Category: Philosophy

9 Replies, 7 Unread

9 Replies, 7 Unread

Discussion Topic: Discussion 2 – Thesis Statement PracticeDiscussion 2 – Thesis Statement Practice

After reading the 2 Readings for this week and watching the lecture, read the article below and then formulate a thesis statement that answers the question: Is it worthwhile to go to college in this day and age? (Imagine you are writing an essay with this prompt. State the topic of the imaginary essay, take a position on the topic, offer a few reasons to support your position [provide a roadmap of main points you would make in this imaginary essay].)

Once you have submitted your thesis statement, respond to another student’s post answering the following:

Is the topic of the thesis statement clear?

Is the position on the topic sufficiently stated?

Is there a roadmap provided (i.e., it is obvious what the main points of the argument/essay would be)?

Is the thesis statement a single sentence?

How could the thesis statement be improved?

Is college worth it? Poll finds only 36% of

Americans have confidence in higher

education

By JOCELYN GECKER

Updated 5:00 AM PST, July 8, 2024

Americans are increasingly skeptical about the value and cost of college, with most saying

they feel the U.S. higher education system is headed in the wrong direction, according to

a new poll.

Overall, only 36% of adults say they have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in

higher education, according to the report released Monday by Gallup and the Lumina

Foundation. That confidence level has declined steadily from 57% in 2015.

Some of the same opinions have been reflected in declining enrollment as colleges

contend with the effects of the student debt crisis, concerns about the high cost of tuition

and political debates over how they teach about race and other topics.

The dimming view of whether college is worth the time and money cuts across all

demographics including gender, age, political affiliation. Among Republicans, the

number of respondents with high confidence in higher education has dropped 36

percentage points over the last decade far more than it dropped for Democrats or

independents.

Its so expensive, and I dont think colleges are teaching people what they need to get a

job, says Randy Hill, 59, a registered Republican in Connecticut and a driver for a car

service. His nephew plans to do a welding apprenticeship after graduating high school.

You graduate out of college, youre up to eyeballs in debt, you cant get a job, then you

cant pay it off. Whats the point?

The June 2024 surveys overall finding that 36% of adults feel strong confidence in higher

education is unchanged from the year before. But what concerns researchers is shifting

opinion on the bottom end, with fewer Americans saying they have some confidence and

more reporting very little and none. This years findings show almost as many people

have little or no confidence, 32%, as those with high confidence.

Experts say that fewer college graduates could worsen labor shortages in fields from

health care to information technology. For those who forgo college, it often means lower

lifetime earnings 75% less compared with those who get bachelors degrees, according

to Georgetown Universitys Center on Education and the Workforce. And during an

economic downturn, those without degrees are more likely to lose jobs.

It is sad to see that confidence hasnt grown at all, says Courtney Brown, vice president

at Lumina, an education nonprofit focused on increasing the numbers of students who

seek education beyond high school. Whats shocking to me is that the people who have

low or no confidence is actually increasing.

This years survey added new, detailed questions in an effort to understand why

confidence is shrinking.

Almost one-third of respondents say college is too expensive, while 24% feel students

are not being properly educated or taught what they need to succeed.

The survey did not specifically touch on the protests this year against the war in Gaza that

divided many college campuses, but political views weighed heavily on the findings.

Respondents voiced concerns about indoctrination, political bias and that colleges today

are too liberal. Among the respondents who lack confidence, 41% cite political agendas as

a reason.

Among other findings:

More than two-thirds, or 67%, of respondents say college is headed in the wrong

direction, compared with just 31% who feel its going in the right direction.

Generally when people express confidence in higher education, they are thinking of four-

year institutions, according to Gallup. But the survey found that more people have

confidence in two-year institutions. Forty-nine percent of adults say they have a great

deal or quite a lot of confidence in two-year programs, compared with 33% of

Americans who feel that way about four-year colleges.

California college student Kristen Freeman understands why.

Its about saving money. Thats why I went to a two-year. Its more bang for your buck,

says Freeman, 22, a sociology major at Diablo Valley Community College with plans to

transfer to San Jose State University for the final two years of college.

Freeman understands the concerns about indoctrination and whether college prepares

students for life and work but also feels the only way to change structural problems is from

the inside. I am learning about the world around me and developing useful skills in critical

thinking, Freeman says. I think higher education can give students the spark to want to

change the system. Reading Responses are a chance for you interact with the reading and contemplate the material before we discuss it in class. Your response here will help facilitate our discussions questions and lectures assessments. Below are some possible questions to help you approach the assignment, but it is your thoughts I am interested in.

In about 1 page (double-spaced), what is your reaction to the reading? Is there something specific that really connects with you? Is there something surprising that you have never thought of before or caused you to change your thinking on a certain topic? Does a given passage relate to your life or your beliefs on a given matter? Is there anything you vehemently disagree with?

