Saturday, June 10, 2017

Blog #75 - Examined Life philosophers

Out of the several philosophers that we saw in The Examined Life, which of them seemed: 
1. To have the most appealing outlooks on life; 
2. To have the least appealing (or comprehensible) views of life? 


In summary, here they are in order of appearance in the film: 
1. Cornel West - Harvard and Princeton educated, Dr. West has spent the majority of his studies examining race, gender, and class in American society.  He is considered a "neopragmatist", similar to that of William James' pragmatism (something has value if it works), where language is the primary vehicle for understanding the world and trying to make meaning from it.  He has called himself a "non-Marxist socialist" primarily because he's a religious person and cannot reconcile the fact that Marxism dismisses religion.  He also tends to be suspicious of all forms of authority, because they can lead to tyranny and / or abuse.  One of his latest books is called Democracy Matters: Winning the Fight Against Imperialism.  

2. Avital Ronell - her parents were Israeli diplomats and she was born in Prague, Czechoslovakia.  She is a professor of German language in New York and has translated French philosopher Jacques Derrida in his earliest works introduced into America.  She follows a school of philosophy called Deconstructionism where she tries to discover the underlying meanings of words and language.  She feels that " language is a material that cannot not interrupt, suspend, resist, exceed, and otherwise trip up the very message it is charged to deliver," because "words can go AWOL (absent without leave" or in many instances, be misunderstood or misinterpreted by the listener / reader.  In many respects, this problem with language has led her to believe that there are no guiding Truths.  One of her latest books is called Stupidity

3. Peter Singer - an Australian philosopher who has become very popular with his most well known for his strong moral beliefs about animals and eating meat.  He is opposed to animal experimentation as well as eating meat.  He follows in the school of Utilitarianism (John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham) which tries to maximize the greatest good for the largest number of people.  He also feels very strongly that the wealthy have an obligation to provide help for those in extreme poverty (remember the $200 pair of shoes ruined to save a drowning child).  On his own website, he claims to give 25% of his income to non-profit groups that are devoted to the poor.  His latest book is The Life You Can Save.  

4. Kwame Anthony Appiah - as mentioned in the film, he's the product of a Ghanian father and an English mother, he studied at Cambridge and has taught at some of the top universities in the U.S.  His studies have included examining the intellectual history of African Americans and he also deals with language and semantics - the underlying meanings of words.  In the segment we watched, Appiah talked about our notion of identity in a multicultural world.  He doesn't believe that race should form your identity, but that we should look for universalities between us to do that.  Forbes Magazine named him one of the Top Seven Most Powerful Thinkers in the world - Judith Butler is also on this list as well.  Appiah's latest book is called The Honor Code.  

5. Martha Nussbaum - is a professor at the University of Chicago with an interest in ancient Greek and Roman philosophy along with concerns over feminism, political philosophy and morality.  From ancient Greek and Roman philosophies, she has explored the idea of neo-Stoicism which acknowledges that things outside of our control have a great influence on us.  She has also tried to draw attention to the political and gender inequality and the lack of opportunities for women.  She's a strong believer in inclusion of other cultures and feels that those who promote Western culture (our culture) at the expense of others is paternalistic.  In the field of moral psychology, she wrote that emotions like shame and disgust are legitimate emotions to use to make legal judgments.  Her latest book is The New Religious Intolerance

6. Michael Hardt - Hardt is a political philosopher from Duke University who was born in 1960.  As he mentioned in the film, he spent time in Latin America during the 1980s learning from the Marxist political movements in Nicaragua and El Salvador.  He has criticized globalization and sees it as a form of American imperialism.  Nations' power to control their own destiny has declined as American (and European) companies have expanded to control various aspects of developing countries' resources.  His major work, written with Antonio Negri, is called Empire.  Globalization has spawned new forms of racism and cultural change, and that the focus of political power has shifted from governments to corporations.  This shift is less democratic because there's very little if any recourse to stop / control these corporations. 

