When you are working hard, and you fall down ... get up again!

What I have learned this semester ...

Sometimes we don't see eye to eye

and that is all right.

When I am least expecting it
something will happen that will change how I think.

No matter how hard I try, sometimes people
won't change how they think ... and that is all right.

Mondays make me happy.

When things go wrong ... hug it out.

When we play, we play nice.

If we hurt someone, 

we try our best to make it better.

Circle time:

What have you learned?

Exam review

Themes	People	Words
Ethics Good Vs. Bad (evil)	Buddha Confucius Plato Aristotle	Moral agent Nihilism Humanism Golden Mean 4 main questions: are moral choices possible why do the right thing how can people be good without religion how should the rightness of wrongness be determined
	Socrates Hedonist Stoic	Good Life
	Thomas Aquinas Kierkegaard Nietzsche Sartre Bentham Kant	Good Person Utilitarianism
		Euthanasia Genethics
Metaphysics		Platonic Realism Materialism Ontology Determinism Taoism
Self Theories:	Descartes Hume Ricoeur Sartre	Substance Bundle Narrative Project
Person(hood)	Locke Dennett Warren Baier
Mind-Brain Question		Materialist Identity Theorist Subjectivist
Supreme Being	Sartre	Theism Deism Polytheism Monotheism Pantheism Ontological Argument Cosmological Argument Argument from Design Pascal’s Wager Atheists’ Argument Determinism Free Will(ism) Existentialism Nihilism

HZT4U Philosophy EXAM Marks    Student Name:______________________        /120 =   _____% Question 1Knowledge Uses accurate vocabulary, ideas and isms to support point of view Demonstrates understanding among philosophical facts, ideas, and concepts Presents information which has variety, depth, and relevance Uses quotations appropriately and effectively to support ideas /15

Thinking Sophisticated, explicit point of view A minimum of 2 clear theories that outline and support answer Sophisticated thought and insight Uses point-proof-comment method effectively; comments reveal solid analysis and connections          /15

Communication Logical progressions of linked thoughts Organization of paragraphs and thoughtful transitions between points and arguments Unity and cohesion of thoughts Uses appropriate wording and sentence structure Uses appropriate structural organization (intro, supporting paragraphs, conclusion) Appropriate voice is used /15

Application Relevant links to modern societal structures Clear and precise examples of  societal links are well explained          /15

FPT

Wed:
Written:
Samantha
Sam
Keira
Matt
Cailen
Kayla

One on on:
Katie
Alfred
Celine
Jake

Thurs: Group
Maddie
Zoe
Zoe
Breanna
Aria
Lindsay


Fri:
one on one:
Zack
Andrew
Taylor
Allie

Motivation

Circle time:

What do you need right now to motivate you?

FPT

Choice 1:
Debate on one of these three questions.  Topic to be chosen at random on the day of the debate.

1. Is selfishness solely a vice?
2. Is empirical science -- as in science which involves experimentation and quantifiable data -- the only way to gain knowledge?
3. Are anger, discompassion and hatred symptoms of weakness?

Choice 2:
Personal discussion with me.  10 minutes in length.  Topic to be chosen at random on the day of the debate.

Choice 3:
Personal written response.  500 words.  Topic to be chosen at random on the day of the task.

Rubric

FPT Options

Debate Example:
How is policing changing the way we live our lives?  Are the decisions of police often unjustified?  Discuss, providing philosophers and theories that would both agree and disagree with your personal philosophy.


Conversation Example:
Given these human rights (I would provide 5), rank them in order of importance.  Find philosophers who would disagree and agree with your personal philosophy.  Be prepared to defend your point of view and have societal links to substantiate it.


Written Question Example:
In deciding who you would save (one person or a group) from an oncoming train, what parameters to you put on the importance of life?  Outline your parameters and find two philosophers (one from each of two units) who would agree with you.

Test Review

Political:
Anarchism
democracy
totalitarianism
fascism
conservatism
libertarianism
liberalism
Machiavellianism (fear vs. love)
social contract


Social:
utopianism
religious utopianism
feminism: Caitlyn Jenner
religious pluralism
social contract
civil disobedience
existentialism marxism: (Marcuse): Caitlyn Jenner
liberalism: Caitlyn Jenner

Events:
same sex marriage: Ireland
Mozambique decriminalizing homosexuality
sex-ed curriculum Ontario
tax savings on feminine hygiene products
Rand Paul filibuster
Fifa controversy
Water in Texas
Heat in India
hospital shooting in Guelph
California drought
Fires burning in Alberta

These next few weeks ...