Payne 11-20 and/or How to Write a Thesis Statement 1-13 and/or Levin 1-10

i attached a pdf

transcrpt for lecture: Hello. Last week we discussed what philosophy is. But this is not just a regular philosophy class. It is critical thinking and writing in philosophy. So today we’re going to discuss what do we mean by critical thinking. And then also detail how to begin the writing process. But before we get into writing, let’s discuss what do we mean by critical thinking. Let’s do so. We need to start at the beginning. So as human beings, we are born into this world. And as infants, we know nothing. We. Have certain needs, though, that we need to fulfill, and this requires us to seek out things that are beneficial to us, things that improve our lives and allow us to survive and avoid those things that are detrimental, the things that harm us or kill us off. So being able to understand the good from the bad, beneficial from the detrimental, is an essential quality that we need to instill within ourselves to be able to succeed in our environment. Luckily, we have had millennia of people. Figuring these things out. And so we’ve developed certain technologies. Uh, technology isn’t just cell phones and computers, but it’s basically anything that we invent. So writing, um, science crafts such as clothing, shoes, these are all different technologies. So because writing and science is part of that, we’ve learned a lot of different things about the things that are beneficial and the things that are detrimental and allow us to basically say, we want more of this in our lives and less of that, but we have also a lot of falsehoods. And so being able to understand the things that we’ve been told that that are accurate and true, those are the things we want to seek out and avoid the things that are misled. So we have a lot of beliefs about how the world is and when our beliefs accurately portray how the world is. We say that this, that those beliefs are true. Um, so when our beliefs conform to reality, we say this is a true fact. There are different interpretations, different theories as to what counts as truth, but we can use this definition as basically conforming to reality as, uh, the basis for what we mean by something that’s true. Uh, in philosophy, many times we define knowledge as a justified true belief, so we know something is true. We know it is accurate when we have a belief that conforms to how reality actually is. So we want to have beliefs that basically accurately represent the world around us, and then reject those beliefs that are going to lead us astray. But it is only a representation that we create, and it is a representation that we basically utilize to navigate the world around us, to seek out the good things and avoid the bad things. But.

It is only a representation. So there is a dichotomy, a distinction between our perceptions of the world, the way that we represent it to ourselves and the world in and of itself, the world as it actually is. Uh, many times you’ll see this term ding an sich, which comes from a Immanuel, Kant, which, uh, is German for the world in and of itself as it actually is, or as the stated in the reading. There is a subjective realm. The realm that we experience the world. The realm where we have feelings and sensations and ideas, the internal realm within our own minds. And then there is the objective realm, the world that we interact with but is outside and independent of ourselves. So as subjective beings, we have a certain experience of the world that we necessarily. See the world in our own particular way. But. This isn’t necessarily how the world actually is. We assume that the world appears in these certain ways, but we don’t have a guarantee that that’s how the world is beyond our perceptions because of the makeup of our bodies and our minds. We have some preconditions that have to that basically determine how we’re able to perceive certain things. Some of these preconditions are we view things as being in space and time. Um, that it’s possible that the world is either two dimensional or four or 5 or 11 dimensional, but the way that we’re able to process things is only in three spatial dimensions. And then one dimension of time, and we’re unable to be to break away from those, uh, different dimensions. You can’t think of things in a four dimensional or five dimensional way, because our brain just doesn’t have the ability to do that. Uh, same thing that things are colored a certain way. We have this image up here where we have a flower that we see as yellow. But if you look at it under UV light, you notice these different patterns. And this is the image that a bee would see. Uh, many times we’ll see a flower and it kind of has um, like one way, uh, in um. Patterns that basically allow the bee to say, hey. This is where the pollen is. Um, these are things that we do not see ourselves, but a, bee does. So when we’re thinking about the world as actually is, we don’t know if it is a yellow flower that we’re seeing, or it is a white and pink one. We just have our own ability to see certain wavelengths, and that’s the only way that we’re able to see them. Same thing with certain shapes here. This looks like a impossible triangle, but from a different perspective. You can see that it is a open shape, but. It is the only way that we’re able to perceive things that we say everything was, have a certain type of shape, have certain extension, certain preconditions that we necessarily view the world from, that we’re not 100% that that’s actually how the world is. That’s simply a modality of how we sense and perceive the world.

So because we only have access to our own subjective perceptions, the way that we see the world as being in three spatial dimensions one, uh, temporal dimension, having certain colors, not having the ultraviolet or the infrared, um, or any other of the electromagnetic spectrum, um, having certain extension colors or, uh, shapes. We basically have this idea of what the world is and the way we perceive it then allows us to create this representation of. Particular objects such as this one pin. And then we’re able to basically construct a map around us, and we’re able to have a representation of the world in general around us. But this is only a representation. It is our best guess as to what the world is in and of itself. So I think I know a lot about this pen because I’m able to touch it and see it. But it’s possible that there are some scientific theories like string theory. Like says, it’s likely that reality has 11, 12, 13 different dimensions, and we just are unable to perceive a lot of these other ones. So it’s possible that this pen is a lot more different than I think it is, but I represent it to myself in a certain particular way.