7. Slavoj Zizek - Zizek is a neo-Marxist and has been considered the "hippest philosopher in Europe" by many and also called "the Elvis of philosophy."  He hails from Slovenia and has written many books.  He tends to provoke with his statements, like comparing Julian Assange to Mahatma Gandhi.  He rarely gives straightforward answers to questions: "I like to complicate issues. I hate simple narratives. I suspect them. This is my automatic reaction."  He is also an athiest and has written extensively on movies, violence, and other topics.  He apparently wrote a review of Avatar first w/o having actually seen it first: "I'm a good Hegelian.  If you have a good theory, forget about the reality."  His primary influence is philosopher Jacques Lacan.  One of his latest book is Living in the End Times.  

8. Judith Butler - is currently a professor of rhetoric and literature at the University of Berkeley, California.  One of her primary philosophical keys is gender studies and how sex and gender roles are flexible or shouldn't be as confining as we tend to see them in our society.  Gender identity does not necessarily reflect who are in our "inner core" - meaning, that just because we are men or women does NOT mean that we should be bound by those male and female roles.  Gender is supposed to be a secondary characteristic to who are, not a primary one.  Also, her political philosophy has been influenced by her religion, Judaism, and she believes in a "Judaism that is not associated with state violence," and has said that Israel does not represent all Jews.  As mentioned in the segment on Appiah, Forbes named her one of the top seven thinkers in the world and she has been called "a big-deal academic, ... and oft-cited academic superstar...the most famous feminist philosopher in the United States," "the queer theorist par excellence," and "the most brilliantly eclectic theorist of sexuality in recent years."  Her most popular book has been Gender Trouble.  

This blog will be due by Monday, June 12 by class.  

Also, please read this article for Monday for an enlightening discussion on the ethics of punching a Nazi.  https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2017/jan/31/the-punch-a-nazi-meme-what-are-the-ethics-of-punching-nazis 

14 comments:

  1. 1.) I suppose I agree most with someone like Peter Singer, in some regards. He kind of looks and acts like an Australian Bernie Sanders. In the sense that he has a utilitarian approach to life, especially when it comes to our economy. For instance, when he talks about how we could use our money to help those who are impoverished; instead of buying a $2,000 outfit from Gucci or some other designer-brand. He has a progressive look in believing that those who are economically advantaged should pitch in more to help those who are not are fortunate. Another thing I agree with him with is the meaning of life: that life is completely subjective from one human to the next; that there is no one meaning of life, but that we must instead create our own purpose. We must find something of significant meaning to us that makes life worth living. One thing I don't really agree with him, though, is his stance on meat consumption. He asserts that the treatment of animals is inhumane; this might be because animals aren't humans, and thus don't deserve the same rights. It reminds me of some of those really vehement vegans. I know that seems harsh, but I feel like his argument could be said for vegetation too. "Do you even know what the growing conditions of kale look like? I saw a documentary of how cramped all these plants were, and they couldn't move because they're rooted in the ground. Once I saw that, I never wanted to eat a vegetable again."

    2.) One person who I didn't really enjoy was Avital Ronell. I think this is just because I couldn't really understand what on earth she was trying to say. Her style of oral presentation is so convoluted that it seems obscure. For instance, when she's talking about philosophy and pondering the meaning of life, she says something along the lines of, "I'm suspicious about that claim because philosophy tends to have fascists, un-progressive edges." Then she goes on to mention something about President Bush sending people to gas chambers. I remember my own, as well as the rest of the class', bewilderment when she said that. We had no clue what she was talking about, and we still don't even after going over the answer key with Mrs. Nash. Ronell seemed like she was just filibustering philosophical gobbledygook.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kyle Beauregard

