Happy (Philosophical) Holidays!

"A will whose maxims necessarily harmonize with the laws of autonomy is a holy, absolutely good will." -Immanuel Kant, philosopher

To my friends, all of whom are men and women of good will: may you have peace and eudaimonia this holiday season, and in the year ahead.

The Great MG Debates of Aught Nine

Based upon your observation this morning, your homework this evening is as follows...

Task the FIRST: STATE, as clearly and simply as you know how, one argument you heard given during the debate. ABSOLUTELY VITAL to remember: the structure of a philosophical argument (i.e., its parts). If you need refreshing, go back to your notes from early October and review the terms premise and conclusion. Remember, too, the argument you type is probably going to be a paraphrase of what the 8th grader said - I don't expect word-for-word transcription.

Task the SECOND: EVALUATE this argument. In order to do so, it will be necessary to use terms such as inductive, deductive, sound, unsound, valid, invalid, cogent, uncogent, true, false. Again, review your notes if you need to do so.

Task the THIRD (optional): If you're feeling munificent, and would like to show those 8th graders how it's really done... construct an excellent original argument to support either the affirmative or the negative. By "excellent," of course, I mean either deductive and sound or inductive and cogent.

A Real-World Ethics Question

As reported this Monday (12/14) in the legal blog Above The Law.

The setup: University of Oregon law professor accidentally emails students the final exam questions instead of study guide. Read about what happens next, how the prof sees it, and one blogger's analysis here.

Empathy, Us, and Them

This link is to a discussion among psychologists and neurobiologists about the origins of one particularly "human"-seeming emotion - empathy. Two issues I found interesting:

1. Church's study on the behavior of rats in response to electric shocks

2. mirror neurons

HW: In your comments below, identify two items from the article that piqued your interest, and briefly explain something about them to me - why you thought they were interesting, or what connections you see between them and what we've discussed in class.

oh and BTW............

omg i realy think we should have that party..........................................................

just wanted u to kno i checked the blog and the sub kinda sucked

Military Ethicist in the news

Yes, Virginia, there is an actual job called "military ethicist." George Lucas Jr. (!), a professor at the U.S. Naval Academy, has recently published a book about the role of academic social scientists in military actions. He was interviewed yesterday by the Chronicle of Higher Education about an ongoing debate about the morality of anthropologists participating in the military's Human Terrain System program.

Mr. Lucas, remarking on the value of philosophical advice on military decisions, comments:

In the 1950s, when [the medical community] discovered that they were
involved in ethically thorny issues that were outside their domain of expertise,
they called in philosophers and theologians.

Random Philosophical Humor

http://xkcd.com/103

That's all I'm sayin'.

whoot

plz just give me credit

Tonight's....errr...last night's homework

I was kind of counting on the quotes being here on the blog, since I've only got the names, sorry.

The Hidden Question of Ethics

Pursuant to today's discussion: your (HW) 150-word comment below: What (essentially) is human nature (like)?

Monday HW

...watching a video clip, "Dan Ariely on our buggy moral code." Comment below (intelligent and thoughtful comments are worth more, as always...:-), and be prepared to bring a question or quote to class tomorrow.

Who Makes Your Decisions?

A proposal: You don't really know what you want.

Think you do? Spend 18 minutes sometime this weekend watching this presentation by Dan Ariely about "decision illusions," fascinating scenarios that point out how easy it really is to be manipulated when making decisions that seem to be purely independent. It'll make you think twice the next time you're going through the Dunkin' Donuts drive-through...

If you like that one, try another of Ariely's talks, this one about the glitches in our common-sense moral codes: "the hidden reasons we think it's OK to cheat or steal (sometimes)." See if you recognize elements or concepts from the various ethical theories we've learned about.

By the way, enjoy the break!

FYP

...or, For Your Pondering.

I happened across this article at Prospect magazine's website. It's short, but succinctly and clearly states and defends a particular thesis. A great deal of what's of interest comes afterward, in the comments readers have left. Although the discussion is about the use of words, you'll see that the language argument is quite closely tied to a conclusion about ethical relativism. READ!

P.S.: The folks who posted on Friday are duly noted! Jon, Greg, Alyssa, and Sarah - kudos/shout-out to y'all.

oooooooo

as again i noticed i always look to early on this blog so i was just making sure u knew i checked at some point

Sine, Cosine...

Tonight's homework is a bit of a tangent...still related to the ethical inquiries we've been pursuing, but not necessarily specific to any one of them. I just thought it was fascinating enough to share with you.

