PHLA11 Take-home Final

docx

School

University of Toronto *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

PHLA10

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by EarlPheasant3869

PHLA11 Introduction to Ethics Fall 2022 Take-Home Final Due December 19, end of day Total points: 100 You can save this document and write your answers directly in it. Do not answer more questions than required. The best answers will draw on the readings, not just the lecture slides. Demonstrate this by citing page numbers from the readings (or describing events from the film). Section 1 (75 points): Answer five of the following questions. Each answer should be around 300 words (and may be no more than 400 words). These questions are solely a test of your understanding and the clarity of your explanation; there’s no points for offering your opinion. 1. What does Aristotle mean when he says that happiness is the “chief good”? When Aristotle is talking about the chief good, he is referring to what we as humans are designed to do. What our final goal and greatest accomplishment can be. He thinks this is happiness because everything we do is working towards our ultimate happiness, and happiness does not serve as a vehicle to any higher aspiration. Some desire money or fame, which in turn makes them feel happy and fulfillment, but happiness is not something we want in order to achieve something else. It is our chief good. Our ultimate desire and purpose. In his works he uses examples such as the end goal of medicine is good health, or that of domestic economy is wealth. And the ‘chief good’ of everything is this end that it strives towards. That, “The chief good manifestly is something complete.”(10) An incomplete end is something that may be used as a mean to achieve something else. But because happiness is its own end. Because we do not strive for happiness in order to achieve anything else, it is our chief good. Aristotle acknowledges, however, that there are multiple virtues including Honour, pleasure, and intellect. But he says that every living being has a characteristic activity, something that is in its inherent nature, and on page 12 he says that the characteristic activity of humans is a certain type of life. An activity of the soul in accordance to reason and proper virtue. He says when we do this over a complete life, we achieve happiness, ‘For one swallow does not make a summer, nor one day. Neither does one day or a short time make someone blessed and happy.’(12) We strive towards our chief good of happiness through many activities and virtues. And when we compile these virtues and achieve many goals over a long life, we achieve our happiness. 2. Explain, using an example, Kant’s categorical imperative. Kant’s categorical imperative can be summed up in a very simple, almost pre-school- lesson sort of way. Don’t make and exception of yourself. All humans have equal value, so putting yourself ahead of others by making your circumstances an exception is immoral. And above all, Treat others as you want them to treat you. The categorical imperative is something that you can say if everybody were to act as you are about to,

would you be okay with this? Would society be able to function if everybody were to do what you are about to do? No matter what, no matter the circumstance or how many lives are at stake, you must always follow the categorical imperative. Kant uses the example of lying, stating that you may never lie. As the categorical imperative states, even if a murderer is lined up at your front door and asks ‘Where is your friend? I would like to kill them.’ Even if your friend has just run inside and begged you to lead the murderer away, you may not lie. Because by the imperative, if you were to lie, that means everybody lies. And if everybody lies, that diminishes the efficacy of any single lie, as nobody would believe anyone. Therefore, the murderer would not believe your lie and walk inside anyway to kill your friend. On page 73/74, Kant explores the example of suicide, and once again the categorical imperative says that it is immoral by Kant’s standards. For if such a maxim became a universal law, a maxim where out of care for ones self they end their own life, “It is then seen that a nature whose law it would be to destroy life itself by means of the same feeling to impel toward life would contradict itself and therefore not subsist as nature.”(74) Because we frown upon the death of our loved ones, because the world would not function if it were acceptable to take our own lives, we cannot look at the act of suicide as abiding by the categorical imperative. 3. How does Camus use the myth of Sisyphus to communicate his philosophy of the absurd? Camus’ argument uses the myth of Sisyphus as a sort of analogy to the absurd. In this analogy, Sisyphus’ eternal punishment of pushing the boulder up the hill just to have it roll back down again before he reaches the top is meant to represent life. No matter how long Sisyphus spends pushing the boulder, or how far up the mountain he pushes, the boulder will always roll back down at the end of the day. What we do is pointless, so instead of obsessing over any small details, or complaining or trying to achieve some impossible feat, he takes joy in the repetitive absurdity. He chooses to look at his punishment as something to look forward to every day. That he knows the boulder will be there tomorrow for him to push, and to relish in it. He does not worry about the worries of tomorrow, and Camus refers to this realization many people may come to at an early age. The realization that you cannot run from tomorrow. It will come regardless of what we try to do to prevent it. Every man will see that “He belongs to time and, by the horror that seizes him, he recognizes his worst enemy. Tomorrow, he was longing for tomorrow, whereas everything in him ought to reject it. The revolt of the flesh is the absurd.”(20) This is to say, our lives can be thought of as pointless and absurd, and if we think like this then we can embrace every day and choose to live life how as please and to the fullest. Tomorrow will come, so we may as well do as we please today, rather than fret about the next. 4. Explain, using an example, Narayan’s distinction between “personal” and “systemic” explanations. 5. Why does Simpson think that Nishnaabewin and capitalism are inherently opposed? This is because Nishnaabewin is all about the relationship between people and the land. How we ought to interact with nature, animals, and our surroundings. This is referred to as grounded normativity, and is inherent to the indigenous way of life and their reciprocal relationships with the land they live on. Colonialism can be thought of as the opposite of grounded normativity because it has no reciprocal relationship with the land, but only