    1. Being perfectly honest, I hated pretty much all of them. Not on a personal level or anything, but just for the sheer fact that they babbled on about incomprehensible nonsense for 10 whole minutes. Judith Butler segment was the only I had any real interest in, or at least any understanding of. Having Sunny with allowed for a flow of conversation that could be understood, instead of just talking at the camera about anything and everything. By having another person, Judith was better able to explain her thoughts, and with less fancy words. And since I was able to understand her, I was able to appreciate what she was talking about. I enjoyed the discussion she had with Sunny about how society works, how we are dependent on each other and that asking/demanding help shouldn’t be seen as unreasonable or weak. She covered some interesting topics about our views on how people should or shouldn’t be, and how that impacts our treatment of the people around us. Still not something I would willingly listen to, but Judith’s segment was something that I could at least understand.

    2. I reaaaaally didn’t like Cornel West and Avital Ronell. Ronell was just straight up rude. Although honestly, all of them were literally completely unintelligible to me. Maybe it’s just the format of the film (just letting people talk at you for 10 minutes makes for a pretty shitty film), but I couldn’t garner ANYTHING from listening to them talk. It was all in one ear and out the other. Their points were unfocused and random, and had no relevance to what anyone else was saying. It’s like if someone recorded a person talking to themselves for 10 minutes. I’m sorry, this film was just infuriating to me. I choose Ronell and West as my least favorites because they were the most guilty of the issues I talked about, and that’s about it. The sheer magnitude of lack of understanding while watching their segments was astounding, and I would sooner run screaming out of the classroom then watch them again. I have nothing to say about their ideas or philosophy, because I have no idea what they were.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don’t wholeheartedly agree with any of the philosophers in the video, but the philosopher whom I have the most in common with would be Peter Singer. None of these world outlooks are particularly positive, simply because the world is not positive. We live in a dark and dreary world with oppression and hatred commonplace. However, Singer is nowhere nearly as depressing as the rest. Singer is a utilitarian, which I appreciate. He sees all the flaws in the world, but assesses how to solve them and help the most people. If everybody had this mindset, the world would be a better place. I only need so much to survive, and the rest that I have is simply excess. It would be better for society, and ultimately me, to give that excess to somebody who needs it more. This is the aspect of utilitarianism I can get behind. A very easy example is taxes. I pay quite a bit of money in taxes, and that money goes to social security, welfare, and helping those who are less fortunate. I am more than happy to pay taxes because if those people are able to live a better life, they can get a better education, or get a better job, or raise better kids. Ultimately, they will improve society. He uses the analogy of the shoes, but I do have a slight issue. I’d be more than happy to throw away a $200 pair of shoes to save a life, and I’d be more than happy to donate $200 to save a life once. The only complaint that I have is that I do not have enough money to make a routine habit of donating $200. However, if everybody donated $50 or so, then we would be able to save an extraordinary number of lives. And that’s Singer’s ideology.
      I disagree with Avital Ronell. She states that language is flawed, and I strongly disagree. Language does exactly what it is intended to do, it communicates your thoughts. Ronell states that there is miscommunication and misunderstanding, and while those phenomenons exist, that is not the fault of language. I could write FnInt, lnx + 2x3 + ex, x, 0, 5. Most people would not know what that means, but that is the standard notation for the TI graphing calculator. The only problem with that communication is that the speaker is addressing the wrong audience. The only flaws with communication lies within the communicator or the audience, not the language itself. Sometimes the speaker’s thoughts themselves are unclear and incomprehensible. Sometimes the audience does not have enough background information to understand. But none of that is the fault of language.
      Chance Stephenson

      Delete
  3. The philosopher from "The Examined Life" who's ideas appeal to me most are Kwame Anthony Appiah. Kwame Anthony Appiah Discusses how a person should not be judged based on their color of skin, which is an idea that I agree with one hundred percent. He believed that a people should be rather judged based on their universitalities. I believe that I person should be judged based on their character, personality, skills, abilities, intelligence, etc. before their appearance. To judge anybody on their skin color is just wrong. As Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." I agree with this quote and the ideas of Kwame, because they allude to the idea that a person's identity should not be based upon their race.

