All righty, here's the recap of what we talked about in class today - for the record.
In the four weeks until the end of the semester, you'll each have 3 required posts to the blog per week (12 total): what I'm calling your Blogwork. You can post at any time you want during the week, as long as you've got all 3 done and posted by 11:59pm each Sunday night.
Your first post will be a URL and 1- to 2-sentence (or more, if you like) summary of an article, essay, or video you find of philosophical significance. HINT: use the "Phantastic Phi Links" on the blog to find such things.
Your second weekly post will be an argument (in premise-conclusion form) you excavate from the item in your first post. You will then evaluate this argument, by telling us whether it's deductive, inductive, valid, etc.
Your third weekly post will simply pose an unanswered question related to the issue. No philosophical discussion ever answers ALL the questions: find one that leaves us hanging and wondering.
Lest we forget, I want weekly drafts of your Kids' Philosophy Slam essays. The final deadline is January 29: remember that, in addition to the chance for prize money, there's my promise to throw a party (and sing)...
MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA I shall not conform!!
ReplyDelete....and I'm also going to get a weeks worth of work done right now.
This is something I put on here a while ago, but I really want to go back to it and study it a bit more, I also want to hear people's comments on it, and I'm not sure how many people saw it the first time, in the first place.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XZNaKEErBs
watch specificly 1:50-2:15
P1: These laws apply to you
ReplyDeleteP2: These Laws are Unjust
P3: Unjust laws should not be followed
C: You should break these laws
(This is ethics. IT COUNTS!!!)
Deductive: if you accept the premises then the conclusion must follow.
Invalid: I see a possible problem with this argument (discussed in next section).
Unsound: While these statements may be true, the argument is invalid.
The thing I'm still wondering is, would this argument pass the universalisability test. If evreryone did this would society still function. Laws like "don't Murder" would stay almost entierly unaffected, since most people just take that as a given. This is assuming that people would really choose by what they believed was just, and not "well I don't have enough money, so I think that robbery is just, but only for me." As of now I can't think of any example of how this would totaly destroy civalisation, but I'm not totaly ready to accept it yet. Am I just brainwashed by the state, or is there a real reason to hold back? Maybe you can find one.
ReplyDeleteoops,that first sentance in my second post was suppoed to end with a question mark, and Week's has no apostrophy.
ReplyDeleteoh sorry, I said to watch to 2:15 but the part about you being unjust if you follow an unjust law wasn't part of my thing.
ReplyDeleteCan we post all 3 posts related to one link as a single large post? It makes the most sense to have them all together when convieniant. It will be easier for other's, as well as for yourself.
ReplyDeleteChris: To decide whether the law is just or not each individual would have to decide if it passed the test of universalizability. One individual couldn't say "I don't have enough money, so robbery is just, but only for me", by recognizing that not everyone could do it, they would be recognizing that it is not just.
http://www.sidereel.com/Dexter
ReplyDeleteThe link takes you to a site where you can watch Dexter online. The show is about Dexter Morgan, a blood spatter analyst by day and a serial killer by night. The thing is, he only kills other murderers. The show brings up some interesting questions about morality. Are Dexter's action morally justafiable? (That's my question).
P1: Dexter Mogan is compelled by his psychology to kill people.
P2:Dexter lives in FL
P3: Dexter kills murderers.
P4: FL has the death penalty for murderers
P5:Laws define morality
C:Dexter is acting within accepted morality as defined by the state of FL
Inductive, I'd say strong, but uncogent. There's definitly wiggle room here.
1)http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/10/0210249/A-Peek-Into-Netflix-Queues?art_pos=4
ReplyDeleteThis artical is about how People are able to see what movies people get on Netflix and they can track as close as any Neighborhood.
2)
P1.You get movies off Netfix
P2.People can see what movies you are getting
C.You have not privacy in what movies you get off Netflix
Inductive,strong, uncogent. (we really dont know all the facts)
The queston here is that do we really have privacy in the movies the we get off Netflix. Are people looking to see what movies we get just for Shits and Giggles or our they trying to get data? we dont know but many people may be uneasy with the fact that there privacy is being invaided.
1)http://www.biotechethics.ca/blog/
ReplyDeleteThis article discusses the ethics behind big business that control the market. More specifically, it takes an in depth look at Monsanto's business model and the potential dangers of a company controlling the seed industry.
2)
P1:The government breaks up unfair monopolies.
P2:Monsanto's company is an unfair monopoly.
C:Monsanto's company should be broken up by the government.
Deductive, valid, sound
3) A judge of Monsanto's business practices must take into account the fact that he is selling sees, or essentially the ability to produce food. This is an incredibly vital part of the world economy. If Monsanto were to raise his prices, it would wreak havoc on the world economy. It would cause almost every other item's price to go up as well. Should the government take special provision because he controls such an essential facet of each person's life. Fair prices must be ensured by competition and with Monsanto's patented genes being used in 95% of the soybeans and 80% of the corn in the U.S. it is requisite that Monsanto's prices be regulated by competition. Is it ethical for the government to allow such a big business to exist? Is it ethical for the government to break up Monsanto's sprawling company?