Mon: circle
Tues: (Lindsay absent), test prep
Wed: Test
Thurs: Kayla and Zack to write test, FPT prep
Fri: FPT prep
Mon:circle, letters
Tues:
Wed:
Thurs:
Fri:
Mon: circle, letters
Tues: exam questions and prep
Wed: exam questions and prep

Try again ...

Circle Time:

Who is your greatest encourager?  What have they encouraged you to try again?

1.  Discussion of what is in the media.

2,  Test prep.

Test questions practice

# 1:
Political

Political philosophy is the study of human social organization and of the nature of man/woman in society. Are the problems of society owing mostly to man's fallen nature, to bad social organization and management, or to something else?  Choose 2 different philosophers who would support your point of view and outline what they would say.  Include one societal link that demonstrates your point of view.


#2
Social

A principle question for social philosophy is:

Who gets what????

This matter is known as DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE.  Just how are the goods and services within any society to be distributed?   In any society no matter how small (an island society) or how large (the People’s Republic of China) there will arise the question of how goods and services are to be distributed.  Whether people will be free to work and keep what they earn or whether all must contribute in some way to the welfare of others, particularly those not capable of working and caring for themselves.  Choose 2 different philosophers who would support your point of view and outline what they would say.  Include one societal link that demonstrates your point of view.

Fundamental Changes

Circle time:

Tell me about one personal, local or global event that 

fundamentally changed how you perceive(d) the world.

1.  Links: discussion about the movie and the theories studied

2.  Chart: events, people (etc) we know that link to the theories studied.

I'm sorry ...

Circle time: 

One of hardest things to do be it in school, in a family setting, or in politics is to say you are sorry.

Do you need to apologize?  To whom?  Why?

Finish presentations.

In a perfect world ...

Circle question: In a perfect world, who is our leader?  Or, what philosophy do we follow?

1.  Continuation of social and political philosophies.

Unrest

Circle time:

What is causing the greatest unrest in the global community today?

1.  The ABCs of social and political movements.

Names, cities, human rights, riots, civil disobedience ... who/where/what can you name?

2.  Definitions:

Social philosophy: branch of philosophy that addresses relationships between people and political institutions.

• social welfare
• labour policies
• equality vs equity

Political philosophy: branch of philosophy that looks at the ideal type of government and where the power resides.

• power of the church vs the state
• justice
• monarchy/democracy/constitutional monarchy etc
• meanings of justice and freedom

Main thinkers: a flipped classroom: See mine as an example

1. Find your slides
2. provide limited background info (name, dates, locations etc)
3. provide ONE main social or political philosophical theory
4. find a current (last 100 years) event where the theory came into play (video, 2-5 minutes)
5. explain importance

We will start the flipped classroom presentation on Friday.  You will be expected to take notes and ask questions of your peers.

Circle time: Inspired by the idea of Supreme Being

In many faith systems (both organized and not) there is often a power greater than human which inspires right action, right thought, right deed.
These men in Baltimore decided it was time to stand up to the rioters and defend their police.

Circle question:

Who or what inspires you to do the right action, right thought, right deed?

Supreme Being: Theory

Who would you save?

Circle time: Who would you save?

Film

Sometimes it's not obvious until it hits you over the head ...

Circle time: 

Tell me one thing that is now so obvious to you now that, 

at one point in your life, 

was not so clear.

The human nature of the question of a Supreme Being . . . 
In order to begin your study of questions of a Supreme Being, please read through Chapter 8 of the text and make  notes on these ideas. . . 


Different Approaches to Concepts of a Supreme Being
Theism
Deism
Polytheism
Monotheism
Pantheism
Panentheism     For these six note the similarities and differences between them.


What about the Existence of a Supreme Being (God)?
The Ontological Argument
Cosmological Argument
Argument from Design (Intelligent Design)
Pascal's Wager
Atheism


Hard Determinism
Theories of Freedom
Soft Determinism


And Where Do We Derive Meaning from in our Lives?
Nihilism
Theistic Approach
Non-Theistic Approach

Resistance is futile ... so is Ignorance. We MUST keep QUESTIONING.