    The idea that is disagree with most from this film comes from Peter Singer. Although I completely agree with his ideas on helping the poor and stopping animal cruelty, I do disagree with the idea that people shouldn't eat meet. I know this is not one of his biggest points, but it is one of the only ideas a disagree with from the film! I believe that as long as an animal is treated humanely, then it is okay for a person to eat. It is nature for animals to eat other animals and without meat, we would miss out on many necessary nutrients. I am an animal lover and am against animal cruelty entirely, but I don't see anything wrong with the consumption of meat.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sanae Chestnut

    My favorite Philosopher in the film was probably Zizek. I am biased about Zizek because he was the author for basically my whole affirmative case this debate season. I think that he thinks differently than other people and I like that about him. He can be kind of pessimistic which is something we have in common. Most philosophers think differently than the average person but he is different from other philosophers also. In most of his writings and articles he explains things in a way that makes people think differently about average things. None of the other philosophers would ever want to have an interview around a pile of garbage but he does things to prove a point. He seems super genuine and like he cares about the things around him. I also enjoyed the conversation that Judith Butler (i think) had about her experiences as a disabled person. Her conversation was super empowering and made me think a lot about how other people live their lives.

    My least favorite philospher is probably Peter Singer. I didn’t like the way he thought about things that people went through. I enjoyed his analogies about vegetarians and people who eat meat. I think his setting was a little more distracting that the others but he thought of everything kind of economically. I also didn’t really enjoy Cornel West. The way he presented things was problematic to me. I think philosophers can be super confusing people but I think he was trying to sound super down to earth while being philosophical at the same time. He seemed nihilistic but at the same time as if he valued life. I couldn’t really figure him out so that was stressful.

    But overall I really enjoyed the film. You have to really stick to the conversation to appreciate it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I wasn’t really a fan of the philosophers in this movie because I felt like many of them presented ideas that have already been excessively discussed as if the ideas were some fascinating, newfound wisdom; however, I feel that the most appealing outlook on life came from Kwame Anthony Appiah with his opinions on a cosmopolitan society. He believes in the sharing of beliefs and cultures, the individuality that comes with a cosmopolitan society, etc. I think that in a truly desirable culture, humanity strives from the ability for different people to express themselves in different ways and to be themselves, not being ridiculed for being different. I also appreciated what he talked about how his two cultures adapted to one another; I agree that humanity in general needs to accept that individuals are going to strive for the same goals in differently, and just because a technique is unusual doesn’t make it wrong.
    I really disliked Avital Ronell. Ronell’s philosophies were practically unintelligible, and when they weren’t they came across as extremely pretentious. Some of her statements gave me the impression that she was trying to have a new, unexpected, and notable outlook that had never been considered before—to me, she seems as if she was just trying to be edgy. I didn’t like that she said finding the meaning in life has fascist history, because people who will use their “meaning of life” to hurt others will still hurt people, even if they are uncertain. Also, when she started discussing George Bush and how he gassed and killed people because he lacked “anxiety,” I rolled my eyes; many who lash out and hurt people do it out of insecurity, not because they’re positive that what they’re doing is right. If I’m using her logic for the fascism involved in finding the meaning of life, I could say that anxiety holds a negative history and should be avoided. Whenever I hear some intellectual talk about how the world is some horrific, unfair place, I can’t help but feel exasperated. The most immature thing I can imagine is someone complaining that the world is some horrific place, but then also doing nothing to change it, change their lifestyle, improve the relationships that they have with the people in their life—to put it frankly, these people complain and do literally nothing. If such a pathetic existence is the life of an intellectual, I’ll stay uneducated.

