Lecture 2 and Mid-term expectations
Class structure 10am-1pm
10-10.20 Homework
10.20-11.30 Quiz below
11.30-11.50 Break
11.50-12.45 Euthyphro
12.45-1.00 Mid-term expectations
Homework for Femke – reading and understanding how you reason – describe how you approach a problem . Step-by-step process .
Quiz

1. A = Valid
Socrates is a philosopher
All philosophers are poor
So Socrates is poor 2. A – iv
Whenever Anile is here, Kumar is also here
Anil is not here
So Kumar is not here 3. A = iv
Most drug addicts are depressed people
Most depressed people are lonely
So most drug addicts are lonely 4. A= v
Nothing that s cheap is good
So nothing that is good is cheap 5. A = v
If there is an earthquake , the detector will send a message
No message has been sent
So there was no message 6. A = iv
John said that everyone loves Mary
Nothing that John has said is true
So nobody loves Mary

Mid-term
This assignment is designed to assess your critical thinking problem solving, and communication skills. Your answer will be judged for its clarity, relevance, coherence, logic, depth, consistency, and fairness. Your answers to each issue should be between 700-800 words in length. More specifically, the reader will be asking the following questions:

1. Is the question at issue well stated? Is it clear and unbiased? Does the expression of the question do justice to the complexity of the matter at issue? 2. Does the writer cite relevant evidence, experiences, and/or information essential to the issue? 3. Does the writer clarify key concepts when necessary? 4. Does the writer show a sensitivity to what he or she is assuming or taking for granted? (Insofar as those assumptions might reasonably questioned)? 5. Does the writer develop a definite line of reasoning, explaining well how he or she is arriving at his or her conclusions? 6. Is the writer's reasoning well- supported? 7. Does the writer show sensitivity to alternative points of view or lines of reasoning? Does he or she consider and respond to objections framed from other points of view? 8. Does the writer show sensitivity to the implications and consequences of the position he or she has taken?

Issue 1.

The nation is facing a variety of ecological problems that have the following general form: an established practice, whether on the part of business and industry or on the part of the public, is contributing to serious health problems for a large number of people. At the same time it would be costly to modify the practice so as to reduce the health problem.
People often say that the answer is one of achieving a "balance" between the amount of money we spend to correct the problem and the number of lives we would save by that expenditure.

Develop a point of view and some plausible criteria for telling how one would determine this "balance." Make sure you address any dilemmas inherent in your strategy for solving such problems.

Issue 2

There is a growing number of Americans who do not vote in national and local elections. Many of them explain their non-participation by saying that their vote would not make a difference.
Some go on to argue that this is true because "money plays such a large role in elections that the candidate with the highest paid, and the highest quality, media campaign wins." Most people agree that money sometimes plays an inappropriate role in determining the outcome of elections.

Develop a proposed solution to this problem that takes into account the view that people and organizations with money have a right to use that money to advance political causes they believe in. If you like, you may decide to develop a position to the effect that there is no solution to the problem and that we have no choice but to accept the status quo.

Issue 3

Sociologist Erving Goffman has pointed out that all social groups, including professions, develop a protective attitude toward members of their group, even when what some of the members do is seen as morally wrong. A sense of loyalty to the group often overrides what they would otherwise deem immoral.

Consider the arguments for and against exposing people with whom you are personally close or with whom you have close professional ties. Develop a position on this issue that could serve as a guide for anyone in such a position.

Plato “Euthyphro”

* Why read philosophy? * True purpose is not to answer questions but to question the answers that have been given * Socrates asks for a clear definition and a show of consistency when he asks Euthyphro ‘’what is piety?’’ * Each explanation has been unsatisfactory * Dialectic * To point out inconsistencies and self-contradictions in popular statements * These statements are usually made without thinking about their logical implications ‘ * ‘’I gave 200% , I really did my best’’ * Highlights shallowness in argumentation * Absence of critical thinking * Defense of Socrates who has been accused of teaching false doctrines and corrupting the youth of Athens - highlights the true character of those who are trying him * Socrates – does not claim his knowledge or beliefs are truths thus is not trying to indoctrinate * Role as an inquirer * To get people to think for themselves * Never accept too readily what has been told to you by others * Always stop to consider the evidence upon which any statement has been based * Is it ‘dangerous’ to encourage people to think for themselves? * ‘Danger’ of exposing errors * Turning it around – Meletus vs Socrates – easier to find fault with the person who is your critic than it is to admit the truth of what the critic has been saying.