It's the P.o.E. (Problem of Evil) Project, sponsored by the University of Notre Dame. Click over to the "Project Overview" tab once you're there, and read their explanation of this supposed "problem."

HW: Post a brief comment here giving some short, thoughtful reaction to something you see on that site - a quotation, a shocking idea, a conclusion with which you agree...

A Sibling Blog

I just got an email this afternoon from the Squire Family Foundation (the organization whose grant is funding this class!) announcing a new blog, The Philosophical Student. Your HW tonight is simply to click over to it and explore, and leave me a comment (here) signifying that you've done so.

Ethics in Odd Places...

If you think ethical reasoning only applies to obvious examples like waterboarding or trolleys, think again:

Tech blog Slashdot offers a post linking an apocalyptic sci-fi blockbuster, NASA, and questions of euthanasia and assisted suicide. NASA scientist David Morrison:

'I've had three from young people saying they were contemplating
committing suicide. I've had two from women contemplating killing their children
and themselves. I had one last week from a person who said, "I'm so scared, my
only friend is my little dog. When should I put it to sleep so it won't suffer?"
And I don't know how to answer those questions.'

Maybe we can help out poor, confused Dr. Morrison. In your comment below, imagine you are a deontologist like Kant, and offer advice to one of the frantic people mentioned in the blog. Explain not only what you recommend to do, but why, using appropriate deontological reasoning.

i have kno clue what i am doing

um Dr. p is today's homework not up yet.but a comment about today's class is if u have a attention to do something and not do it its OK because there is no way of anyone ever finding out what Ur real attentions are unless they are you or you itself say these were my intentions so there for intentions don't really mater in determining the innocents of someone. just because something isn't Ur fault like the example in class about the axe you still made that axe fling of and hit that person so i think u should be blamed for everything that you physically do. the only way i could see this not work if someone had a gun to Ur head and said drive over that person of course most people will do what the guy with the guy says.

Truth and Consequences

The trolley problem, the thought experiment I introduced today, was originally formulated by the philosopher Philippa Foot. It has undergone many variations over the years, including the simplified version I showed today, as well as more complex, morally challenging scenarios (and even a humorous one).

Your HW tonight: follow this link to the BBC News Magazine feature on philosophical thought experiments. Read the two variations of the trolley problem presented there (vote if you like!), AS WELL AS the comments left by other site visitors. Choose the comment you find most compelling, and in your own comment on my post here, copy-and-paste that comment, AND explain why you find it compelling, PLUS what you would do in the scenario. This latter part will be important, as you will see on tomorrow's quiz.

In today's discussion, we examined one logical expression of the idea that there is a theological foundation for morality, in the form of a deductive argument:

P1. Person#1 exists.
P2. Person#1 has said that X is morally right.
C. Therefore, X is morally right.

In other words, whether an action is moral or not depends simply on whether (a very specific) someone has said so.

HW: Your task has two (2!) parts. FIRST (as a comment below): Does the above argument work in general - that is, for ANY Person#1 and for ANY X? If not, then why should I suppose that it works for some very specific Person#1 and for certain specific Xes? SECOND: look up the term "biting the bullet." We will be using it in class tomorrow.

Ick - I'm sick: but giving HW nonetheless.

Alas, even philosophers get ill from time to time, and not just from consuming bad logic. Having read your comments on last night's blog posting, I'm getting the sense that a great many of you find ethical relativism appealing - and not just appealing, but right.

Ahhh....verrrry, verrry interesting.

I did note one or two minor hesitations: for example, Alyssa T.'s comment included the caveat "I do believe that there are some things, such as murder and rape, that are just plan [sic] wrong regardless of morals".

Now that you've all given serious thought to the issue, and come up with your very best reasons for believing as you do, here's tonight's prompt for your (HW) comments:

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that, if I accept ethical relativism, I should allow everyone to "do their own thing," and my having a different (moral) opinion than someone else doesn't give me any right to impose my own morals on him or her. I wonder, then, on what basis could we possibly call murder and rape "wrong," if morals are nothing but personal opinion? Put another way, if I think that (at least sometimes) I should interfere with someone else's actions, and prevent his or her doing something (say, committing rape or murder or genocide), how can I justify my interference, if moral principles are merely opinions?

And to really bake your noodle: if I decide to simply stand back and allow something I consider wrong to happen (without interfering), aren't I just doing exactly what ethical relativism says I should? On what basis, for example, would Paul Rusesabagina have a legitimate moral reason for doing as he did - interfering with the moral beliefs of the Hutu regime?

