Up@dawn 2.0

Loading...

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Autodidactic Section 14 Group 1 (Summary)

        Today, November 6, 2012, Group 1 discussed the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. Professor Oliver shared multiple facts about Wittgenstein that none of us were aware of prior to today's discussion. For instance, we learned that Wittgenstein had many siblings that committed suicide. We also discovered that Ludwig died very young into his life.  One topic that we came across in discussion was one that was pretty difficult to understand. The difficulty lied in trying to understand why Wittgenstein was classified as Jewish even though he wasn't. Furthermore, one of our final topics concerned the concepts behind Wittgenstein's views on language and its many uses. In closing, the discussion today really challenged us to critically examine Ludwig Wittgenstein's views and his logic behind those views. Group 1 is extremely excited about the upcoming philosophy session on Thursday!
Posted by at

3 comments:

  1. Paul Montgomery5:15 PM CST

    What is the Law of Double Effect?
    Is killing an innocent person so that more people may live the right thing to do?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unknown10:26 PM CST

    Tonight's reading illustrated such a difficult scenario. How can one ethical individual actually consider killing someone? What if killing someone was work towards a greater good? There's no way that I'd be able to instantly make such an important decision. However,one point that I didn't quite understand was how one situation that pertained to the previously mentioned questions could be a better circumtance than another, although they both entailed murdering someone. With that being said, Philippa Foot and I share the same confusion.

    Questions:
    1. What is a thought experiment?
    2. Do you believe that the morality behind an action,such as killing someone,greatly depends on the circumstances?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Courtney Darsey8:21 PM CST

    Hi-
    Foot confused my outlook on certain ethics about killing one over five. If placed in the scenario of the train, killing on would be more ethical than killing five. In the hospital scenario killing a completely healthy person to save five lives does not seem too great, regardless of the similarity of the two. I believe I am just as confused as Foot.
    Factual - which situation did Foot believe to be correct and ethical?
    Discussion- How would you feel if a completely healthy person close to you sacrificed their body in order to save five others?

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)