But that’s okay. Even if we don’t know exactly how the world is beyond our perceptions, we’ve been able to do pretty well. We’ve. Our species has existed for quite a long time. We’re able to navigate the world accurately enough. We’re able to manipulate objects. We’re able to grow crops, uh, hunt animals, build shelters, do all these things that allow us to survive. And so, because we’re able to succeed in the world, we have a pretty good idea that our representations of the world are accurate enough. But when we come to instances where we are trying to look at things very small on a atomic level or looking outside the world, such as, uh, in astronomy, or for looking at metaphysical investigations, what is the world beyond what physics tells us? This is when we start to question what the world is in and of itself, uh, as opposed to just our perceptions of the world. So we have certain arguments that we can make that says the world appears to us this way, but it’s actually this way. Um, but no matter what our theories are, no matter how we think we perceive the world, there’s no guarantee that we will critically view the world as it actually is, or see it. Truthfully, we don’t know that our perceptions correspond accurately to the objective world, the world beyond our subjective and, uh, interpretation of it. As a good example, anytime you see images from space, most of the time it is a artistic representation like we see at the bottom here, where we have gargantuan from the movie interstellar, we have a black hole, and it looks amazing that our best scientific theories say it probably looks like this, but we have a artistic representation here, as opposed to an image that we actually took of a black hole where it’s not quite the same. We think these things correspond pretty well, but you can tell that this and this are not quite the same. And so our representations of the world. Don’t necessarily accurately portray how these things are beyond our perception.

So not only do we have some issues with how we’re able to perceive and represent the world, but there’s also another layer of, uh, complexity. Um. Um, you know, things that make it harder to uncover what the truth of the world is. And that’s shitty people out there. Uh, there’s some agents that try to convince us that what they’re saying is true. Even though they might be lying to us, they may have unscrupulous motivations that they’re trying to get something out of us. Uh, maybe I say agents, because maybe there’s some AI programs that are trying to confuse us in certain ways. Um, and basically give us false information. When we’re trying to seek out what the world is supposed to actually be. Um, so you can think of an instance of going to a used car dealership and you’ll have some scummy guy saying, hey. Buy this car. It’s, you know, it’s really cool. Uh, gets great gas mileage, but come find out it’s actually lemon and, uh, something you do not want. So there are bad actors out there that will, will, will like to be able to basically get things that they want at our expense. And this is where critical thinking comes in. So luckily we have some tools that we’ll be learning throughout the semester to try and parse the things that we can trust and things that we should be wary of. And one of the things, one of the means that people try to convince us is by providing arguments. Um.

Argumentation is the basis of. Critical thinking. And it’s the, uh, basically the realm in which we’re able to utilize these tools. But what do we mean by an argument? Let’s get a handle on this. We have a little video.

From Monty Python’s. I’d like to have an argument. You know, is this is my first time I see. Do you want to have a full argument, or were you thinking of taking a course? Well, uh. Well, uh, what would be the cost? We get it by. It’s a 1.45 minute argument, but only ?8 for the course of ten. Well, I think we’ll get it off with. What would you like to see from that? Okay, fine. I’ll see you three at the moment. Uh, Mr. Dubik is free, but he’s a little bit conciliatory. Yes, ma’am. Well, thank you, thank you.

What do you want? What do you want?… [Content truncated to 3000 words]

Needs to be 3-4 pages double spaced

Project (10%)

Each student is to conduct an investigation that bears on the meaning of a word in English and write up a report

on it. Its not that I think English is so great; its just that a restriction to English makes evaluation fairer and

simpler. The report should not exceed 5 double-spaced pages, and may be considerably shorter. It needs to do

three things: say how the investigation was carried out, present the results of the investigation (possibly in tables or

graphs), and draw some conclusions about the meaning of the word from those results. Since such an undertaking

is probably new to you, I suggest you read (and re-read) the instructions below with care.

You may either investigate the meaning of the word as it stands currently (or as it was during a particular

historical period), or you can look at how and why its meaning has undergone a particular historical change. In

most cases, I would expect you to focus on a single sense of the word (most words are ambiguous, so be careful to

isolate the sense you plan to focus on), or a single point of change. However, I would also accept a project that

simultaneously examines two or possibly more senses of the same word, or charts an extended historical period

involving multiple changes, where such an enlarged investigation could be justified (run the idea by me or your TA,

if in doubt). It is fine to discuss the meanings of other words in the course of the report (perhaps words that work

the same way, or present an illuminating contrast), but the primary subject should be a single word.

