phi 2604 topics for our final exam

click here for my notes on (human) rights,

my notes on (animal) rights, 

click here for final paper submission guidelines, 

MLK's theology of social change

I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess.-- MartinLuther King

This post closes our discussion on the philosophy of religion.  

Martin Luther King's religious and social journey demonstrates that faith is a viable source for human transformation. 

KING'S MESSAGE IS THAT RELIGION IS A LIBERATING FORCE. 

WHY?

1. religion provides an archetype of solidarity (the cohesive "glue" of society)  
2. religion is a symbol for change & meaning (the future has to be better than the present), 
3. religion represents our humanity, a VIP club whose admission has nothing to do with physical appearances (whether white, black, yellow, red) but as King put it: the content of our character.  

King's influences: 

King is influenced by many themes. Here I point to four:

1. The Black Church movement from early 20th century. Particularly the theology of George D. Kelsey, who taught King two courses in 1948. From Kelsey, King adopted the pulpit as a place both for drama, in the old-fashioned Baptist sense, and the articulation of philosophies that address specific problems of society.

2. The American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, who preached that man's capacity for justice is what makes democracy possible. 

3. H. David Thoreau's transcendentalism. The belief that there's inherent goodness of people and nature and that people are at their best when they become self-reliant and independent. 

4. Mahatma Gandhi, whom King called "the guiding light of our nonviolent civil & social change." King adopted civil disobedience from Gandhi's own movement in India (built around the idea of ahimsa). Ahimsa (non harming) is one the five precepts of Buddhism. 

King's religious and moral quotes

On willing the good:

The will is a beast of burden. If God mounts it, it wishes and goes as God wills; if Satan mounts it, it wishes and goes as Satan wills.

Analysis: King implies an Aristotelian view of morality, i.e., human nature is neutral to good or evil. One carries the responsibility to mold and avail oneself of the will to act morally.

The realism of MLK:

We are not makers of history. We are made by history.

Analysis: Once again, the idea of how you evaluate the present. King takes the opposite course of voluntarism (we change things) with the Hindu idea of karma. Every action has a consequence, which will come to fruition in either this life (or a future life); thus, morally good acts have positive consequences, whereas bad acts will produce negative results. However, good -although it may seem the opposite- always wins. 

I dare to interpret his quote as this: Our making is made as we're already made. 

On education:

The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character – that is the goal of true education.

Analysis: Critical thinking needs an important component: character, i. e., how one comports oneself.

Of God's presence:

God writes the Gospel not in the Bible alone, but also on trees, and in the flowers and clouds and stars.

Analysis: King points to the multifarious nature of God's commanding presence. We better understand reality by looking at everything containing God's presence.

On independence of thought:

Rarely do we find people who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think for themselves.

Analysis: King is right with Socrates. What is "hard solid thinking"? The ideal of the skeptic: autonomy & independence of thought. Hard thinking is critical thinking. 

On the fashion of virtue signaling (the symptom of showing others that we care): 

Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.

Analysis: A gem of a quote by King to describe the hypocritical attitude of pretending with good intentions without proper understanding. Which is comparable (& more frustrating) than absolute misunderstanding from the ill intentioned. Real understanding is a responsibility many people unconsciously avoid. 

On forgiveness:

We must develop the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power of love.

There is good and evil in the best of us.

Analysis: Deep quotes in tune with our overall discussion. WE ARE ALL FALLIBLE.

On truth:

I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.

Analysis: A deep first sentence. "Unarmed truth" hints at Hindu nonviolence, but King adds the idea of  Christian love. In the end even if right was defeated (and King adds "temporarily"), it can never compared with evil apparently "triumphant." 

This is a great lesson for young people that become discouraged of REALITY over a temporary defeat. WE MUST DEVELOP ENDURANCE.  

 

On love:

I've decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.  

Let no man to push you so low as to hate him. 

Analysis:  Hate is toxic and it eats away our capacity to love. For our own good, we ought to delete hate of ourselves. The second quote is profound: Hate is deceiving, even addictive. King suggests that we're responsible for our own hate! Either as when hate feels "legitimate" as a narcissistic & vicious form of justice, or as dangerous self-pity.

On faith:

 I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess.

Everything good in the world that is done is done by faith. 