    ReplyDelete
  6. After looking over the summaries provided and thinking back to the film we watched, the two most appealing outlooks on life came from Martha Nussbaum and Judith Butler. But since I have to pick just one, I'm going to talk about Martha Nussbaum’s outlook. First, I like how she's touched on four different topics: ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, feminism, political philosophy and morality. First of all, I completely agree with the idea of neo-Stoicism. I do believe that there are things that we can't control that do hinder and influence us and our views on life. One of those things is who we're raised by. We can't control who our parents are nor what/how their views on life came to be, but when they're raising us, we become sheltered by what it is that they teach us, per se. Her other topic she covers (or tries to draw attention to) is the inequality of political and gender opportunities for women. Naturally I'm going to agree with this for the simple fact that I'm a woman, but even if I wasn't, stats and numbers don't lie. But even without those, it's clear to see in everyday life. I definitely appreciate her for this outlook. I feel like her inclusion of other countries stems from this inequality of women, thus she wants all countries involved which is something I agree with all well. I like how she references the Western culture (us) and calls us out for trying to put other countries down or shame them in order to make ourselves look better. That right there is projecting, but on a country to country basis. Lastly, basing decisions or judgements on emotions is a major problem; both socially and politically. This is something that goes on in our daily lives, and I don't mean happy emotions, I mean emotions like jealousy, shame, disgust, etc. In my opinion, I can simply relate and understand Martha’s outlook the best.


    On the flip side, Kwame Anthony Appiah’s outlook on life confuses me the most I believe. In the film he talked about finding universalities between us...without race. Now, yes we should all be seen equal, but I'm not even sure if this is what he's trying to say. To me, he's trying to say not to see color, but I feel like that's false and should never happen. When you don't see color, you miss the picture. Also, what does he mean exactly by universalities? I do agree with him that our race shouldn't be our identity, and that we are all human beings, but...we knew this already. Of course there's gonna be people who treat others as if we aren't all human beings, but if this is one of the universalities he's speaking about...then that's kind of shallow. I guess what makes his outlook less comprehensible for me is what he defines as a universality between people. For example, the fact that we all have parents? Or that we’re all going to have a job (possibly)? Or does he simply mean the absence of color when looking at each other in the sense that we’re all human beings? Again, if it's the last one he's talking about then I'm not so sure I agree with that because if “not seeing color” is a way to make people equal then that's weak. Weak in a sense that it's like a cop-out. People will treat everyone like they're white, not as in everyone is equal. I don't want to make this about race, but if this is what he means, I would like a better understanding or a clearer meaning on what it is that he means. Otherwise people (including myself) will be confused and lost in what he means, which could be something quite magnificent.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I feel as though Kwame Anthony Appaich philosophy was least comprehensible mainly because I believe that race does make up a good amount of your identity. With race you have like a group of shared ideas, ethics, and culture and those ideas. Ethics and culture start to become building blocks that kind of form who you are. The phrase “I’m Black and I’m proud” is appreciating what makes that person themselves. Their race is apart of their identity which yeah maybe if it wasn't we might have less problems, but if it wasn't people may not have a complete sense of self and I don't think you can really know yourself completely without having that sense of identity from your race. I feel like universal iTunes also come into play when you talk about identity. If you're really smart then you may be a proud person. That is your identity. Even people who play sports cling to sports because that is apart of who they are as a person.
    I agree with Judith Butler the most on the idea that when you are born you shouldn't bound to any particular gender roles assigned to male or female, because now the spectrum of genders is a lot more fluid, I think. I'm no expert at everything that goes into the LGBTQ+ community but I know that when you force people into roles that they were not born to do, or to fit in to. Then that really messes up people's mindsets. Even for non LGBTQ+ gender roles are wrong. Telling a girl she must like pink, and dolls, when she was little makes her feel bad if she wants to play with trucks or go outside. I feel like gender roles are society trying to shape a part of s person's identity.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Out of all the several modern philosophers that we saw in The Examined Life, the ones that seemed to have the most appealing outlooks on life are Martha Nussbaum. In the film, we learn that Martha has worked to try and draw attention to the political and gender inequality and the lack of opportunities for women. I agree with her feminist approach to philosophy and I believe that her outlook is one of the most progressive modern philosophies. I’m relieved to see a modern philosopher that is a woman, and because she's a strong believer in inclusion of other cultures I can assume that she is aware of the intersectionality that comes with that. I hope that she will be the first voice of many philosophers that advocate for women’s rights and bring awareness to the significance of intersectionality along with it.

