From the Gospel according to St Matthew 25, 14 - 30
14 "It will be as when a man who was going on a journey called in his servants and entrusted his possessions to them. 15 To one he gave five talents; to another, two; to a third, one - to each according to his ability. Then he went away. Immediately 16 the one who received five talents went and traded with them, and made another five. 17 Likewise, the one who received two made another two. 18 But the man who received one went off and dug a hole in the ground and buried his master's money. 19 After a long time the master of those servants came back and settled accounts with them. 20 The one who had received five talents came forward bringing the additional five. He said, 'Master, you gave me five talents. See, I have made five more.' 21 His master said to him, 'Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master's joy.' 22 (Then) the one who had received two talents also came forward and said, 'Master, you gave me two talents. See, I have made two more.' 23 His master said to him, 'Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master's joy.' 24 Then the one who had received the one talent came forward and said, 'Master, I knew you were a demanding person, harvesting where you did not plant and gathering where you did not scatter; 25 so out of fear I went off and buried your talent in the ground. Here it is back.' 26 His master said to him in reply, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I did not plant and gather where I did not scatter? 27 Should you not then have put my money in the bank so that I could have got it back with interest on my return? 28 Now then! Take the talent from him and give it to the one with ten. 29 For to everyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And throw this useless servant into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.'
giovedì 20 novembre 2008
venerdì 14 novembre 2008
Tutorial # 8.Meta - Ethics. God and Morality. Discussion Questions
In light of the readings you have done (especially Philip L. Quinn, ‘God and Morality’, in Reasons and Responsibility), think about these questions.
- Are there any objective moral facts?
- Or are moral statements true or false only relative to particular cultural standards or personal attitudes of approval and disapproval?
- Can divine commands provide an objective basis for morality?
- Does Christian Ethics amount to the divine command theory?
- What is theological voluntarism?
- What are the main reasons why – according to Quinn – if one is a theist, he should consider the divine command theory as a sound theory?
- In which sense ethics depends on God?
- What is the sense of Dostoevskij’s proclaim that “everything is permitted if there is no God”? Read the passage below from The Brothers Karamazov
- Do you think that there is any “natural moral law”’ Why? Or why not? Try not to focus on cultural differences, but rather on analogies across societies and cultures?
- Accoring to Sartre, in which sense there is no human nature? And how is this related to the death of God? Think about the reading below by Sartre.
- What is the best reason to adopt divine command morality if one is monotheist?
- According to Kierkegaard - quoted in Quinn, what is the difference between erotic love and love of the neighbor?
- What relation, if any, do you find between Kantian categorical imperatives and the Christian “commandment of love”?
- How do we know the will of God?
- If from the Bible, should we take the Bible literally, or give it an interpretation?
- Do you agree that if God commanded homicide, adultery, and theft, then homicide, adultery, and theft would be morally right? Why? Or why not?
- An action is good because God wants it, or God wants a certain action because it is good? This is the Euthyphro Objection. How would you tackle this problem? Think about te episode in the Genesis of the Binding of Isaac
- God as perfectly good is “constrained” to want the good? In which sense? Does this imply that God is not almighty?
Tutorial # 8.Meta - Ethics. Sartre on God and Morality
The atheist and existentialist writer and philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre (1905 – 1980) accepts that God’s death makes our existence completely absurd (inexplicable) and in his various writings he tries to work out how it might be possible for human beings to live in a superfluous world in which there is no good and bad, no right and wrong, no ultimate meaning and so no reason for anything.
In Existentialism and Human Emotions (1957, pp. 9-16), he writes:
"Atheistic existentialism, which I represent, is more coherent. It states that if God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and that this being is man, or, as Heidegger says, human reality. What is meant here by saying that existence precedes essence? It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. Not only is man what he conceives himself to be, but he is also only what he wills himself to be after this thrust toward existence.
Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. Such is the first principle of existentialism."
