Saturday, October 30, 2010



Version for kids

Discussion questions for each section (review old ethics homework for questions).

Choose a few common ethical dilemmas, which repeat in Ethics discussions, relevant to current events, and work them out at the end of each theory to show how each theory is incompatible with all the other theories, and only the Golden Rule is sufficient. Use Kiersey for characters, set it all up in introduction.
 There will be resolution of time-travel paradoxes :)  Squish all this into the examples—check Mister Mobius folder for more:
—Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac
—Lying to would-be murderer / to public
—one from Malbus’ paper
—“the bleeding man” (philo club)
—natural rights (who help? / emergency)
—just war / harsh penalties / terrorism (liberty vs. security) (indiv. vs. society)
—encouragement in face of economy
—google moral dilemma, review Ethics text
—knowing is half the battle / grace vs. works
—legislating morality / harm principle…homosexuality (intersex issues), abortion, sep church/state (prayer, medical treatment, clothing), adultery, euthanasia
—getting over someone else’s (internalized) guilt trip
—taking/giving resources (socialism vs. capitalism/competition)
—human rights across cultures
—knowing good intuitively/instinctively, choosing intentionally, sinning unintentionally, learning from it that “the good” was always good
—love that endures circumstances (pain/pleasure)
—Ivan’s reasoning from Brother’s Karamazov
—Job, predestination
—religious/worldly love/acceptance vs. Gospel
—responsibility/freedom, ought implies can
—higher/lower pleasures judged via GGV
—contrasting and synthesizing virtue/duty/purpose
—nonhuman wanting to become human—what it means to be human

Many application examples after the end of the essay (5-14-10: different stories, choose your own ending). Need to show how core values don’t change with the tides. Need to show how GR is culturally tolerant yet challenging.

Reread EVERYONE... post some more relevant gems throughout.

Severe segue shortage.

[quote]The character He molds us into is a loving one of humility (rather than pride, or setting ourselves up where God, love, belongs; all sins are a type of pride and idolatry, of finding our identity in something besides his eternal love, and setting that up in his place), liberality (rather than greed), brotherly love (rather than envy), meekness (rather than wrath), chastity (rather than lust), diligence (rather than sloth), prudence (distinguishing between what hinders love and what helps further it, rather than, perhaps, lack of discernment), temperance (or restraint, rather than gluttony), justice (ensuring every self’s basic needs are met and rights defended, rather than unfairness), fortitude (or courage to love in even the worst circumstances, rather than cowardliness), faith (assurance of promises we hope for, but do not yet see fulfilled; confidence in the evidence behind the promise, rather than doubting the promise despite the evidence; loyalty and trust rather than disloyalty and distrust), hope [a longing for a heaven, the kingdom of God, which fulfills what this life only arouses, rather than settling for mud pies in the slum (16)] and charity (or unmerited love, rather than putting conditions on love and all its expressions). God’s nature, love, defines all the other virtues, which are just different expressions of love.[/quote]

1) Do the vices/virtues match up, are they described accurately? 2) I’d like to try to do this Golden Mean style. 3) Largely influenced by C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity” but it had been a while since I read it, and I need to read it again to check accuracy. 4) Maybe it should be in a table… it’s rather longish. But I prob’ly won’t do that.

2/21/09—Wondering if I should just cut the section on Heidegger.

3/7/09 “I wish I could write well. I would write something about two people who share love between them as if it were fire in the midst of darkness (like in City of Ember, the way they thought of their city)—thinking that their fire matters, even if only to them, and for that time (a sort of "them against nihilism" mindset)... thinking that there is no eternal fire... and being okay with that. And then finding out (through revelation)—there is an eternal fire... and their fire is in his image. That would be a beautiful movie. 'Course you'd have to add a lot more to it.” Maybe it wouldn’t just be revelation? Maybe it would be my litmus? In that book, there would be tons of gems like “...and we have evolved a strong compensatory innate disgust mechanism to make us keep our distance,” (Dennett, Breaking the Spell).

3/2/09 I was reading an argument against objective values recently that I had started writing shortly before God brought me back, and need to remember to address all that stuff in this paper. It's weird, looking back on all that. (8/23/10 Pretty sure I’ve completed that and then some…but it’s been a while since I looked at the paper.)

3/22/09 "an individual’s moral sense…underdeveloped or lacking due to childhood trauma or neglect" Back up with referenced research.

3/29/09, 8/23/10 [quote]The fact we are born with the ability for rational empathy (51), as mentioned earlier, does not mean it has been put in our heart against our will—without it, we would have no will, as it is part of what makes our will possible. Studies show (21) that the reason certain individuals who lack rational empathy (51) have such a hard time navigating through life is that they cannot empathize with their own self in the future, in planning, in order to act in their own best interest—this is a crippling obstacle to the will (an obstacle God can remove, but not against our will).[/quote] If lacking rational empathy (51) means lacking will, then there is no will against which to remove the obstacle—think this through better [will is not synonymous with desires…it is what we do with the chosen desire?...lacking will, the obstacle is the desire which persists in the absence of conflicting will? Can God remove the desire—can God grant renewed will? Would that ‘irresistible’ grace—would it be so for everyone, regardless their having a will or not? Perhaps there ‘is’ a will…what effect does ‘lacking rational empathy’ (51) really have on the will?]. How do robots (sociopaths) “get” the Golden Rule? I removed the quoted text until I’ve got it figured out.

4/15/09: Did Plato think The Good was God (Schuyler)? Which words am I capitalizing that I shouldn’t, and vice versa?

4/23/09 What did Adler say about Hume’s is-ought fallacy (12) of reification (70) (vs. Moore’s naturalistic fallacy)? Forgot details. Explain the fallacy/fallacies more, rather than leaving out the controversy.

10/06/09—reread Euthyphro for virtue theory section

2/26/10—I may wait to refer to the Golden Rule until the last section, because referring to it in the litmus seems to confuse people that the litmus begs the question. For another day.

4/13/10—Fix all the long sentences and misuses of semi-colons.

6/3/2010 1) An entire section explaining evidence that the Golden (including silver and platinum versions) Rule is found in the creeds of every major culture throughout history (9 and 10).

6/6/10, 8/23/10 answering criticism that there are more categories than “created” “discovered” and “neither/skepticism”) needs a whole section explaining why those ‘more’ actually fit into the three categories (and that there is “really” only one).

9/24/10 “The Golden Rule is the ‘intuited value not definable in terms of something else…that ‘ought’ to be followed in one’s intentions and actions,’ (1; 409) … hmm…see question I posted here: Apply this in particular to L1.1—doesn’t it basically say “the good (how/why) is good (why/how)”? Is that okay? See Obj.9 in Appendix E. // Also, I think Sartre and Kierkegaard have some stuff to say about L1.2 (be/behave…nothingness and all that).

11/14/11 – the whole ‘ought implies cannot’ thing is bothering me (intentionalism section)…and bees are buzzing about ‘ought implies can/is’. Considering an epilogue.

***Any philosophers who have read my paper and, from that, know exactly what sort of study plan or reading list would benefit me—please feel free to lend your expertise!***

No comments:

Post a Comment