Philosophy never takes a vacation!

If any philosophical issues arises this week, let your fellow bloggers know about it! Describe the situation or event that made you recall one of our themes or discussions and post it here.

Bonus Blog!

Discuss any differences that you have encountered so far in the film. You can talk about any devices used to build suspence that were not available to Henry James, or specific directorial changes. Have fun!

The Turn of the Screen

As we mentioned in class, The Turn of the Screw has been adapted many times in many different forms. Imagine that you were asked to cast a new film version of the novel. Who would you choose to play the Governess, Mrs. Grose, Peter Quint and Miss Jessel? Select at least three of the roles and then explain why you would choose the actors in question.

Turn of the blog...

Our study of The Turn of the Screw suggests that philosophers aren't the only people interested in philosophical issues. Can you think of another novel that explores some deeper philosophical issues? Identify the book and the issues it explores.

Quote the Raven...

Here is a philosophical problem adapted from Martin Cohen’s 101 Philosophy Problems. See if you can offer a solution to it or at least some kind of comment on what the problem suggests or implies.

A king once got into an argument with his brother. The king insisted that all ravens were black, but his brother asked, “How do you know that that is the case?” The king was annoyed, so he called his royal philosopher. “Listen, philosopher,” the king said. “I need you to prove that all ravens are black. We may say we know that all ravens are black, but I have to win this argument with my brother. Get hopping."

The philosopher returned to his study and thought about the proposition. On his chalkboard, he wrote:

All ravens are black.

To prove this, he realized, he would have to find all the ravens in the world and check that they were black. This, obviously, would take a long time. Plus, he thought about all the ravens that once were and all the ravens that would be. How was he supposed to deal with that? Then he had the idea of finding all the non-black things and checking that there were no ravens among them.“Find all the non-ravens and check that they are not black,” the philosopher told his assistant. Then he realized that this wouldn’t work, either, since lots of things that are not ravens (like iron pots and coal and panthers) are black anyway.

The problem still was that, even if they did find at the time of checking that every raven in the world was indeed black, it was possible that the next raven they found might be, say, green.

But the philosopher tried to tough it out anyway and returned to the king, who was having lunch with his brother. He then proclaimed, “My lord! The way to win the argument is to say that we simply define ravens as being black. In which case, a green raven is not a raven at all, but simply a green bird with all the characteristics commonly associated with ravens except that of its color. And such a bird cannot be a raven. All ravens are really black!”

The king was overjoyed and the philosopher was delighted. But then the king’s brother left the room and returned with a cage containing a ghastly, sick-looking bird. “OK, then, philosopher,” the king’s brother asked. “But what is a raven with a disease which makes its feathers temporarily go green?”

What should the philosopher say?

Kavka's Toxin Puzzle

Here's a semi-famous thought experiment that asks us to consider the issue of determinism. It comes from Gregory S. Kavka's book The Toxin Puzzle (1983). Read the puzzle and then speculate on its implications. Do not use any outside sources or google. Being confused is fine--plagiarism is not.

Here it is:

There is a toxin which, upon consumption, will make you violently ill for a few hours. You will receive a sizeable lump of money if you are able to intend, at present, to drink this toxin a few days into the future. If the intention is truly and successfully formed, you will be awarded the money without ever having drunk the toxin, and whether you fulfill your original intention or not will not change your reward.

So what's the problem here? This is a tough one. Try to work it out.

My Fair Bentham

The Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw (whom you may know as the author of Pygmalion) was famous for his one-liners. (Any quotation dictionary will feature hundreds of Shavian remarks.) Here's one that relates to what we've been discussing in class:

"You have no more right to consume happiness without producing it than to consume wealth without producing it."

Consider the language of this remark and comment on its implications and applications to daily life.

The Runaway Trolley

One of the most famous thought experiments in ethics is "the runaway trolley". It aims to clarify how we should distinguish right from wrong. I have read it before and heard it before, but here is how it is presented on the BBC's website. Read the experiments and then weigh in with your opinion.

Here is the scenario:A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?

Now here's another version of the problem--with a twist:
The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved. Do you jump?

Now here's yet another version--with (of course) a twist:
Right before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?

Most people would choose to flip the switch in the first trolley case, but most of us would also be appalled at the idea of pushing the fat man.

The philosophical puzzle is this: Why is it acceptable to more people to sacrifice the one person in The Runaway Trolley Car but not in The Fat Man case? What's the difference? Is there a difference? Why? Why not? What are some of the core questions being asked here--and what can we say about them?

Philosophical Film

Our study of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance suggests that philosophers aren't the only people interested in philosophical issues. Can you think of another film that (upon a second or third viewing) explores some deeper philosophical issues? Identify the film and the issues it explores.

And the winner is....

A friend of mine (call him Bill) recently won a number of CDs from a radio contest.They were sent to his house; upon receiving them, he realized that hereally didn't like any of the bands or performers.

The next day, he took the CDs (still in their shrink wrapping) to a store and "returned" them. (He said he had lost the receipt.) The storeclerk scanned the barcodes and then gave Bill $90 in store credit, which he then used to get a bunch of new CDs.

When he told me this, I was appalled and told him that what he did was unethical. John said that it wasn't unethical because the store "tookback" merchandise which it would then sell. I said that his "returning" the CDs to the store would throw off the accounting; he said it wouldn't.Finally, I said that even if there were no financial harm done to the store,what he did was still pretty low.

What do you think?

When in Rome...