3

Philos 23: Meaning and Communication Sam Cumming 12.29.25

Depending on your interests, you might prefer a word that (i) belongs to some branch of science, (ii) is connected

to some philosophical controversy, or even (iii) has had its meaning stretched by politicians, or else been ruled upon

in a legal judgment (though none of the above are required, or will by themselves lead to a better grade). A

contested meaning (as in Peter Ludlows examples of lexical warfare see his book Living Words in the Other

Resources page on the course website) will mean that there is probably more information available in published

sources and online, and is likely to make the investigation more fun to boot.

I encourage you to employ as many of the methods below as you have time for and make sense for your subject.

Consult dictionaries (plural!). They have suggestions about how to divide up the senses of a word (but

remember your ambiguity tests, too), and offer explanations some of which are more-or-less complete

attempts at definition for each sense. The OED (and perhaps others) also include historical information

(check the timeline function in the OED online), and have some other nice functions too. Remember that

separate dictionaries exist for the major dialects of English. Be sure to accurately cite your sources in the

report.

Consult the intuitions of native English speakers (including your own, if you happen to be one). Dont just ask

people what they think the definition is (remember how bad people were with planet !), but come prepared

with particular cases (Does a hotdog count as a sandwich ?) and queries about factors that may be relevant

to determining if the word applies (Does the bread in a sandwich need to be two slices fully separated

horizontally? Can the separation be vertical instead, and does it have to go all the way through, or can

there be a connective hinge of bread?). Challenge them with counterexamples (What about an open-faced

sandwich?). Since peoples answers can differ, the best way to do this is give everyone the same survey, and

then collect the answers in some sort of chart.

Search large collections of English documents (these are known as linguistic corpora) for data about usage.

The simplest way to do this is with a google search (look up techniques for improving search, and try out

the advanced features). The output of this is of course a number (of hits) and the usual list of those hits.

The number can be instructive (if you want to know whether a word or phrase is relatively rare or common),

and you can go in and look at the webpages where the word or phrase occurs for context that will illuminate

meaning. Another thing to try is Google Books ngram viewer, which searches googles mind-boggling archive

of scanned books, and prints a chart of the number of occurrences of a word or whole phrase by year from

1800 to 2006. The OED will generate charts like this too, which go back further in time, but are based on

a tiny fraction of the data. In both cases, you cannot search directly for a particular sense of an ambiguous

word, but you can do so indirectly by searching for a phrase that incorporates the word while disambiguating

it (for instance, heavy or light vs. dark or light). Finally, those who can program in Python (or similar)

are able to make any query to a corpus they can (efficiently) code (take a look at Natural Language Toolkit,

https://www.nltk.org/).

Look up legal cases, news articles, philosophy papers, and so on.

The project will be carried out in stages:

Friday, Week 4 (1/30) Register project idea

Friday, Week 6 (2/13) Submit raw data

Friday, Week 7 (2/20) Submit final write-up

Please give me some data that you have today

I was thinking of the word consent but I am not sure

This is not full essay worth of answers.

Read the assigned reading from the chapter. Then, choose TWO of the questions from below to answer. Answers from each section you chose should be a minimum of 1 paragraph.

Be sure to explain your answers fully and give reasons for your views. If needed, you should cite the textbook and use brief quotations and summaries from the textbook in your response. Do NOT use any other sources besides the textbook; DO NOT restate the question in your response (just the question # is sufficient).

1. What is the chief difference between utilitarianism and Kant’s ethics? Do you think one of these theories is clearly inferior to the other? Do they each represent part of the truth about morality? Explain.
2. How does cultural relativism imply infallibility, the unlikelihood of disagreement, and the impossibility of moral progress?
3. Do you believe utilitarianism conflicts with our considered judgments about rights? Why or why not?
4. What is the divine command theory? Is it a good moral theory? Why or why not?
5. What is the empirical theory known as psychological egoism? Explain why you think it is or is not a good explanation of human behavior.
6. Why might someone think that principlism is excessively subjective? Would you agree? Why or why not?

In the weekly readings on self-love, author Eric Fromm discusses the long-debated contradiction between love for oneself and love for others. Specifically, he asks the question “Is love for oneself the same phenomenon as selfishness, or are they opposites?” (pg. 93). Furthermore, he goes on to highlight, “From this it follows that my own self must be as much an object of my love as another person. The affirmation of one’s own life, happiness, growth, freedom is rooted in one’s capacity to love, i.e., in care, respect, responsibility and knowledge. If an individual is able to love productively, he loves himself too, if he can love only others, he cannot love at all.” (pg. 96).

In this week’s essay discuss what Fromm means in the above statement. Critics might disagree and say that too much self-love is a form of selfishness and makes it difficult to love others. Based on the remainder of the readings (pg. 92-100) discuss the importance of developing self-love and how this contributes to developing healthy love for others. Provide two specific examples from scholarly academic resources of how practicing self-love contributes to meaningful relationships with others.