1.  Think, pair, share: With a partner, look at these definitions of a person.  Discuss the good and bad of each definition.  Rank them in the order to which you agree with them (accuracy in your mind).  Leave out any you disagree with. 

2.  Share with another set of partners.

3.  As a group of 4, write your own definition of a person.  Share as a class.

4.  In your groups of 4, list 5 criteria for personhood (5 things a person must have to be considered to have personhood status. Ex: self-awareness).  

4a.  Person?  Our Criteria

5.  Using this continuum, decide where each of these living beings appear.

6.  Class continuum: where are your living beings? Discuss.

7.  Introduction to Peter Singer.

8.  Peter Singer on personhood.  Do you agree with any/all/part of his definition of a person?  How could his definition of a person affect law (government or social)?

9.  NOTE: this next video is being used to contradict the previous video.  It is not necessarily my belief or the belief of any member of this class. It is NOT graphic.  

Abortion 73: anti-abortion group. Do you agree with any/all/part of their definition of a person?  How could their definition of a person affect law (government or social)?

10.  Susan Savage-Rumbaugh: The gentle genius of bonobos: Persons?

11.  Personal response: written.  For intro discussion tomorrow.  

What is more important to personhood; 

mind (consciousness) or matter (brain and body)?  

Bring texts for tomorrow.

Who decides who I am? Continuation of Intro to Metaphysics

Circle Time:  Imitation can be the most flattering action.

Who would you/do you imitate?

Why?

Personhood, self, supreme being(s): an introduction to Metaphysics

Who am I?

Circle time:  Look at the posters. 

 Which one represents a part of you?  How?

You may have to share the poster with someone else.

"The unexamined life is not worth living."

Socrates (469 - 399 BCE)

Big Questions of Metaphysics: Presentation 

Self: Main ideas from text

How do you define the ''self''?

Notes from text.

Bundle Theory
Who: David Hume

• the "Bundle" refers to the collection of experiences that you carry around with you forever.
• the Bundle represents your experiences.
• It's a loose collection of PERCEPTIONS about your past experiences.

Project Theory
Who: Jean-Paul Sartre

• the "Project" refers to an ongoing, never-ending project, like the building of a bridge that never ceases.
• always evolving, your "self" is always changing, it's connected to the past (experiences) and the future.
• The exact nature of the project that Sartre refers to is connected to the soul, morals, conscious thinking.

Narrative Theory
Who: Ricoeur:

• The image of a "Book" comes to mind, somewhere to write your own story.
• The main character is created by one's experiences and present events.
• The story is related to other people too, and everyone's book intermixes.
• Your story never ends, even after death as your story continues to be written in other people's narratives (books).

Substance Theory:
Who: Descartes

• the "Substance" is a mental substance of the mind, NOT derived from material things.
• This is the opposite of the Bundle Theory.
• Experiences do NOT change the self, they only send the self in difference directions.
• This is analogous to a sail boat, e.g., "the HMS Self" - the wind are experiences that may change the boat's direction in the water but do not change the boat in any way.

Your turn!  Into your notes definitions for the following:

• idealist
• realism
• materialism
• monists
• dualists
• ontology
• determinism
• substance
• essence
• form

Throne of lies?

Why we do the right thing.

What are some questionable activities?

• plagiarizing
• lying
• illegal downloading

What is the right thing?

Ethics wrap-up:

Philosophers:
Theories:
Big ideas:
Societal links:

Miley's Follow-up

May be true ...

BUT YOU CAN DO IT!!!

Here are a couple of examples of Human Rights written from the "pen" of different philosophers.

• Søren Kierkegaard – Existentialism

 “Superior Order” (often known as the Nuremberg Defense or “lawful orders”) will no longer be an acceptable defense in any court of law. Every person has the right and obligation to freely make decisions for themselves.