The Allure of Relativism...

Today's class discussion presented the position called ethical relativism - the claim that moral judgments don't have objective reality or truth, but are founded on human custom and opinion, and therefore can change from one culture to another, or possibly from one person to another. Your HW for tonight: comment on this post by articulating what you find to be the best, most convincing reason EITHER to support ethical relativism OR to reject it.

The Ring of Gyges

No, it's neither a plot device from a Tolkein trilogy nor a song by Johnny Cash. It's an imaginative myth told by Plato in his Republic, presenting the story of a certain poor man who discovers a curious object. This object gives him a certain ability, and forces him (and us!) to confront a fundamental question: what would you do if you could always get away with it...?

HW: Read it tonight - it's chapter 21 in our (CD or online) text. FYI, the "Ideas of Interest" (pp. 225-26) will likely be part of our discussion in class tomorrow, if you want to glance at them as well.

I heard there was some extra credit for posting on the blog.  Here it is.

Greg Karabinos

Philosophy

The Matrix

October 24, 2009

                                                            Ethics

            Throughout the Matrix, Neo is faced with many ethical issues.  He must decide weather it is wrong to kill regular humans in the Matrix even if they are following the instructions of the machines.   In addition to this he is faced with a choice: is sacrificing one to save the lives of many morally correct?  Also, he has to choose between his race and the machines.  Even though Neo does not contemplate ethics as much as what is real and unreal they are presented to the viewer as very distinct choices.  Each time a moral decision is made in the movie, the viewer is guided to his own conclusion.

            While walking through a simulation of the Matrix, Morpheus explains to Neo that the matrix is a system and that system is their enemy.  He continues, explaining that in this system all the people that inhabit it, the people they are trying to free are their enemies as long as they are plugged into the Matrix.  Ironically, Morpheus and his band cause more harm to the other humans in the Matrix than the machines.  They kill countless innocents.  Neo accepts this decision without hesitation and shows little remorse in killing and maiming these cogs in the Matrix.  Even though it would be impossible for Neo, Trinity, and Morpheus to complete their objectives without this killing, the morality of this is still questionable.  In modern wars, civilian casualties are strongly avoided.  This is largely due to the fact that each country must answer to the public and other countries.  However, Morpheus does not answer to anyone in the Matrix or the real world, during the entire movie he does not have contact with any humans superior to him in the real world.  Because of this he is able to make his own decisions, even if they are immoral. 

            Morpheus helps Neo overlook the moral issues regarding to killing the humans in the Matrix, but Neo must make his own decision when the agents capture Morpheus.  The agents are trying to coerce Morpheus into giving them the codes to Zion, the last human city.  Neo, Trinity, and Tank are confronted with a choice.  They have to decide weather it is morally correct to kill Morpheus for the greater good.  They all know that Morpheus would rather die than give up the codes to Zion to the robots.  But can they make that decision for him?  This is a debated issue today in the modern world in the form of assisted suicide.  Is it principled to assist someone’s suicide or is it merely murder?  In the Matrix Neo comes up with an answer to this difficult decision.  He creates a third option.  Instead of letting Morpheus die or murdering him, Neo attempts a daring rescue.  To the viewers, this is the most honorable option and it skirts the difficult questions resulting from the choice Neo would have had to make.  Can one value a human life?  Can a human life be defined by dollars, or is it measurable in other human lives?  Are certain lives worth more than others?  The Matrix presents the viewer with this question but moves on before the viewer can make a decision.

            One of the most important questions of the movie is presented to Neo when he must choose between the Humans and the machines.  Although he makes this choice early in the movie when he allies himself with Morpheus, we see that other humans were not as committed as he.  Cipher, one of Morpheus’s band betrays them to the agents, computer programs designed to protect the Matrix.  While Cipher’s choice is motivated by pure self-gain, it brings doubt to the viewer.  Who is right, the machines or humans?  Morpheus admits that the humans were the ones who scorched the sky and Agent Smith compares the humans to a virus consuming more and more territory and using up many natural resources.  Even though the viewer is clearly intended to support the humans regardless of their past failures, it may not be as obvious choice.  Once Neo joins with the humans the machines are bent on his destruction.  This forces him to accept the humans as his allies despite his lack of facts.