This essay should be 2 – 3 pages in APA 7th edition formatting. Be sure to structure this paper like an academic essay (include an introduction and conclusion). This is due by Sunday at 11:59 pm of week 5. Essay should contain a Title Page in APA style. APA format uses 12 pt and Times New Roman font. Create a citation every time you use someone else’s words, research results, or ideas in the body of the paper. Your Essay must include a Reference Page.

https://ethics.mattcleaver.com/topics

1. (10 points) Choose an ethical or moral topic. Explain just a bit of background about your topic. Maybe even link to a relevant news article about the topic. I suggest looking in these places if you need inspiration:

• Last week’s .
• The list of
• I compiled.
• Check your social media feeds. There is almost always someone sharing a news article and making a moral judgment about something.

1. (20 points) State a specific, prescriptive, moral position. A moral position should be a morally prescriptive statement that someone can either agree or disagree with.

• Your moral position should be moral, specific, and prescriptive.
• Moral: it should state a moral position, not a legal or religious position.
• Specific: it should be a specific moral issue, not a general moral topic. General moral topics would be something like “racism” or “hate” or “greed.” Rather than stating a position about these general topics, state a position about a specific instance of these things, such as:
• “It is morally bad to perform traffic stops based on racial profiling.”
• “It is morally good to defend the free speech rights of hate groups.”
• “It is morally bad for businesses to raise prices on essential goods during a natural disaster, such as a hurricane.”
• Prescriptive: it should state that something is good, bad, or permissible, not just talk about a topic.
• It could take something like the following form:
• “It is morally [good/bad/permissible] to [fill-in-the-blank-action].”
• “[Fill-in-the-blank-action] is morally [good/bad/permissible].”
• Morally good actions are actions that we want people to perform. For example, “It is morally good for individuals to donate money to charity.”
• Morally bad actions are actions we do not want people to perform. For example, “It is morally bad for a spouse to have an affair.”
• Morally permissible actions are actions that we think are acceptable, but that we don’t want to either encourage or discourage people from performing. For example, “It is morally permissible for individuals to drink reasonable levels of alcohol.”
• Note: your moral position should be one that people disagree about. There should be people who both agree and disagree with your moral position.

1. (60 points) For your chosen moral position, try to construct two opposing valid arguments: one in agreement with and one in disagreement with your moral position. Lay out the arguments as I did in the lectures (), with a series of premises, and then a conclusion that follows from those premises.

• Note: you are not picking or defending which side you think is “right.” You are simply laying out both sides of the argument.

1. (10 points) Grammar and formatting. In general, your tone can be conversational (rather than rigid and academic), but you must use proper grammar. This assignment does not require specific academic formatting (such as MLA or APA), but you should use conventional formatting: black text, normal-size font, left-aligned text, and proper separation between sections.

Submission Format

• You must submit your initial post as a text entry or as an uploaded document, below.
• Immediately after you submit your assignment, here, you must also copy and paste your initial post in the discussion that is the next item in the module.

Due dates

• See the due date within Canvas

Example Initial Post

(The following is an example submission that fulfills all of the above requirements of the assignment)

(1. Introduce the topic) 1. Abortion is a divisive topic, and many states are passing restrictive bans on abortion (“

“). The heart of the debate revolves around whose rights deserve to be given the most weight: the mother or the fetus. It seems like you can’t have both.

(2. State a moral position) 2. Position: Abortion after six weeks of gestation is morally bad.

(3. Try to construct two valid arguments, one that agrees, and one that disagrees)

3. Agree

• Premise 1: A human fetus has a heartbeat at six weeks of gestation.
• Premise 2: Stopping a beating human heart is murder.
• Premise 3: Murder is morally bad.
• Conclusion: Therefore, abortion after six weeks of gestation is morally bad. (note: the conclusion of your argument in agreement should be the same as your moral position in part 2)

Disagree

• Premise 1: It is morally bad to restrict an individual from making decisions relating to their own body.
• Premise 2: Getting an abortion is a decision relating to an individual’s own body.
• Conclusion: Therefore, it is morally bad to restrict an individual from getting an abortion.

Please follow the instructions. If you have any questions im here.