In Existentialism and Human Emotions (1957, pp. 9-16), he writes:
"Atheistic existentialism, which I represent, is more coherent. It states that if God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and that this being is man, or, as Heidegger says, human reality. What is meant here by saying that existence precedes essence? It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. Not only is man what he conceives himself to be, but he is also only what he wills himself to be after this thrust toward existence.
Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. Such is the first principle of existentialism."
Tutorial # 8.Meta - Ethics. Dostoevskij on God and Morality
Dostoevskij (1821 – 1881) in book XI of The Brothers Karamazov describes Ivan Karamazov's destructive influence on those around him and his descent into madness.
"It is in this book that Ivan meets three times with Smerdyakov, the final meeting culminating in Smerdyakov's dramatic confession that he had faked the fit, murdered Fyodor Karamazov, and stolen the money, which he presents to Ivan. Smerdyakov expresses disbelief at Ivan's professed ignorance and surprise. Smerdyakov claims that Ivan was complicit in the murder by telling Smerdyakov when he would be leaving Fyodor's house, and more importantly by instilling in Smerdyakov the belief that in a world without God "everything is permitted." The book ends with Ivan having a hallucination in which he is visited by the devil, who torments Ivan by mocking his beliefs. Alyosha finds Ivan raving and informs him that Smerdyakov killed himself shortly after their final meeting." From Wikipedia
He writes thus:
"I did have an idea of beginning a new life with that money in Moscow or, better still, abroad. I did dream of it, chiefly because 'all things are lawful.' That was quite right what you taught me, for you talked a lot to me about that. For if there's no everlasting God, there's no such thing as virtue, and there's no need of it. You were right there. So that's how I looked at it."
"Did you come to that of yourself?" asked Ivan, with a wry smile.
"With your guidance."
"And now, I suppose, you believe in God, since you are giving back the money?"
"No, I don't believe," whispered Smerdyakov.
"Then why are you giving it back?"
"Leave off... that's enough!" Smerdyakov waved his hand again. "You used to say yourself that everything was lawful, so now why are you so upset, too? You even want to go and give evidence against yourself.... Only there'll be nothing of the sort! You won't go to give evidence," Smerdyakov decided with conviction.
"It is in this book that Ivan meets three times with Smerdyakov, the final meeting culminating in Smerdyakov's dramatic confession that he had faked the fit, murdered Fyodor Karamazov, and stolen the money, which he presents to Ivan. Smerdyakov expresses disbelief at Ivan's professed ignorance and surprise. Smerdyakov claims that Ivan was complicit in the murder by telling Smerdyakov when he would be leaving Fyodor's house, and more importantly by instilling in Smerdyakov the belief that in a world without God "everything is permitted." The book ends with Ivan having a hallucination in which he is visited by the devil, who torments Ivan by mocking his beliefs. Alyosha finds Ivan raving and informs him that Smerdyakov killed himself shortly after their final meeting." From Wikipedia
He writes thus:
"I did have an idea of beginning a new life with that money in Moscow or, better still, abroad. I did dream of it, chiefly because 'all things are lawful.' That was quite right what you taught me, for you talked a lot to me about that. For if there's no everlasting God, there's no such thing as virtue, and there's no need of it. You were right there. So that's how I looked at it."
"Did you come to that of yourself?" asked Ivan, with a wry smile.
"With your guidance."
"And now, I suppose, you believe in God, since you are giving back the money?"
"No, I don't believe," whispered Smerdyakov.
"Then why are you giving it back?"
"Leave off... that's enough!" Smerdyakov waved his hand again. "You used to say yourself that everything was lawful, so now why are you so upset, too? You even want to go and give evidence against yourself.... Only there'll be nothing of the sort! You won't go to give evidence," Smerdyakov decided with conviction.
sabato 8 novembre 2008
Tutorial # 7. Consequentialism. Discussion Questions
In light of the readings you have done (especially Mill on Utilitarianism) think about these qustions.
- What sort of consequences count as good consequences?
- Who is the primary beneficiary of moral action? Think about future generations, and Sebastian's thought experiment.
- How are the consequences judged and who judges them?
- Are there any absolute, non-relative, rights for a consequentialist?
