepare in advance an outline (no more than 100 words and in the format of an outline) of your essay and bring it for your use in writing the exam. That and your pen are the only things permitted during the exam. When done, turn in both your outline and your written exam with your name on each. Both will be used in grading. You will have up to 40 minutes to write the exam.
=========
Above is the exam description. Here below are additional considerations (already sent via email) for you as you ponder your outline and essay preparation.
16 October 2022
Dear Phil 1001H students,
16 October 2022
Dear Phil 1001H students,
Now that you have had a chance to watch the movie in preparation for your Exam on Tuesday 18 October, I want to offer some more helpful suggestions regarding your essay.
Some people (among them some philosophers) hold that the good is also the right thing to do with their lives and this is to have as much pleasure as possible while alive. These are often called hedonists. Sometimes politicians of Ancient Greece sought to educate their sons to be able to persuade others — particularly the general populace of free men and the wealthy — so that the sons can attain political power. Why do they want political power? So that they can attain what pleases them. So persuasive rhetoric is sought for power and power is sought so that one can do what what pleases. And, of course, politicians seeking power then and now have not hesitated to state lies about other rivals and about their own real plans (to get power so they can do what pleases them).
Also, some people then and today think that if there is no afterlife to worry about, then anything goes and they can and should do whatever pleases them.
We have seen Socrates to reason about doing what is right under the notion that we should not do harm to others. He does not say we should not do harm to others because of consequences (this is CONSEQUENTIALISM); rather, it follows from this that it is never right to do harm to others in response to harm done to us by them. And it follows also that we should always try to do good, even to our enemies. (Where have you heard that before?) The reasoning for this is found in that short reading we did of the end of Plato’s Republic Book 1 in class. Doing injustice to others is wronging them, harming them. And it involves we ourselves being agents of injustice. But as doers of injustice (or harm), we become unjust and have disorderly souls or minds. That is, we do harm to ourselves because we are not doing what is good for ourselves. Rather, we should be good to ourselves and not do evil or harm intentionally to others or ourselves.
So, would it be right to say that life is worth living at all costs, that being alive is more important than anything else?
Here is very strange scenario for you to think about.
One day the all powerful God comes to you and says: I have decided that, while all other humans have a chance to have eternal life after death, in your case when you die in the body, then your life is in every way finished, that is, there is no afterlife for you.
What now? Will you say that if God does not give you (the CONSEQUENCE) of an afterlife, you then might was well be unjust and use persuasion to get power to have pleasure in this life. Is that the deal? If there is no afterlife, anything goes? What is the right thing go do in this case? Is it to pursue pleasure with all you might in this life because God will not give you eternal life? Should you now live the life of the unjust person? Or would you have reason to thank God for the life you have in this world? Should you do what is good? Or should you work to develop an unjust soul?
Deontology is a term descriptive of part of the thought of the 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant. We will discuss this later in class. It means to do what we ought to do (and more). To this extent Socrates / Plato has it what we should do what is good and right because it is good and right for us, expressed in the notion that we should not do harm to others or ourselves. This is entailed in the thought of Socrates / Plato based on the reflections on what is good for us which leads to the notion that we should have a soul or mind orderly and directed toward what is right and good.
Given all this and what you have studied, I suggest you consider an outline something like this below. Do not take my words below but you decide your own views and state matters in accord with your own thinking. You decide the outline and structure of your exam essay. It is your essay, not mine, and I respect your right to decide how best to proceed with the outline and essay,
- Introduction
1.1. what is right good action in the face of death, especially since we will all die?
1.2. the scenario set out in the movie Don’t Look Up presents a wide variety of human choices about actions good and bad in the face of death.
1.3. in this essay I will use scenarios to discuss theses issued and what I think is correct human action were I in such a scenario. (But in some sense I am like Socrates for I will surely die, so how should I live my life?) - Body
2.1. descriptions of the way people act in the movie (don’t get too caught up in this.)
2.2. philosophical analysis of how people should act in that scenario and perhaps today using what you have studied and thought about the ways of Socrates / Plato.
2.3. How should I act in that scenario and also today? - Conclusion as a short summary of what you have done in this essay.
This is a philosophical issue so stay on track with that. You have only 40 minutes so I expect you to prepare in advance. You may only use your pen (no pencil), a short outline which you will hand in with the exam, and the blue book I will give you.
I’m looking forward to seeing your work on this!
T