Part I
Describe what an act would have to be like in order for Mill and Kant to agree that it was morally wrong, even if they disagreed as to why. Describe what an act would have to be like in order for Mill and Kant to agree that is was morally right (or permitted). In both cases, make clear that you know why the kinds of acts you describe fit the bill. (10 points)
Part II
In "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," Peter singer argued that those of us who are comparatively well-off have a moral obligation actively and substantially to help those who are dramatically worse off than we are (he focused specifically on those who are starving). In other words, he thinks people are doing something morally wrong if they are not actively and substantially helping those in need.
What is his argument for this conclusion? Is it a good argument (i.e. an argument that has true premises and successfully establishes the truth of his conclusion)? If you think the argument is flawed, what is wrong with it? (How might Singer try to reply to your objection?) If you think the argument succeeds, what is the strongest objection to it? What is wrong with that objection? In the course of answering these questions, be sure to relate explicitly the arguments and objections you discuss to the theories advanced in what you have read by Mill and Kant. Be careful not to get caught up in (non-moral) empirical questions about, say, the actual effects of various forms of aid, at the expense of addressing the fundamental moral issues raised by Singer's Paper. (90 points)
I wrote for two hours. Altogether, I feel that my response to Part II was adequate, albeit slightly wordy with superfluous use of subordinate clauses and exceptional mastery of punctuation, which the UNC philosophy department thinks deserves a D on paper assignments (apparently!). The Peter Singer essay was the first that we read in class this year, and overall, it wasn't very difficult to understand. After all, its repetitiveness seems really central to philosophy, insofar as I imagine it characterized as a huge mallet sort of just pounding its way into my head. It kind of sucks, though, that I seem to be made up of a certain material that has only been analyzed to hold the theoretical nails in an augmented fashion.
Part I, however, was a different story. One that I do not wish to retell, but merely say that it does not have a very happy ending. The damned question. I swear that it cannot be answered without altering the arguments in one form or another, which I do not think is supposed to happen when you are stating the actual arguments of the respective philosophers. I mean, not in order to produce an effective response, that is.
Ugh, subjectively, I am a philosophical failure. Too literary, too this or that. Oh, well. Pencils down! It's over now.
Tomorrow's exams include Biology (which I am going to fail, but I have accepted this as fact) and The Evolution of Air and Space Power (which is a toss-up between an A and a C).
...That weirdo guy that always writes his chemistry problems on the dry-erase board in the Old East study room just walked through the room and gave me a weird look...
'Cause you see, I have four little siblings back at home who I feel should have the option to go to college, if that is their path in life, and I'd much rather them have a college fund saved up for the careers of their choice. I know at least two of them have developed passions that I assume will turn into careers of some type. As for my long-term career, that is yet to be determined. I have so much to explore and learn about before I can decide what is best for me; I'm just one of those people that doesn't have a single passion, but many. Or pseudo-passions. Pseudo-passions can only bring so much satisfaction, but they do provide variety in the meantime.
Otherwise, I have a lot of thinking to do.
Ah, my lonesome walks on this trail. It went all over the place. I got lost one afternoon, and it was only a little bit worrisome because I was afraid I was going to miss the bus back to The Summit, and I didn't have a contact number otherwise for means of transport. Bob Dylan kept me company, and so much love for the green earth. I don't remember any particular epiphanies that occurred on these numerous walks, but I do remember an overwhelming sense of peace, which is as close as I get to contentment.
I love reflecting on my time in Manitou Springs, Colorado this past summer. Summit was unbelievable great, even if I don't find myself to be the most über-religious person. Not that it's really all about religion, anyway, but about truth and self-examination. I came back home really refreshed and ready to tackle college. I don't feel that I have lost that feeling yet, at least not completely.
Alas, I should probably get on tonight's study bandwagon. It's the final night for finals studies, although I am a bit tired. I only got 3 hours of sleep last night. I tried to sleep today after my final, and was wholly unsuccessful: I was so restless; from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., I tossed and turned around in my hot bed, trying to make myself calm or at least rested for tonight's all-nighter. Turns out, I finished Hemingway's "The Garden of Eden" (looooove), started on "Vintage Murakami," and then realized that I should probably take care of the Mediterranean Deli overcharge ordeal and get a little something for someone from Carrboro, as well as get something to eat (as I had not done so for the day). It was almost one of those days that used to imagine myself having way back when I was sixteen, involving tousled hair and dewy skin. And no, this has nothing to do with sexuality. I just have perceptions of myself...
Last note: I go home around 2 or so, home for a couple days, leave for CO on Tuesday, and then I'll be back by the 3rd of January. I'm looking forward to the roadtrip to CO, mostly because I plan on either reading or listening (or both) to Dostoyevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov" as per Harrison's recommendation. He said it changed his life. We will see.
No comments:
Post a Comment