            A viewer of the Matrix is able to question the ethics displayed in the Matrix without the pressure the characters are under.  With less resources and time the characters are forced to compromise their ethics occasionally to survive while a viewer has the luxury of principles.  Even though the characters may seem to be mercenaries, they are in fact devout believers adhering strictly to their cause.  Their enduring goal is to free the humans from the Matrix but their immediate goal is to merely survive.  Thus they are compelled to make decisions with less thought to ethics than usual.

Hey Dr. P,

My paper is 744 words right now, I went through and took off any extranious stuff I could find, but I don't think I can crop it down anymore without making it choppy and lacking explenations for my points. So how important is the 500-600 word rule?

Post 2

In the beginning of the movie, everytime something bad happens to Neo or everytime he is in a difficult situation he wakes up from a dream. Why?

"Discovery"

After watching most of the movie I am still a bit confused. How did Morpheus find Neo? How did he discover him. And how does he know that he is the one, why did Neo stick out so much? Does the history of this come out in the sequels of the matrix?

Matrix

This is a question for Dr. P can we please watch Matrix 2 were Neo goes through thousands of gaurds?

"...as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery." A quote from Agent Smith. He also said that early in the Matrix the AI had created a perfect world for the humans, but that the humans rejected it. These two thoughts along with something from the third movie led me to thinking that the real world, out of the matrix, was yet another piece of the matrix. Before Neo was released he was unhappy with reality, saying that something just felt wrong, perhaps rejecting reality because it wasnt difficult enough, much as the humans did long ago. The "real" world out of the matrix acts like a safety net for people who cannot handle the reality they were first given. In their real world they constantly suffer and are miserable, constantly having to risk their lives, without good food which makes it seem more real for them.

The Philosophy of the Matrix Day 3

Today's part of the Matrix spoke more towards the ethics part of the assignment but metaphysics got some time too.
The spoon isn't real. Taking that to a broader sense, while in the Matrix once you give up the illusion, only you are real.
Deja vu is actually a glitch in the system. Which is a smart way to explain it in the context of the universe and situations in the movie.
The agent mentioned how smell may not even be real in the Matrix which ties into my first point of defining what real in the Matrix is. But that brings it all full circle as that is the essential questions of my topic.

Matrix

As for todays viewing i found that it was full of new information, new areas of debate, and lots of new violence. One point of discussion is of Cypher. Why do you think he wanted out of the Matrix so badly? Another point, the oracle says that Neo will have to make a choice between his life or Morphius's. Does this mean that only one of them can live? Because as of now it seems like Neo will save Morphius as well as live himself.

Ethics

Is it wrong to kill one person to save many even when there death seems inevitable?  Would it have been morally wrong to for Neo to kill Morpheus even if that was what Morpheus would want had he been present?  We deal with these questions today.  Neo choose to attempt a rescue. Although it is not stated, it is clear that Tank would probably kill MorphuesIs it wrong for a docter to help one of his patents commit suicide if they are unable to do it alone?  This is a highly debated question.  I believe that each person has a right to die.

matrix oracle

or⋅a⋅cle –noun
1.
(esp. in ancient Greece) an utterance, often ambiguous or obscure, given by a priest or priestess at a shrine as the response of a god to an inquiry.
2.
the agency or medium giving such responses.
3.
a shrine or place at which such responses were given: the oracle of Apollo at Delphi.
4.
a person who delivers authoritative, wise, or highly regarded and influential pronouncements.
5.
a divine communication or revelation.
6.
any person or thing serving as an agency of divine communication.
7.
any utterance made or received as authoritative, extremely wise, or infallible.
8.
oracles, the Scriptures.
9.
the holy of holies of the Temple built by Solomon in Jerusalem. I Kings 6:16, 19–23.

so, if an oracle has to talk to god, does that mean there is a god or possibly multiple in the real world?

Cruz and Philosophy

Mr. Cruz's talk yesterday was interesting.  I would have been interested to hear more philosophical questions though.  Did he ponder the nature of reality on his trip or was he only thinking about what he was.  I think that to be able to get to that question many others have to be asked first.  For example if this is only a Matrix it may tell me what I am in this world but I have no idea what I am in the real world.

The Philosophy of the Matrix Day 2

After two days of this movie, I now understand it more but at the same time, I'm more confused. I've decided to focus on the nature of reality in the Matrix. Thus, many of my questions were actually answered .
The real world is actually 200 years ahead of the Matrix. What we know to be the real world is actually a computer program designed to trick humans into a false sense of security. The real world had been taken over by the machines that the humans invented. "The One" refers to the person in the real world that brought others from the Matrix. The key to mastering the boundaries, or lack thereof, of the real world is to free your mind.
How do the machines know the actual taste of the food they program into the Matrix?
Can you dream in the real world if the Matrix is a dream?