In his work Questions of Value, the philosopher Patrick Grim poses this challenge:

An old adage says, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

From your own experience, draw some examples of when that might be good advice and when it might not.

Respond to Grim's prompt and also ask what your examples suggest about ethics and ethical behavior. Can any ethical insights be gained from your examples?

The Professor and the Puppy

This is adapted from Martin Cohen’s 101 Philosophy Problems:

A professor (of philosophy—what else?) is sitting in his office reading Aristotle. But when he looks up from his book and sees the time, he exclaims, “Oh no! I’m going to be late for class!” He runs out the door. As he hurries across campus, he stops because he hears a whining sound coming from somewhere.

The professor follows the sound and realizes that there is a puppy in the middle of the campus pond—so he wades into the water and saves it. Then he goes back to his office, changes his clothes (he keeps spares for just such an occasion) and then runs back to his classroom.

Naturally, his students are very irritated. But the professor explains what happened and all the students change their tunes. “It was a real exercise in applied ethics,” says the professor. “Did I do the right thing?” Everyone laughs, says, “Of course,” and the class begins (although far past its planned starting time).

Next week, on his way to the same class, the professor sees the same dog—again it’s stuck in the pond and, again, the professor wades in to save it. He is late for class (again), but this time the students are not so understanding. Half of them say that the dog should have been left to its own devices (especially in light of what the students are paying for tuition).

The following week—you guessed it—there’s the dog again, whining and distressed, struggling to get out of the pond. “Oh no,” says the professor. “I can’t be late again!” He leaves the dog whimpering and reports the situation to a custodian before beginning his class. He tells his students what happened, who largely agree that the risk to the dog is outweighed by the certain knowledge of the inconvenience (and financial waste) that the professor’s tardiness is causing them. “And this,” says the professor, “is exactly what ethical decision-making is all about.”

Alas—by the time the custodian reaches the pond, the dog has drowned.

Was there a flaw in the professor and the class’s reasoning—or is the dog just plain unlucky? Try to examine the core of the ethical situation at hand.

Pity for the Plagiarist?

The following ethical dilemma appears in Randy Cohen's The Good, the Bad and the Difference. After reading the passage, offer your own advice. You may include in your response what others have said on this blog. Be sure that you justify your response.

A college student called me last week to say that his "friend" had visited my web page, lifted something I wrote, and turned it in as his own work. Now his "friend's" professor is suspicious and plans on searching the web to find the material. If the professor finds that the paper was plagiarized, he will recommend expulsion. The student begged me to take the paper off my site, fearing that his "friend's" academic career, and possibly his life, will be ruined. What should I do?

Welcome To Philosophy!

In life we are faced with a number of questions. From “Where should we go on Saturday night?” to “What is the meaning of it all?” the way we approach these questions differs in varying degrees.

Throughout childhood, we are often the ones questioning everything we encounter. The question “why?” reverberates in the ears of mothers everywhere. As we grow older, our inquisitive nature often subsides and the pendulum swings the other way. As high school students – you begin to hear the question “Where do you plan on going to college?” more frequently then you are asked what you would like for dinner.

The focus shifts slightly when you enter college. Soon, “What’s your major?” will morph into “What are you going to do with that?”

As an English and Philosophy major, I am well versed in this topic of conversation. I always knew I wanted to teach English – but philosophy was something I wanted to do for myself. It was a bit more difficult having to explain to my relatives that Thanksgiving that “I just wanted to figure out how to think.”

Often times we take for granted how we know certain things, or why we take certain stances on the “big” issues – (back to those questions we are all faced with). This is where you come in. This course is all about you – your ideas, what you think about the big issues and how you can intellectually grow from an encounter with the people in this book and their take on those big questions.

If we are going to study philosophy, we need other people to test our ideas and assertions, to tell us when we are right, to tell us when we are wrong, and to ask us questions that make us reconsider an issue in ways we had not considered.

I should warn you – there are no definitive answers in philosophy. If there were, it would be called science or math. Loosely phrased, Bertrand Russell said that philosophy is what remains of human curiosity that hasn’t been “called” by one of the other subjects.

The first philosophers were what we would call scientists – or more specifically, chemists. Other sciences and disciplines such as physics, psychology and history began with philosophical inquiry as well. You will be tackling some of the same philosophical questions that have intrigued people for thousands of years.

This does not mean that you will simply show up and receive an A. Philosophy is an incredibly demanding subject, but that is part of the allure. The readings can sometimes be difficult and the writing assignments will challenge you. This may be one of the toughest courses you have ever taken - - but that’s because it’s worth it. We will be discussing topics that people have spent their entire lives on!

You should know that nobody can be taught philosophy – but you can be taught to think philosophically. That will be that aim of our course. Philosophy will not help you become a better person, in any moral sense. There are many, many awful rotten people who love reading philosophy and there are many genuinely good people who have never read anything at all. Philosophy will help you come up with reason arguments, and it will show you that there is value in talking about things that you find important. It is said that “the true measure of philosophy is the effects on the lives of the people who study it.”

I know that I need your questions and comments as much as you will need mine. By no means do I presume to have the final word on philosophy. Even Socrates, the first major figure in Western philosophy, claimed that the only reason he was so wise was because he didn’t know anything at all. I expect you to stop me when you are confused and challenge me when you think I am just plain wrong. We can, of course, do this in a civilized (and even fun) way.

Philosophy – and wisdom – must begin with questions, and I want to start on the same note. This is going to be a lot of work, and a lot of fun. So let’s begin: Any questions?