seeks to own it and control it. Treat it as a resource and something almost expendable. But understanding Nishnaabewin means you cannot own the land, but you must give and take in this relationship. As Simpson further dissects the antithetical natures of capitalism and Nishnaabewin, she gets to the core of capitalism, criticizing it as portraying itself as opportunity, but really being about self-gain and exploitation. And she explicitly states that grounded normativity is opposite of this. That it is, “the foundation of our self- determination and freedom, producing everything we need in our families within grounded normativity withing caring and sharing.”(80) The Nishnaabeg even have a story, warning of “the perils of profit, gain achieved not through hard work within grounded normativity, but achieved in disproportion to effort and skill or exploitation.”(78-79) In this story a man tries various capitalistic methods to get ahead such as manipulating animals to gain advantages in the market, yet every time disaster strikes. And while he eventually learns his lesson, his younger brother does not, and picks up the same tendencies he once had. The village attempts to aid him, but he ends up dying as he does not contribute anything to their society, and turns into moss, the moss serving as a reminder that they will return to the soil in this mutualistic relationship, and solidifying that capitalism can never exist within grounded normativity. 6. How does King think that breaking the law can express “the very highest respect for the law”? King Explains that breaking the law is the highest respect for the law by interpreting justice in a way that is irrefutable to those opposing him. When questioned about his protesting style, which is intentionally breaking unjust and oppressive laws in order to draw attention to them and call for change, he states that there are just laws and unjust laws, and it is their moral duty to reject unjust laws. When asked to distinguish between the two, he says “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.” More specifically, “Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.”(1120) In this statement King states that there is a natural law, and these laws uplift people, and are the way we are meant to be governed. These unjust laws they are protesting are blemishes on the just law of the world, and therefore in order to uphold the dignity of just laws, we have a duty to protest and break unjust laws. You must break these laws, but you must do so openly and with love in your hearts. You must do so, and except the penalty that accompanies such an act. King uses examples of how you can break the law without showing respect as well, such as the New Orleans mothers shouting slurs in the tv, or Alabama government attempts at voter suppression. To have the highest respect for the law, you must do so out of love, and in accordance with just, natural laws. To summarize, King is saying that by breaking unjust laws, you are keeping the law accountable. Upholding it to all its glory and what it is meant to do, which is uplift the human personality. Section 2 (25 points): Answer one of the following questions. This answer should be around 500 words (and may be no more than 600 words). For this answer, you must first explain the ethic, describing its values and principles. You must then evaluate the ethic, offering a balanced assessment of its strengths and weaknesses. Is this an ethic that we should strive to follow? You can think of this question as a mini-essay, but you don’t need to include an introduction or conclusion.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

7. Explain and evaluate the ethics of worker solidarity. Your answer must refer to Sorry to Bother You . Worker Solidarity is the core ethical component of Sorry To Bother You , and we immediately see employees to band together in efforts to achieve something greater than themselves. Worker solidarity can be defined as when labourers in a particular union act in conjunction to promote their wants and needs in the workplace. In the beginning of the film, Cassius and his friends go out for a drink and discuss creating a union at Regalview as they have been fed false information and hope. The promise of being a “Power Caller” is thought to be a scam, nothing more than a tool to keep employees working hard in the hope they will reach a promotion that in truth, doesn’t exist. The power of worker solidarity is evident here, in theory. For if enough of these workers stand together and voice their complaints, the company may be put under a tough situation and they can force better situations for themselves. It also provides focus and direction for their needs, so instead of scattered complaints here and there, it becomes loud and direct, exposing the problem at hand. When the strike is carried out, we can see the ethical crossroad in worker solidarity, where the company, Regalview, offer Cassius the coveted position of a power caller. Suddenly, Cassius forgets all about the reason why he joined the union in the first place, only concerned about his own success. This hits at the key struggle of worker solidarity, as it relies on power in numbers. But the struggle Cassius faces is, should he continue to fight the system given he has made. An advancement, even if it is not what is best for him in that moment? The ethics of worker solidarity are complicated and play directly on human emotions. In Cassius’ case, he says he must take this higher position because his uncle needs the money to pay rent, which may seem admirable to him, but to the rest of the labor union, he is seen as cheap and a bit of a sell out. Cassius may be doing this for a bit of self-gain, but at the end of the day, is it wrong to put yourself first when you have earned something you wanted? This is what makes worker solidarity both strong and weak, it’s numbers. With great numbers you can force an institution to treat you fairly and get what you need. But if enough people falter, gain the desires they are asking for and your number’s decline, leaving people who haven’t gained anything, or could lose their job entirely. A double-edged sword so to speak. If Cassius were to stay true to the ethics of worker solidarity, he would have put the needs of everybody above his own and not accepted the promotion. So, I do not know if it is always the correct thing to follow the ethics of worker solidarity. If Cassius did not accept his promotion his uncle would suffer, but because he did, others were put in danger. I can say that the ethics of worker solidarity put us in the dilemma of choosing who we hurt, and you would have to decide where your loyalties lie when at a crossroads. In Cassius’s case early in the movie, his loyalties lay with himself and his family, and to his uncle he would be a great person, while to his co-workers he is a sell-out. We must decide which is the lesser of two evils. 8. Explain and evaluate the ethics of anarchism. Your answer must refer to The Dispossessed .

PHLA11 Take-home Final

Related Documents