Ethics And Moral Reasoning
Hello class! Please select ONE of the five options below for your initial post. Thank you!
I attached Week 4 – Instructor Guidance at the bottom also for discussion.
PHI 208 Week 4 Discussion Prompts
1. 1. An important aspect of Aristotle’s virtue ethics is the idea that virtues are “habits” that we acquire over time, and like any habit, virtues affect not just what we do, but our desires and emotions as well. Focusing on either Hill’s article or Robinson’s article, how might this be important when discussing environmental ethics or military ethics (focus your discussion on just one of those, but feel free to discuss the other in reply to other people’s posts)? How would a virtue ethicist reply to someone who says that they wish they could do more to express concern for the environment or be more courageous, but are too “weak willed” to do that? Use examples from the assigned media when appropriate.
2. 2.Aristotle says that the virtues are necessary for humans to attain happiness, but he means this in terms of something we might call “flourishing” or “living well”, which he considers quite different than simply feeling good. Thus, according to Aristotle some people might feel that they are happy, but because they lack the virtues they are not truly flourishing. However, imagine someone that is deceitful, selfish, greedy, self-indulgent, and yet enjoys great pleasure and appears to be quite happy. Is someone like this “flourishing” or not? Explain your answer this by referring to this week’s readings and media, and if possible provide examples from real life and/or from literature, film, TV, etc.
3. 3. Aristotle claims that if you are suffering terrible misfortune, you cannot truly be considered happy or flourishing. However, there are many examples from current and past history, religious traditions, and fiction of people that might seem to contradict this claim (for example, in the Beatitudes (Matt. 5:3-12, Luke 6:20-23) Jesus describes people that seem to be suffering in various ways and calls them “blessed”; some translations say “happy”). Leaving aside any religious assumptions and considering this from a strictly philosophical perspective, do you think that it’s possible for people to be happy or flourishing even if they are suffering terrible misfortune? Provide at least one example to illustrate your answer, and refer to the readings and media to support your view.
4. 4.What are 2 virtues that you believe are important to living a flourishing or successful life in either Aristotle’s sense? Explain what goods in human life these virtues enable their possessor to fulfill. Provide examples of characteristic behavior that manifests these virtues, and contrast that with behavior that displays a lack of virtue. Do your examples confirm Aristotle’s view that a virtue is a mean between extremes of excess and defect? If so, explain what those extremes are; if not, explain why. Refer to this week’s readings and media to illustrate and support your claims.
5. 5. Describe an area in your own life that you believe requires certain virtues in order to do well. This might be an occupation, an activity or hobby, a role you play (mother, friend, husband, mentor, etc.), and so on. Explain what this is, and what the “telos” of this kind of thing is; in other words, what is the purpose of this area of life, and would it mean to flourish and do well in it? Are there things people pursue in this area that are not part of the true telos? Finally, what are the virtues that one must have in order to flourish and do well in this area of life? What are some vices that get in the way? Your answers to these questions should include evidence from this week’s readings and media.
Ashford 5: – Week 4 – Instructor Guidance
Week 4 – Theoretical Issues in Religion; Instructor Guidance by Christopher Myers, PhD.
The Philosophical Study of Religion and God
Hello class! In this latest course revision, the curriculum skips over some essential parts of our textbook, including the entire Chapter Four which is devoted to religion and God in Western Civilization! Despite this, “God-talk” is usually a part of our discussions throughout the course and it is important to cover the topic in a philosophy and ethics class! Of course, we are going to be studying this from the philosophical perspective. I would like to open with a few words about the academic approach to religious studies, which is different than learning about a religion as a believer and follower of that religion. In the academic approach to religious studies, we have to maintain a rational objectivity in regard to the different religions and beliefs and practices that we are talking about and studying. Many of us have our own personal religious beliefs and practices but we have to put those into brackets and keep those separate from our academic studies. That does not mean that we cannot express our own personal beliefs, but the discussion here is ordered by rationality and philosophical justification. As an example, suppose that we were studying Buddhism and in particular the concept of reincarnation. It would not help us to simply say “I don’t believe in reincarnation…” or to quote some biblical verse that we think “disproves” it. In our academic study, we would be discussing what reincarnation means to Buddhists and to consider “what would it mean if reincarnation were true?” Of course, we would not be making any metaphysical judgment whether it is really true or not.
Positive Metaphysical Agnosticism
I have an academic approach to religious studies that I call “positive metaphysical agnosticism.” Keeping in mind that this is a philosophy course and not a religion course, let me explain this term. I call it “positive” because it means that I am open to the study of all kinds of religious experiences, and to the people that are expressing them and their religious beliefs and practices. “Metaphysical” means the kinds of ideas and claims they cannot be proven or disproven in a scientific laboratory or by science even in its largest scope. This includes supernatural experiences and beings and claims that go beyond the five senses. For instance, if I were to say “I saw my guardian angel save me from the car crash ,” that is a metaphysical statement. The term “agnosticism” is based upon a Greek word and it literally means: to not know. So, putting that all together, in the academic and philosophical approach, as a professor or student, I would have to say, “I do not know if that is true or not and there is no way that I can tell one way or the other, but we can talk about the concept of angels and supernatural intervention from a philosophical perspective.
Good-Faith Dialogue
In the academic study of religion and God there need not be any personal conflicts in our discussions together. Atheists, agnostics, and followers of any religion or denomination should be able to have a reasonable discussion. Mosser talks about the “principle of charity” (p. 180) in which we extend to people the good faith that they are good and positive people who are interested in discussing these issues with us for the benefit of the entire class, regardless of their personal viewpoints, religious or not.
Remember, this is a philosophy class, and our goal is to learn about religion and God from the philosophical perspective this week!
Make sure that take a look at the power-point presentation that I have prepared for you. It goes hand-in-hand with the information in Chapter Four, and will help you summarize the main points in your mind and retain the information for future use!
PHI 208 Week 4 PowerPoint Presentation
After you have reviewed he power point presentation, you should check out the following video and book! I was fortunate to see a live debate with William Lane Craig at the University of Iowa, with Professor Evan Fales from the Philosophy Department. Later, I took a philosophy seminar with Professor Fales on causality – and both were great!
The video and book will introduce you to one of the best philosophical theologians living today and one of the 20th century’s most respected philosophers and atheists – Antony Flew.
Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs Antony Flew
http://youtu.be/NDSaJrbFOuk Accessed by Christopher Myers, 12/10/12
Published on Apr 24, 2012
William Lane Craig and Antony Flew met in 1998 on the 50th anniversary of the famous Copleston/Russell debate to discuss the question of God’s existence in a public debate. Unlike Richard Dawkins, Flew was one of the most respected atheist thinkers of the 20th and early 21st century (his scholarly works on David Hume are still studied today, and his “presumption of atheism” argument is still used by atheists). He became a deist shortly before he died in April 2010 (although he was an atheist when he debated Craig).
Does God exist?: the Craig-Flew debate
books.google.com/books?isbn=0754631907
William Lane Craig, Antony Flew, Stan W. Wallace – 2003 – Preview – More editions
William Craig and Antony Flew met on the 50th anniversary of the famous Copleston/Russell debate to discuss the question of God’s existence in a public debate.
