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.

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?

Finish the Phrase...

HW: either comment here or write on paper for class tomorrow:

"The philosopher must return to the cave because..." ...finish the sentence (or two or three) with your best, most thoughtful reason. Be creative! Be logical!

HW...and $

First: Tonight, post a comment in response to the question I posed this morning: what three abstract (non-physical) things would it make an important difference in your life to lose? Remember: you'll be answering this question differently if you're a realist or if you're a nominalist.

Now, what about this "$" in the title above? I invite you to click on the "Philosophy Slam!" link (to the right). You will see that next Friday, October 16, is an important date for a national philosophy contest, which I'm going to encourage all of you to enter.

Reviewing Basic Logic Skills!

In addition to today's handout from Professor Trelogan at the University of Northern Colorado, another great resource is the Critical Thinking Web at Hong Kong University. For tonight's homework/review, comment by responding to the following:

Is there anything wrong with these arguments? Use "official" terms (e.g. deductive, valid, etc.) if you can.

* “Philosophy” originally means love of wisdom in Greek. If you are a philosopher,
you must have a lot of wisdom.

* “Art” originally means “to make”. So art is created whenever someone makes
something.

Tuesday Night HW, Plus Venn Link.

So, hopefully you're getting a little more comfortable with deductive arguments. To kinda emphasize one of the main points - that TRUE statements don't always guarantee VALID arguments - your short homework assignment tonight is to create three different kinds of argument:

Argument the First. Write a sound deductive argument. (Remember what two features are required to make it sound.)

Argument the Second. Write a valid deductive argument which contains at least one false premise.

Argument the Third. Write an invalid deductive argument with all true sentences (premises and conclusion).

Hint: When writing Arguments the First and the Second, remember that the goal of a deductive argument is to absolutely guarantee that, if someone accepts the premises, s/he is absolutely compelled to accept the conclusion - 0% room for exceptions. You want a totally iron-clad logical connection between your premises and conclusion. (Remember my "Socrates is mortal" example.)

If you found the Venn diagram helpful in visualizing the quarterback-steak argument on the board today, you might find this page (from Washington State University) of interest. It gives several examples of how to evaluate deductive arguments using Venn diagrams (visually), giving you the chance to decide for yourself and then check your answers.

Thursday homework

Oops, almost forgot...

Tonight: comment below, addressing one (or both!) of the following questions (from p. 37 in the text):

3. If everything in the universe were to grow proportionally one-thousand times larger, would we be able to detect it?

4. Does one have the obligation to be a hero? Does one have the obligation to be a saint? Discuss whether of not the needs of others should always be put before one’s own.

Bonus points for the first to correctly identify the branch of philosophy each question deals with.

Wednesday Homework

Reading (or listening to) pages 20-25 of chapter 3 - up to, but not including, the "Barometer story".

Homework

PLEASE CHANGE YOUR OLD BOOKMARK TO THIS LINK!

Now that I've got your attention...

My original idea of using this post as a permanent homework link didn't pan out so well. It just got too messy keeping up with the new batches of comments every day. So, here's the new plan: simply go to the main blog site (http://mountiesphilosophy.blogspot.com/) for the daily homework. It will always be visible as the most recent post (i.e., the post at the top of the page).