First Essay Topic and Instructions Essay topics The following are some general guidelines for essay topics: Topic 1 It is often said that business interests and the pressures of the marketplace stand in the way of the media disseminating information which serves the public good. Drawing from the papers by Jackson and Lichtenberg, critically evaluate their proposals for dealing with this problem. You can, of course, also draw from Chomsky here. Topic 2 Why are the communicative obligations of the media often defined and developed using the language of rights, especially the right to non-interference, and do you see any limitations in doing so? Put another way, what kinds of limitations, if any, should be placed on freedom of press? Critically discuss with reference to the papers by Lichtenberg and ONeill. Mill can, of course, also be brought into this discussion. Topic 3 The publics right to know is often used to defend freedom of press and to justify journalists causing harm to others. Drawing from the papers by Ward and Meyers, discuss and critically examine the limitations of such a right and the connections between freedom of press and the harm principle. Specifically, what limitations, if any, do you think the harm principle should place on the liberty of the press? Instructions and criteria of assessment You must draw from at least two of the papers from the class syllabus. The point is to write an argumentative essay. Specifically, you need to: (i) State your thesis explicitly (My goal in this paper is to…). (ii) Explicate the text (identifying, contrasting, and discussing the arguments made by the authors you are examining, and which relate to your thesis). (iii) Provide analysis (with a view to supporting your thesis) In other words, you will be evaluated on the how well you explicate the positions of the authors you examine, on the strength of the arguments you make in support of the position you are arguing for, and on how well you argue against rival positions. Make sure you reference all sources. The paper should be double spaced, 6 pages long, and it is due on February 13. Here are some questions you should keep in mind in writing your paper

Does your paper have a clearly articulated thesis? Is the thesis supported by arguments?

Are these arguments logically structured?

Do you make use of the primary texts in defending your thesis?

Have you anticipated potential criticisms of your position and demonstrated why your position is superior to rival interpretations?

Is your writing clear and to the point?

Is your writing technically flawless, free of spelling mistakes and grammatical errors?

Do you have proper documentation in a consistent style?