Superior Orders is a plea in a court of law, which claims that a soldier should not be held guilty for actions which were ordered by a superior officer. Søren Kierkegaard, a 19^th-century Danish philosopher, may have argued that this plea is morally wrong due to it’s lack of “authenticity.” In the 20^th century, some European philosophers created a school of thought called existentialism, which stresses that a “good person” is one who makes individual moral choices for themselves (while taking responsibility for those choices). Authenticity, which is the idea of being true to oneself when making moral choices, is the only virtue worth striving for in existentialist theory. In Kierkegaard’s view, choices should always be authentic (these are choices that involve consistency of perception, thought, and action). An inauthentic person, is someone who runs away from responsibility, never thinking for themselves. Oddly enough, this completely describes the actions of someone who would use the Superior Orders plea to try to escape blame. Since this plea is basically the justification that the defendant was told what to do (and had no other options), Kierkegaard would have argued that this defense is the plea of inauthentic persons – and therefore, should cease to be a mitigating factor in court. In the existentialist view, actions, beliefs, feelings, and attitudes are all a matter of choice; choices that every person must make for themselves. Incompatibilism, the belief that free will and determinism are not logically compatible categories, rings perfectly true in this circumstance (Determinism is a philosophy stating that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen). (“Incompatibilism.” The Information Philosopher. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 June 2012) A believer of Incompatibilism would agree that free will and the claim of having “no other option” are perfect opposites, and that the Superior Orders plea is contradictory per se.

• Kongfuzi – Humanism

Everyone has the right to free legal representation; it shall be paid through the federal/provincial government, and lawyers will not charge individuals for their services.

According to the text, In the sixth century BCE, crime/violence were on the rise in China. Theft and murder were thriving, and the government had become corrupt. “Business was flourishing, but scholars were unemployed. The rich were becoming richer, the poor poorer.” (HTZ4UO Text) Kongfuzi was born into a life of poverty, and his father had died when he was very young. In other words, had seen hardship firsthand.  Also in regards to the 21^st century, quality legal representation in courts has become very expensive. Often, harsh penalties don’t apply to the worst criminals, but to the defendants with the worst lawyers. For example, at the Nebraska State Bar Association's annual meeting, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor voiced her concern about the possibility of executing the innocent and the need for better representation of indigent defendants. O'Connor stated, "More often than we want to recognize, some innocent defendants have been convicted and sentenced to death." She added that this would continue unless indigent defendants were represented by qualified lawyers. (Nebraska StatePaper.com, Oct. 19, 2001.) More often than not, unreliable defense attorneys play a huge role in their client’s sentencing. This further proves that the less fortunate are not awarded the same stance in a court of law, as someone who can afford better lawyers. Kongfuzi was once one of these less fortunate people, which is why I believe he would strongly agree with this article. He would have suggested that this flaw in the legal system could be solved by free legal representation. This article would be in agreeance with his Humanistic standpoint that emphasized concern for others, in regards to the legal system of today. Historical materialism, is the methodological approach to the study of society, economics, and history first articulated by Karl Marx. It looks for the causes of developments and changes in human societies in the way humans collectively make the means to live, thus giving an emphasis, through economic analysis, to everything that co-exists with the economic base of society (e.g. social classes, political structures, ideologies). (Pawlett, Sam. “What is Historical Materialism?” Marxmail. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 June 2012.) In my opinion, this approach could be taken when examining both the legal systems and education systems (which applies to both of these articles) of today, so that the flaws due to social classes and money could be resolved.

• Immanuel Kant – the Categorical Imperative

Everyone has the responsibility and obligation to treat the environment with respect. No person, group, corporation, or nation state is exempt from this obligation.

Immanuel Kant, the 18^th-century German philosopher, believed that that moral choices must be judged by the good will of the moral agent (a non-consequentialist theory). He once wrote that, “nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good, without

qualification, except a good will.” He maintained that good will had a direct interrelationship with duty, and that duty meant what is rational. Kant believed that there is only one, and that having a good will comes from this single principle; a principle is called the categorical imperative: Act only according to that maxim [principle or general rule] whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law of nature. Although this imperative is generally applied in peoples’ associations with other people, it could also be applied to humanity’s treatment of the environment. The imperative leads moral agents to ask, “is the choice I am about to make universally acceptable?” This means that when faced with making a moral choice, people with a good will must choose the course of action that they would want everyone to choose all the time – despite the consequences. This leads into our exploitation of the environment. Even if a state or corporation could justify their actions that worsen our world’s natural state, they couldn’t possibly believe that their behaviour is okay for anyone, at any time. If it was, that would allow humanity to completely destroy the earth in our own selfish interests. Not only is this morally unreasonable, but it would ultimately lead to our end anyway… our survival depends on our environment. Environmentalism is a philosophy and ideology that emphasizes the concern for and preservation of our natural environment. (Runyon, Jennifer. “What is Environmentalism, Anyway?” Renewable Energy World (2011): 1-4. Canadian Reference Centre. Web. 7 June 2012) This philosophy is pertinent to the obligation of respect for the environment, and better describes what the article is trying to achieve. I believe that if Kant could see the effects that we are having on our natural surroundings today, he would agree that protecting our world is the universally permissible, morally right thing to do – the categorical imperative.