- What is, for Mill, the "Greatest-happiness Principle"?
- Mill claims that Kant’s theory is a version of utilitarianism. Why? Do you agree?
- Why, according to Mill, some kinds of pleasure are more desirable than others?
- Is it really ‘better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied’ (Mill, p. 644)? Why?
- If happiness amounts to the satisfaction of our desires, and some kind of happiness is more desirable than others, how can we try to educate our desires to reach that kind of happiness?
- Do we have “innate” desires?
- How would you calculate the expected utility of an action?
- In your utilitarian calculus, should you take into account also the consequences that would affect animals? For instance, how would you weigh up your pleasure for a burger at McDonalds’ and the pain suffered by that animal?
- How is utility inter-personal comparison possible? Put it in English, how can you compare, for example, the pleasure of a sadist with the suffering of a victim? How can you compare the mental pleasure of watching a football match with the physical pleasure of having sex, or having a nice pizza?
- Is physical pleasure inferior to intellectual pleasure? Recall Mill's view on different knds of happiness.
- I slap a kid because he cursed. To evaluate my action, should you take into account also the consequences that my slap may have on the way he will educate his children?
- If it turned out that hanging an innocent publicly once a month will dramatically reduce crimes, should we hang innocent people?
- Should we impose pleasure to others? For example, If it turned out that putting LSD in water will make people more happy, would you be justified to pour LSD in the aqueducts of Edinburgh?
- What if instead of pursuing actions that promotes happiness, we pursued actions that promotes less pain and suffering? What would be the difference?
- How would a consequentialist argue to explain why it is wrong (or right) to bake a stranger who agrees to be baked? Would it make sense such kind of consequentialist explanation?
Tutorial # 7. Consequentialism. What We Owe To Future Generations?
Once, my friend Sebastian Koehler came up with this scenario:
"Assume that your house is terrorized by a lot of rats. The only way you could get rid of them, would be to flood your whole house with a deadly gas which kills mammals in seconds (I assume for this case that killing the rats would be permissible).
Assume further that your house is built on a spot were the normal natural laws are crazy in a certain respect: You know that if you will use the poisonous gas this would result in 10 normal human beings spontaniously and instantly being created in your house, who will then immediatelly die from the poisionous gas.
What do you think? Is it permissible to use the poisionous gas?"
Sebastian thinks rather not.
The problem with future generations seems to be analogous: How can it be that non-existent beings can make moral demands on us?
What do you think about it?
In light of consequentialism, do you think we should take into account long-term consequences of our actions, consequences that will affect other people not-yet existent?
"Assume that your house is terrorized by a lot of rats. The only way you could get rid of them, would be to flood your whole house with a deadly gas which kills mammals in seconds (I assume for this case that killing the rats would be permissible).
Assume further that your house is built on a spot were the normal natural laws are crazy in a certain respect: You know that if you will use the poisonous gas this would result in 10 normal human beings spontaniously and instantly being created in your house, who will then immediatelly die from the poisionous gas.
What do you think? Is it permissible to use the poisionous gas?"
Sebastian thinks rather not.
The problem with future generations seems to be analogous: How can it be that non-existent beings can make moral demands on us?
What do you think about it?
In light of consequentialism, do you think we should take into account long-term consequences of our actions, consequences that will affect other people not-yet existent?
Tutorial # 7. Consequentialism. The Trolley Problem
Consequentialism is the view that an action is morally right just in case it promotes the good at least as well as any of the other available alternatives.
Now, think about the following pair of scenarios offered by Judith Jarvis Thomson:
Now, think about the following pair of scenarios offered by Judith Jarvis Thomson:
A runaway trolley rushes towards five people who will be killed if it proceeds on its present course. The only way to save them is to hit a switch that will divert the trolley onto another set of tracks where it will kill only one person instead of five.…
What should you do?
Same scenario as before. A
trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. This time, you are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five.
Should you proceed?
What should an utilitarian do?
What is the difference that motivates these different moral judgements?
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)