Analysis: 1. Kings suggests that faith is inexhaustible because its source is inexhaustible. 2. This is what we've discussed before as meaning. The projection of humanity in the future. It's better to be hopeful than not. 

animals & rights

click here for more information,

theodicies (good vs. evil)

Theodicy is an attempt to reconcile the existence and nature of God with evidence of evil in the world by providing valid explanations for its occurrence. addresses the problem of evil in the world. it means vindication of god. 

what's evil?

evil is bound to human suffering. a world without humans in it is not evil. and this bring us back to the problem of free will. animals are not free --> they can't be evil.

there are two kinds of evil, moral evil and natural evil. they both cause suffering, but natural evil is not brought about by free will.

it's just pure cause/effect. so, our problem is MORAL EVIL.

we need a distinction between necessary and unnecessary evil.

necessary evil: is the evil that prevents further evil or brigs forth goodness. how about making someone suffer because they deserve it (as in the state killing a serial killer, or a person killing in self-defense? how about punishing a child for their misdeeds?

unnecessary evil: is evil for its own sake. more of this later.

theodicies must address the problem of evil while attempting to make the existence of an omnibenevolent God consistent with the existence of moral evil in the world.

Here comes an argument from evilfrom skeptics:

1. If God exists, then a being who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good exists.
2. A being who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good would not create a world in which there is (avoidable) evil.
3. But there is (avoidable) evil in the world.
Therefore: God does not exist.

OR these three attacking God's attributes:

A. If God is omnipotent, he would be able to prevent all of the evil and suffering in the world. 

Counter: It's actually possible that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil. If God were to have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil, would it be possible for God to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and yet for there to be evil and suffering? Theists believe the answer is YES.

B. If God is omniscient, he would know about all of the evil and suffering in the world and would know how to eliminate or prevent it. 

Counter: Not if doing so undercuts human free-will. What good is there in having humans behave like robots?

C. If God is omnibenevolent, he would want to prevent all of the evil and suffering in the world.

Counter: Unless God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil.

Iranean Theodicy: Second-century philosopher Irenaeus developed a theodicy based on the idea that God's creation is still in progress. Creation is a theater stage that requires humans to develop and grow into the likeness of God. Humans must be given free choice, with the actual possibility of choosing to do evil. For humans to have free will, God must be at an epistemic distance from humans, far enough that belief in God remains a free choice. 

Augustine theodicy: Augustine tries to respond to the evidential problem of evil. If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, there should be no evil in the world.  

1. Evil exists as a corruption of goodness, caused by humanity's abuse of free will.
2. God did not create evil and is not responsible for its occurrence.
3. Evil doesn't have existence in its own right, but is the privation of good –a corruption of God's good creation.

Counterargument to the concept of evil: Inga Clendinnen argues that the concept of evil cannot explain the performance of actions because it is an essentially dismissive classification. To say that a person, or an action, is evil is just to say that that person, or action, defies explanation or is incomprehensible.

Answer to Clendinnen: Explaining something as repulsive as sexual abuse of an infant, for example, cannot be explain merely by psychological or social concepts which explain, for instance, the abuse the abuser was submitted to. How do you begin to address the insurmountable suffering the abused has been subjected to without using moral evil as a starting point? Applying the concept of evil to sexually abusing a child is not dismissive, it's in fact quite descriptive. 

midterm exam makeup, spring 2020, online class

1. Is "incest is wrong" a moral fact? Explain your answer.
2. based on triff's lecture on moral norms, what is a "moral fact"?
3. Is there a difference between moral and non-moral standards' Provide one example of a non-moral standard.
4. what makes a defensible moral judgment? based on that answer, defend why adultery is wrong.
5.  mention two universal moral principles.
6. can the ethical egoist give his life for a person he doesn't know? Explain.
7. Explain the difference between traditional utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism in the case of "Brandt's utilitarian heir."
8. which form of utilitarianism, traditional or rule you think is better. Explain your answer.

homework on rights (part 2)

click here for more information,

phi 2604 final exam is wednesday, may 1, 5:40pm

Phi 2604 Midterm Exam makeup

1. Is there moral knowledge? Justify your answer (look at Triff’s lecture on moral norms)
2. What’s the difference between moral and non-moral standards. Mention an example of each.
3. Can you convince a cultural relativist that he’s wrong? Explain your answer.
4. Can an ethical egoist be benevolent? (benevolent is a person that does good to others) explain your answer.
5. Is Utilitarianism a better theory than Ethical Egoism when it comes to politics? Explain your answer.
6. Between Traditional Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism, which theory seems more reliable? Explain your answer in light of “Brand’t Utilitarian Heir” mind experiment.
7. What is the difference between moral values and peripheral values?
8. What’s a moral judgment?
9. What’s the difference between moral and legal norms?