Some info:

How Philosophers Answer the Main Ethical Questions

Are Moral Choices Possible?

Socrates: Yes moral choices are possible.
Epicurus: Yes moral choices are possible, doing the right thing paves the way for ataraxia.
Thomas Aquinas: Yes moral choices are
Søren Kierkegaard: Yes moral choices are possible. Everyone is responsible for his/her own actions.
Friedrich Nietzsche: Yes moral choices are possible. Everyone is responsible for his/her own actions.
Jean Paul Sartre: Yes moral choices are possible. Everyone is responsible for his/her own actions. 
Jeremy Bentham: Yes moral choices are possible. The moral choice is the one which brings the most good to the most people. (consequentalist theory)
John Stuart Mill: Yes moral choices are possible. A moral choice is one that brings the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people.
Immanuel Kant: Yes moral choices are possible. A moral choice is one that has a moral intent. 
Ayn Rand: Yes moral choices are possible. A moral choice is one that has the best interests of the self at heart.



Why Do the Right Thing?

Socrates: Because doing the right/ethical thing is the cornerstone to living "the good life".
Epicurus: Doing the right thing paves the way for ataraxia/serenity which is the greatest pleasure of the mind.
Thomas Aquinas: God deemed it right, and Aquinas is condemned to a perpetual life of follwing gods word without fail.
Søren Kierkegaard: Because going against your authenticity feels wrong.
Friedrich Nietzsche: Because moral actions lead society towards the cultivating the overman, the advent of whom benefits all.
Jean Paul Sartre-----------------
Jeremy Bentham: ---------------
John Stuart Mill:-------------- 
Immanuel Kant:----------------
Ayn Rand: Because you wouldnt want "wrong" things done to yourself, so do not do them to others.


Can People Be Good Without Religion?

Socrates: Probably, but it doesn't specify.
Epicurus: Probably, but it doesn't specify.
Thomas Aquinas: No, conforming to God's rules is "good" to Aquinas.
Søren Kierkegaard: No, people must move beyond judging their actions according to reason or the standards of society, and become only accountable to god. 
Friedrich Nietzsche: Yes people can be good without religion. "Faith in god is disappearing, and with it the universal values provided by that faith.  
Jean Paul Sartre: Yes people can be good without religion.
Jeremy Bentham: Not specified, but yes considering he believes that the greatest good to the greatest number of people is equivalent to right.
John Stuart Mill: Utilitarian, so probably.
Immanuel Kant: Probably, but it doesn't specify.
Ayn Rand: Probably, but it doesn't specify.


How Should the Rightness or Wrongness of Actions be Determined?

Socrates: Actions that go against the society made up of family and friends (laws) is wrong. Anything that conforms is right.
Epicurus: Right actions pave the way for ataraxia/serenity, wrong actions do the opposite.
Thomas Aquinas: What god deems right is right and what he deems wrong is wrong.
Søren Kierkegaard: What god deems right is right and what he deems wrong is wrong. 
Friedrich Nietzsche: People determine their own values.
Jean Paul Sartre: Each person defines right and wrong themselves and acts accordingly.
Jeremy Bentham: An action that brings the greatest good to the greatest number of people is the right one. (Hitler believed by eliminating the jews he was doing a great good for germany, there were far more aryans than jews in germany so was he doing the "right" thing for germans?)
John Stuart Mill: An action that brings the greatest good to the greatest number of people is the right one.
Immanuel Kant: The rightness of actions can be determined by the intent of the actions themselves (non-consequentialist)
Ayn Rand: Right actions are those which are in the selfs best interest.