Up@dawn 2.0

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

(16-2) Plato's Beard

Yesterday we discussed Wittgenstein, Popper, Kuhn, Hitch, and others. In our group discussion, we talked about Adolf Eichmann and how he claimed innocence even though he was instrumental in Hitler's "Final Solution".

3 comments:

  1. Judith Thomson surprised me with an example about a violinist needing a kidney and how she compared it to an abortion. It was a really interesting thought.

    FQ: Who wrote the most influential book of the twentieth century, called A Theory of Justice? (John Rawls)
    DQ: What would you do if you woke up one day with someone being attached to your kidney without your consent? Would you feel that it is your duty to live for that person and be with them 24/7 for the rest of your or their life?

    link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPWpvpgZY9g
    short video that talks about Rawl's two principles of justice

    ReplyDelete
  2. Although the "Veil of Ignorance" is a noble idea, it is impossible for us. Humans do not think like that (selflessly). Surely everyone should put aside his own interests and look to the interests of others, but we don't;. As for the rest of Rawls' and Thomson's ideas, I disagree with every one of them. I may explain in class.
    FQ: What type of income is emphasized in Rawls' "A Theory of Justice"? (Average income)
    DQ: If we all did use the "Veil of Ignorance", would our society look like Rawls said?
    Here is a site with more info on Rawls.
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/

    ReplyDelete
  3. Taylore (16-2)11:56 AM CST

    I'm not sure if the example of the violinist and abortion was a good comparative example, because the violinist would be attached to basically a random person in which you have no link or obligation to; whereas a fetus has half of your chromosome therefore creating a link/obligation to that fetus because it is apart or you and conceived partly by you.
    FQ: The Law of __________, is the belief that predictable bad side effects of an action with good intention can be acceptable but deliberate harm is not?
    DQ: Wouldnt that train situation with killing one to save five be similar to Bentham's Utilitarianism belief " it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong"?
    Link: A defense of Abortion
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3had8qhNt0

    ReplyDelete