(a minimum 40 word per question is required). 
send the answers to me via email, with this in the subject: 

Doe, John, Phi 2010 (day) (time), Midterm Exam, Salzburg.

Final paper, model

homework, chapter 7

click here for more information,

triff's "dominican" okra stew with plantain dumplings

still life with magazine and italian amaro, photo by RI

moi learned this Dominican recipe in NY, during my years as cook at Apollo95 @ 95 & broadway.

ingredients:
1 to 1-1/2 pound of meat cubes for stew (the pieces should be about an inch diameter), okra, onion, garlic powder, salt, pepper, fresh rosemary, fresh lemon peel, 2 cloves, ground cinnamon (a pinch), coarsely chopped (ad lib), chopped green pepper (ad lib), coarsely chopped onions, 1 little can of cento, or flora peeled tomatoes, dollop of white wine, chicken stock ad. lib. (if you don't make stock like I do, buy a box of good brand of unsalted chicken stock)

marinating the meat:
cut stew all the meat into 1 inch cubes,
salt/pepper it,
garlic powder,
finely chopped rosemary,
lemon peel (thinly chopped),
put the meat in a bowl with all the above ingredients & let it sit for an hour.

preparation: wash and cut the heads of the pods (u do this to let the liquid permeate the pod, mmm) and slice them into 1/2 inch rounds. pour a good dollop of olive oil into a heavy pot or dutch oven, set to medium high. sauté the okra for 7 minutes and get them out the pot into a bowl. add more oil, bring on the heat to medium high again. add the meat, turning them until they are browned on all sides, about 5 minutes. lower heat to medium, add the onions and peppers and sauté until soft and translucent. put back the okra, pour some white wine (nothing old & musty, please) in the mix, add the peeled tomatoes (with your hands, squeeze the tomatoes into the mix along with the tomato juice. now you're set. bring to a steady simmer.

plantains dumplings: cut the plantains in pieces (leave the peel on!). put plantains in a heavy saucepan with enough water to cover. bring to a rolling boil. lower to heat to medium and simmer covered until the plantains are tender and peeking out of the peel, about 10 minutes. when cool enough to handle but still warm, peel, place in a large bowl and mash together with the
triffian secret (thinly chop rosemary, sage, fresh ginger & orange peel plus a dash of cinnamon)
scoop out one tablespoon of mashed plantain and shape into 1-inch balls.

add the dumplings into the stew and allow them to sink a bit into the mix without breaking them!

voilá! 😅

chapter 3 (part 2)

DIVINE COMMAND THEORY

An action is right if God commands it. God has infinite wisdom and goodness and knows what's good for humans.

FAITH VS REASON

the basic problem of faith and reason in religion comes from the tension between the spiritual realm and the physical realm. the spiritual realm involves supernatural facts, ecstasy, divine revelation, sacred pronouncements, which are immune from rational critique and evaluation. see that the spiritual realm consistently appears in all cultures. 

Fideism: faith is a belief that doesn't need physical proof.  

St. Paul's definition: Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.
given this definition, the fideist doesn't need physical evidence for their beliefs.

there are three approaches to the faith/reason problem: 

1. conflict model: faith and reason are incompatible because they claim different things. they should be kept separate.
2. incompatibilist model: faith and reason are distinct. reason aims at empirical truth faith deals with spiritual truths. so, there's no rivalry.
3. compatibilist model: faith and reason have a connection. compatibilism entertains a rational explanation for the existence of god, such as st. anselm's ontological argument, or thomas aquinas's prime mover, etc.

COUNTERS TO RELIGION

Marx's opiate of the people argument. Like opium, religion—in Marx’s eyes—dulls the senses, lulls people into a false sense of security, and undermines their motivation to bring about effective social change to remedy conditions of injustice.

Nietzsche's "slave morality":  According to Nietzsche, Christianity is founded on ressentiment, the desire of the weak to gain control over the strong without themselves developing strengths. It is an example of what Nietzsche called the ‘‘herd morality’’ or ‘‘slave morality.’’ Humility, according to Nietzsche, is a sign of weakness, of lack of power, and of a failure to believe in oneself.