Day 2 matrix

When Morpheus is training with Neo, Morpheus doesn't show Neo how to do anything, but makes him just figure it out on his own. Why would Morpheus do this? If he is just programed, of course he will have the skills, but it would take time to figure out the program, and they keep saying they are running out of time.

Neo is told that he has been living in a "dream" world. so does a human being used as a battery not come alive or become real untill they are unplugged?

Matrix

I have a few questions on the epistomology on the movie so far. How does Morphius indeed know that Neo is the one and has he done this with other types of people to find The One?

also, how does the oracle know what is the truth? how does it know what is real and what is fake when sometimes the matrix can suck in reality but warp it? So far there are alot of questions on the knowledge of the movie and the realities.

For Teh LOLs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur5fGSBsfq8&feature=player_embedded

The Matrix and Fate

I was also wondering, if the Matrix is a computer program is there room for chance? Is everything that happens in the Matrix fated to occur in just a certain way, and is that why there is an oracle who can make true predictions?

Preexisting condition

"You have the look of a man who believes what he sees, because he is expecting to wake up." --Morpheus speaking to Neo-- Does this mean that Neo already knows the Matrix is false, on a subconcious level, and that this is how he came to Morpheus's attention? Did all the people who were freed know that the world they were living in was false, at least on some level?

matrix controll program

so, since the people in the matrix are just a computer program, what if they just stop eating, a computer program can't just die

how come people just didnt demagnitize machines to begin with rather than resorting to scorching the sky

How many matrices are there?

When Neo is pulled from the matrix he hardly believes this new setting is reality.  Even though Morpheus is certain that he is in the "real" world could there be more than one matrix?  For example is the "real" world merely a matrix set up by the humans to trick the artificial intelligences.  There could be limitless levels of reality.

Another thought: Does time continue in the Matrix?  Has it always been the year 1999 in the matrix or will the robots allow the humans to continue through time in the matrix.

Can something be invented by an inhabitant of the matrix that hasn't been invented outside of it?

Expanding on this question, could a brilliant programer in the matrix write a more advanced program than the matrix.  What if, for example, an artificial intelligence were invented by a human in the matrix?  Would it be bound by the human's mind and obey the limits he forces his body to obey or would it be unable to be tricked and see through the Matrix?

I thought I would do a little research on the names of characters because Dr. P mentioned that many of them have significance.

Morpheus: is the Greek god of dreams. Morpheus has the ability to take any human's form and appear in dreams

Neo: Neo is a prefix signaling a "new" form or a revival of an old one.

Trinity: the Christian concept of God as three persons.

Some of the other crew members have names that make sense too, Mouse is small and mousy, Cipher deciphers the code of matrix.

I believe this is the name of their ship- Nebuchadnezzar. He was the king of Babylonia about 1100 BC. He was the king at the time when Israel was conquered and occupied by Babylonia, about the time of the Book of Daniel.

I'm not quite sure what the connection would be there.

Matrix Day 2

Your first round of questions may have been answered, but the rabbit hole goes much, much deeper. Although we now know the nature of the Matrix, many questions remain. Share them again tonight, and consider posing some possible answers - you might even wish to think about philosophical ideas from earlier in the semester to see if they are relevant.

WTF

As Dr. P said you are going to say to yourself WTF!!!! I LOVE THIS MOVIE. Theres alot of things that i dont get but one question i would like to ask is How did Morpheus know that Neo was going to touch that mirror? and does he always set up new ways of getting people?

Matrix

What happens when/ if Neo actually does come to a point where he can no longer tell the difference from reality and and a dream? Is that what the Matrix are trying to acomplish? What exactly are they trying to do?

My question was; Why did the robot not just throw Neo over the edge or something and kill him? Humans that have escaped are useless to the machines, and if the agents know that Morpheus is trying to use Neo wouldn't they take this opportunity to foil Morpheus's plans? Haven't they caught on by now that people who are freed end up coming back to fight against them? In response to Kevin, Neo has to be rescued as quickly as possible, in part because they can't risk the agents getting to him again, and also because the longer someone has been in the Matrix the more attached to it they become, (they try to rescue everyone at as young an age as they can). In response to Dominique; I never really thought much about the Alice reference, as far as I can remember there are no mentions of it, other than what we have already seen, good question, I'll have to look for that now.