Hey can you help me write short essay in my own words please simple, no plagiarism, turnitinready this professor is very strict. the first paragraph can only be 2 sentences. my say In this essay I will discuss…. and next sentence More specifically, I included my professor short essay he only wants it one page long Heres the article and reference R.B. BRANDT 3 THE MORALITY AND RATIONALITY OF SUICIDE From the point of view of contemporary philosophy, suicide raises the following distinct questions: whether a person who commits suicide (assuming that there is suicide if and only if there is intentional termina- tion of one’s own life) is morally blameworthy, reprehensible, sinful in all circumstances, whether suicide is objectively right or wrong, and in what circumstances it is right or wrong, from a moral point of view; and whether, or in which circumstances, suicide is the best or the rational thing to do from the point of view of the agent’s personal welfare. The moral blameworthiness of suicide In former times the question of whether suicide is sinful was of great in- terest because the answer to it was considered relevant to how the agent would spend eternity. At present the practical issue is not as great, al- though a normal funeral service may be denied a person judged to have committed suicide sinfully. The chief practical issue now seems to be that persons may disapprove of a decedent for having committed suicide, and his friends or relatives may wish to defend his memory against moral charges. The question of whether an act of suicide was sinful or morally blame- worthy is not apt to arise unless it is already believed that the agent 61 62 A HANDBOOK FOR THE STUDY OF SUICIDE morally ought not to have done it: for instance, if he really had very poor reason for doing so, and his act foreseeably had catastrophic conse- quences for his wife and children. But, even if a given suicide is morally wrong, it does not follow that it is morally reprehensible. For, while asserting that a given act of suicide was wrong, we may still think that the act was hardly morally blameworthy or sinful if, say, the agent was in a state of great emotional turmoil at the time. We might then say that, although what he did var wrongla, though a person broke the lay, he- should not be punished because he was not responsible, that is, was tem- porarily insane, did what he did inadvertently, and so on. The foregoing remarks assume that to be morally blameworthy (or sinful) on account of an act is one thing, and for the act to be wrong is another. But, if we say this, what after all does it mean to say that a per- son is morally blameworthy on account of an action? We cannot say there is agreement among philosophers on this matter, but I suggest the following account as being safe from serious objection: “X is morally blameworthy on account of an action A” may be taken to mean “X did A, and X would not have done A had not his character been in some respect below standard; and in view of this it is fitting or justified for X to have some disapproving attitudes including remorse toward himself, and for some other persons Y to have some disapproving attitudes to- ward X and to express them in behavior.” Traditional thought would in- clude God as one of the “other persons” who might have and express dis- approving attitudes. In case the foregoing definition does not seem obviously correct, it is worthwhile pointing out that it is usually thought that an agent is not blameworthy or sinful for an action unless it is a reflection on him; the definition brings this fact out and makes clear why…. If someone charges that a suicide was sinful, we may now properly ask, “What defect of character did it show?” Some writers have claimed that suicide is blameworthy because it is cowardly, and since being cowardly is generally conceded to be a defect of character, if an act of suicide is admitted to be both objectively wrong and also cowardly, the claim to blameworthiness might be warranted in terms of the above defi- nition. Of course, many people would hesitate to call taking one’s own life a cowardly act, and there will certainly be controversy about which 63 THE MORALITY AND RATIONALITY OF SUICIDE acts are cowardly and which are not. But at least we can see part of what has to be done to make a charge of blameworthiness valid. The most interesting question is the general one: which types of sui- cide in general are ones that, even if objectively wrong (in a sense to be explained below), are not sinful or blameworthy? Or, in other words; when is a suicide morally excused even if it is objectively wrong? We can at least identify some types that are morally excusable. 1. Suppose I think I am morally bound to commit suicide because I have a terminal illness and continued medical care will ruin my family financially. Suppose, however, that I am mistaken in this belief, and that suicide in such circumstances is not right. But surely I am not morally blameworthy; for I may be doing, out of a sense of duty to my family, what I would personally prefer not to do and is hard for me to do. What defect of character might my action show? Suicide from a genuine sense of duty is not blameworthy, even when the moral conviction in question is mistaken. 2. Suppose that I commit suicide when I am temporarily of unsound mind, either in the sense of the M’Naghten rule that I do not know that what I am doing is wrong, or of the Durham rule that, owing to a mental defect, I am substantially unable to do what is right. Surely, any suicide in an unsound state of mind is morally excused. 3. Suppose I commit suicide when I could not be said to be tem- porarily of unsound mind, but simply because I am not myself. For in- stance, I may be in an extremely depressed mood. Now a person may be in a very depressed mood, and commit suicide on account of being in that mood, when there is nothing the matter with his character-or, in other words, his character is not in any relevant way below standard. What are other examples of being “not myself,” of emotional states that might be responsible for a person’s committing suicide, and that might render the suicide excusable even if wrong? Being frightened; being dis- traught; being in almost any highly emotional frame of mind (anger, frustration, disappointment in love); perhaps just being terribly fatigued: So there are at least three types of suicide which can be morally ex- cused even if they are objectively wrong. The main point is this: Mr. X may commit suicide and it may be conceded that he ought not to have done so, but it is another step to show that he is sinful, or morally blame- worthy, for having done so. To make out that further point, it must be 64 A HANDBOOK FOR THE STUDY OF SUICIDE 65 THE MORALITY AND RATIONALITY OF SUICIDE shown that his act is attributable to some substandard trait of character. So, Mrs. X after the suicide can concede that her husband ought not to have done what he did, but she can also point out that it is no reflection on his character. The distinction, unfortunately, is often overlooked. St. Thomas Aquinas, who recognizes the distinction in other places, seems blind to it in his discussion of suicide. The moral reasons for and against suicide Persons who say suicide is morally wrong must be asked which of two positions they are affirming: Are they saying that every act of suicide is wrong, everything considered; or are they merely saying that there is always some moral obligation-doubtless of serious weight-not to com- mit suicide, so that very often suicide is wrong, although it is possible that there are countervailing considerations which in particular situations make it right or even a moral duty? It is quite evident that the first posi- tion is absurd; only the second has a chance of being defensible. In order to make clear what is wrong with the first view, we may be- gin with an example. Suppose an army pilot’s single-seater plane goes out of control over a heavily populated area; he has the choice of staying in the plane and bringing it down where it will do little damage but at the cost of certain death for himself, and of bailing out and letting the plane fall where it will, very possibly killing a good many civilians. Suppose he chooses to do the former, and so, by our definition, commits suicide. Does anyone want to say that his action is morally wrong? Even Im- manuel Kant, who opposed suicide in all circumstances, apparently would not wish to say that it