1. www.edge.org/2010/q10_index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article discusses the change in technology and the deep effect it has on human life today. It takes the side of techonology taking over life.
2. P1-New websites are being created.
P2-People will always follow the internet elaborately.
C- Therefore, the internet will gain dominance over the world with it's ever going information.
3. Question: Is the internet affecting all the people around the world and if so, in what manner?
1.http://www.globalethics.org/newsline/2010/01/04/priest-lifting/
ReplyDeleteIn a Christmas sermon a priest suggests that it is ok to steal if you are poor and have no other choice.
2. P1-Stealing is a sin in the Christian religion.
P2- Reverand Jones said that it is okay to steal if you are poor as long as it is from big corporations.
C- Therefore,Reverand Jones is telling people that it is ok to commit a sin.
Inductive-Strong-Uncogent
3. If a person has no other choice than to steal, does it make it morally right?
1. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1001.odonnell.html
ReplyDeleteThis article discusses how school lunch programs leave ceritain children hungry while promothing other obesity at the same time, also based on how much money they have.
2.P1: The more money you have, the more food you eat.
P2:Pablo has a lot of money.
C:Pablo eats a lot of food.
(I just made up a name)
Inductive,valid
3. Is it fair for wealthier people to have to pay more for lunch just because they can, while is it fiar for the people with less money to not have to pay but suffer from hunger of not getting an equal ammont as the wealthier student?
http://www.indianchild.com/human_cloning.htm
ReplyDeleteThis article is about human cloning based of the sheep Dolly produced in 1997, also saying that its not fully developed and the thought about what people would think about this topic.
p1: dolly being cloned
p2: human wanting to test human for cloning
p3: the after thoughts and concerned
c: after cloning a human the aftermath would be a disaster
inductive, valid
with my third premise it could go both way with good or bad thoughts
why would a clone be considered a second class citizen? if anything the clone would be higher and valued upon humans.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/
ReplyDeleteThis article discusses the methods, morality, and specifics of torture.
p1: Torture consists of the intentional infliction of severe physical suffering
p2: Severe pain, i.e. torture, hurts very badly
p3: Hurting other beings is evil
c: Therefore, torture is evil
If torture is evil, what would we do in the so called "ticking time bomb situation" where the only way to extract the information necessary to save countless lives is through torture?
http://www.brighthub.com/science/medical/articles/16239.aspx
ReplyDeleteThis article is about issues about using animals for experiments that might be harmful or unnatural for the animals.
p1) experimenting with the animals.
p2) inflicting pain and suffering upon the animals.
p3) humans are more dominate then animals.
c) therefore humans can experiment on animals because they are less dominate.
inductive, weak but valid
what if animals were till less dominate then the humans but the humans were dominated by another species. Would this this happen to the animals if humans were dominated by another species?
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=1542
ReplyDeleteThis article discusses the relation to god in disasterous situations and how its pointless for people to ask god for help when he wa the person that caused the situation.
P1:In time of need people look to a higher power
P2:God is a higher power
C: In time of need people look to god.
valid, sound
3. How do people find trust in god when he allowed terrible thing to happen?
http://www.idtheft.gov/about.html
ReplyDeletethis article is about identity theft and how you can catch a theft in action and how we can prevent this issue from growing.
p1)heavy financial and emotional toll that identity theft exacts from its victims
p2)be more effective and efficient in the areas of identity theft awareness, prevention, detection, and prosecution.
p3)educate victims and others before this happens
c)reducing the amount of identity thefts by educating and being aware.
inductive, strong and valid even though this will only reduce the identity theft.
why would people just have one credit card instead of worrying about all these card that cant keep track of?
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=1540
ReplyDeleteThis article is debating if hapiness can be proven scientifically, which is hard to say possibe because everyone seems to have their own haight on happiness due to who they are and their lifestyle.
P1:People persuit happiness
P2: The persuit of happiness is more ones peace of mind
C:Therefore, people persuit peace in their mind
3. What is happiness?
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=1540
ReplyDeleteThis article is debating if happiness can be proven scientifically, which is hard to say possibe because everyone seems to have their own height on happiness due to who they are and their lifestyle.
P1: People pursuit happiness
P2: The pursuit of happiness is more ones peace of mind
C: Therefore, people pursuit peace in their mind
3. What is happiness?
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=1562
ReplyDeleteThe artilce question what it actually means to be a vegetarian because certain people slide by as a vergetarian while having a cheeseburger every now and then.
P1:Vegetarians don't eat meat
P2:I eat meat.
C:Therefore I am not a vegetarian.
3.Why can someone be a vegetarian and still eat meat? Wouldn't it not be acceptable due to the defination?
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/steriods-ethics.html
ReplyDeleteshowing the effects of steroids and what it can do to you in the future and why people want to use them.
p1)use of steroids will get you bigger stonger and more powerful
p2)causes liver cancer
c)therefore steroids will make you perform better and will give you liver cancer
inductive, weak
i think that steroid users should make there own athletic leagues and to try to stop performing better then non steroid users. do you think steroid users should go to jail?