* One of the purposes of this dialogue, and why we are reading it to show two contrasting conceptions of religion.

* Euthyphro’s

* Religion is a kind of mercenary process * Piety involves a relationship between gods and humans * Prayers and sacrifices are given to the gods, who in return bestow material benefits on their worshippers

* Socrates * Did not accept the literal truth as many held about the gods * This caused people to accuse him of encouraging the youth to question and thus undermining their faith * Rejects Euthyphro’s distinction between service to the gods and service to people. * Duty to the divine should not be seen as something different or more important to one’s duty to people * He believes that we show our duty to god through our promotion of the moral and spiritual development of human beings * Religion is not a tool for getting what one wants * The primary purpose of religion is to bring one’s own life into harmony with the will of god * Morality – not just about the desires of those who formulate them * Morality is more than human opinion * Morality = the will of god

* Plato suggests that although Euthyphro holds strong views and is willing to act on them, he is unable to provide justification for either his belief or the action based upon it . * His confidence lacks a rational basis * No reliable grounds for thinking his position is true

* Euthyphro is in dialog form – a form of philosophical writing invented by Plato * Classic example of the Socratic Method – the investigation and improvement of something by asking questions about it , getting an account of our beliefs and then critiquing them * Socrates believes that we can and must figure out our ethical opinions for ourselves * Appeals to authority are not enough * We need to use reason to arrive at our beliefs * Socrates – is trying to find out what is righteous * What is it that makes all righteous actions righteous? * What is it that makes all sinful actions sinful? * Socrates does not want examples he wants Euthyphro to specifically identify the feature of those examples that makes them either right or wrong. * Socratic Fallacy – Socrates believes that you can’t practice an ethical concept if you are not able to define it * One needs to do philosophy in order to become a better person * In order to be ethical you have to be able to articulate ethical concepts * It is useful in this case of Euthyphro because it is useful to be able to define something when you are confronted by particularly difficult and unclear cases * Euthyphro is prosecuting his father for murder * You shouldn’t mistreat your father BUT if your father is a murderer then it a seems morally correct to punish him * Conflict of duties – calls, Socrates believes , for ethics to be a science whereby we have precise definitions of moral concepts * Plato believes that family ties outweigh justice

* Euthyphro offers three definitions of righteousness 1. Prosecuting anyone guilty of crime is righteous, letting a criminal go free is sinful * He gives an example , not a definition to defend this definition * Zeus – an appeal to authority 2. Righteousness is anything that the gods love; sin is anything the gods hate * Doesn’t work as the gods love and hate different things * We cannot say that gods collectively love or hate – modern exam is ‘who’s god?’ Christian, Muslim, Jewish? * Socrates drives Euthyphro to admit that he thinks the gods want what he, Euthyphro , wants ; the ethical ideas are really coming from him, no the gods. 3. Righteousness is anything that ALL the gods love; sin is anything ALL the gods hate * Is something righteous because the gods love it , or do the gods love it because it is righteous? * The gods love what is righteous because it is righteous * Righteousness is therefore independent of god * We still therefore have to make our own judgment * Righteous things are righteous because the gods love them * How do we know that god loves certain things? * We thus still rely on human judgment

* No matter what, from this dialogue, human judgment is what determines righteousness * It is better therefore to think for yourself than it is to obey and believe authority * Euthyphro ultimately admits that he doesn’t know the answer to Socrates’ original question 4. Outcome – at least he now knows that he didn’t know the answer