is; he would, in fact, judge that this act is not one of suicide, for he says, “It is no suicide to risk one’s life against one’s enemies, and even to sacrifice it, in order to preserve one’s duties toward oneself.”” St. Thomas Aquinas, in his discussion of suicide, may seem to take the position that such an act would be wrong, for he says, “It is altogether unlawful to kill oneself,” admitting as an exception only the case of being under special command of God. But I believe St. Thomas would, in fact, have concluded that the act is right because the basic intention of the pilot was to save the lives of civilians, and whether an act is right or wrong is a matter of basic intention.? In general, we have to admit that there are things with some moral obligation to avoid which, on account of other morally relevant consid- erations, it is sometimes right or even morally obligatory to do. There may be some obligation to tell the truth on every occasion, but surely in many cases the consequences of telling the truth would be so dire that one is obligated to lie. The same goes for promises. There is some moral obligation to do what one has promised (with a few exceptions); but, if one can keep a trivial promise only at serious cost to another person (i.e., keep an appointment only by failing to give aid to someone injured in an accident), it is surely obligatory to break the promise. The most that the moral critic of suicide could hold, then, is that there is some moral obligation not to do what one knows will cause one’s death; but he surely cannot deny that circumstances exist in which there are obligations to do things which, in fact, will result in one’s death. If so, then in principle it would be possible to argue, for instance, that in order to meet my obligation to my family, it might be right for me to take my own life as the only way to avoid catastrophic hospital expenses in a terminal illness. Possibly the main point that critics of suicide on moral grounds would wish to make is that it is never right to take one’s own life for reasons of one’s own personal welfare, of any kind whatso- ever. Some of the arguments used to support the immorality of suicide, however, are so framed that if they were supportable at all, they would prove that suicide is never moral. One well-known type of argument against suicide may be classified as theological. St. Augustine and others urged that the Sixth Commandment (“‘Thou shalt not kill”) prohibits suicide, and that we are bound to obey a divine commandment. To this reasoning one might first reply that it is arbitrary exegesis of the Sixth Commandment to assert that it was. in- tended to prohibit suicide. The second reply is that if there is not some consideration which shows on the merits of the case that suicide is morally wrong, God had no business prohibiting it. It is true that some will object to this point, and I must refer them elsewhere for my detailed comments on the divine-will theory of morality.? Another theological argument with wide support was accepted by John Locke, who wrote: “.:. Men being all the workmanship of one om- nipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Mas- ter, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another’s pleasure. … Every one . . . is bound to preserve him- self, and not to quit his station wilfully. ..”* And Kant: “We have 66 A HANDBOOK FOR THE STUDY OF SUICIDE been placed in this world under certain conditions and for specific pur- poses. But a suicide opposes the purpose of his Creator; he arrives in the other world as one who has deserted his post; he must be looked upon as a rebel against God. So long as we remember the truth that it is God’s intention to preserve life, we are bound to regulate our activities in con- formity with it. This duty is upon us until the time comes when God ex- pressly commands us to leave this life. Human beings are sentinels on earth and may not leave their posts until relieved by another beneficent hand.”” Unfortunately, however, even if we grant that it is the duty of human beings to do what God commands or intends them to do, more argument is required to show that God does not permit human beings to quit this life when their own personal welfare would be maximized by so doing. How does one draw the requisite inference about the intentions of God? The difficulties and contradictions in arguments to reach such a conclusion are discussed at length and perspicaciously by David Hume in his essay “On Suicide,” and in view of the unlikelihood that readers will need to be persuaded about these, I shall merely refer those interested to that essay. A second group of arguments may be classed as arguments from nat- ural law. St. Thomas says: “It is altogether unlawful to kill oneself, for three reasons. First, because everything naturally loves itself, the result being that everything naturally keeps itself in being, and resists corrup- tions so far as it can. Wherefore suicide is contrary to the inclination of nature, and to charity whereby every man should love himself. Hence suicide is always a mortal sin, as being contrary to the natural law and to charity.”” Here St. Thomas ignores two obvious points. First, it is not obvious why a human being is morally bound to do what he or she has some inclination to do. (St. Thomas did not criticize chastity.) Second, while it is true that most human beings do feel a strong urge to live, the human being who commits suicide obviously feels a stronger inclination to do something else. It is as natural for a human being to dislike, and to take steps to avoid, say, great pain, as it is to cling to life. A somewhat similar argument by Immanuel Kant may seem better. In a famous passage Kant writes that the maxim of a person who commits suicide is “From self-love I make it my principle to shorten my life if its continuance threatens more evil than it promises pleasure. The only fur- ther question to ask is whether this principle of self-love can become a universal law of nature. It is then seen at once that a system of nature by 67 THE MORALITY AND RATIONALITY OF SUICIDE whose law the very same feeling whose function is to stimulate the fur- therance of life should actually destroy life would contradict itself and consequently could not subsist as a system of nature. Hence this maxim cannot possibly hold as a universal law of nature and is therefore entirely opposed to the supreme principle of all duty.” What Kant finds contra- dictory is that the motive of self-love (interest in one’s own long-range welfare) should sometimes lead one to struggle to preserve one’s life, but at other times to end it. But where is the contradiction? One’s circum- stances change, and, if the argument of the following section in this chap- ter is correct, one sometimes maximizes one’s own long-range welfare by trying to stay alive, but at other times by bringing about one’s demise. A third group of arguments, a form of which goes back at least to Aristotle, has a more modern and convincing ring. These are arguments to show that, in one way or another, a suicide necessarily does harm to other persons, or to society at large. Aristotle says that the suicide treats the state unjustly? Partly following Aristotle, St. Thomas says: “Every man is part of the community, and so, as such, he belongs to the com- munity. Hence by killing himself he injures the community. “1 Blackstone held that a suicide is an offense against the king “who hath an interest in the preservation of all his subjects,” perhaps following Judge Brown in 1563, who argued that suicide cost the king a subject-“he being the head has lost one of his mystical members. “I The premise of such arguments is, as Hume pointed out, obviously mistaken in many instances. It is true that Freud would perhaps have injured society had he, instead of finish- ing his last book, committed suicide to escape the pain of throat cancer. But surely there have been many suicides whose demise was not a notice- able loss to society; an honest man could only say that in some instances society was better off without them. It need not… [Content truncated to 3000 words]

please log into UHD canvas login username – ***********************

password – 031380Jay!

Please click on the Introduction to Philosophy 23506 class then Modules scroll down to unit two ( Week six day two ) watch video and answer the question that is at the end of the video.

follow the instructions.

please let me know if you have any questions