    The modern philosopher that I believe has the least appealing outlook on life is Cornel West. Maybe if he spent less time going on and on about stuff then it would have been easier to understand him, and therefore form an appreciation for what he was saying. I mean the entire film was pretentious, and we saw that from mostly every philosopher, but I guess the movie was just setting us up for that by using him in the first scene. Every few scenes, you went “well there’s this guy again” because West was just involved in so much of it. The thing is that I can’t really criticize his philosophy because I have no idea what it is. I got more out of reading the description on the blog, then watching the movie and trying to decipher what he saying during it, and still even what he was trying to say after it. The lady who made the film said that each philosopher only had 10 minutes to speak. I have no idea what happened to that because it seemed like a good half of that almost one and a half hour film was taken up by his nonsense. None of what he said was relevant or made any sense to me at all. His Shakespearian-like vocabulary and the fact that he jumped from one point to another so quickly made what he was saying extremely difficult to get. It was like being educated by someone who just never pauses to breath. You would think that if you were (supposedly) speaking for only 10 minutes, then you’d get as straight to the point as you can, or at least try to make it understandable for the general public. And this guy is Harvard and Princeton educated?

    Zora

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ari Mattler

    Of all the philosophers in the film, I felt the most appeal to is Cornel West. As it was obvious to see in the film, West is very educated and has a strong ideas on what he talks about. Something that is very appealing about West and his outlook is the way he uses rhetoric. West crafts his thoughts and statements in such a beautiful manner that I would find it hard for his opponents to try and argue his view points. Another thing that I think puts Wests view of life in front of the other philosophers in the film is his commitment to questioning authority. West sees just as I do how power corrupts indefinitely and that to not question ones hierarchy in society would simply be foolish. I will admit that even though I agree with much that West says and that he is well educated, his rhetoric is sometimes very convoluted and hard to understand. I get why many of my classmates disliked him due to those reasons, but I think his savvy overpowers his flaws, creating a just outlook on life.

    Of all the philosophers in the Examined Life movie I thought Avital Ronell had the least appealing views on life. Regardless of what she said which I could understand, due to her nonsense ideas, I disagree with her the most. All I remember was her saying something about George Bush putting people in gas chambers and that was all I really needed to paint my picture of her. There is a fine line between classifying philosophers and loonatics. She mentions something about words changing language in a bad word but I think words are there for clearing up the confusion in language. Overall, her ideas where do poorly displayed by her I had no idea why she was mentioning any of the things she did. It felt like one uncomprehensible run on sentence.

    I liked some philosophers in the film but I felt that the ones who made no sense to me ruined the film overall.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The philosopher that I guess I agree with the most is Peter Singer. I did really like what he was saying about how we really have no right to treat animals any less than we are. From an evolutionary standpoint, the animals with the best traits, or those that are at the top of the food chain, will always feed on others to survive because they may have nothing else to eat. However, I do not think that we need to do the same, since we can get all of the nutrients we want from a plant based diet (Some vegetables have more protein than meat). I do also agree with what singer was saying about giving more to people in need. I like the way he was describing how people need to put themselves in the shoes of others more often, so we aren’t just thinking about ourselves.

    The philosophers that I really didn’t like were Avital Ronell and Slavoj Zizek. I strongly disliked both of their arguments. Ronell, at some point in her unnecessarily long trial of dialogue, was talking about how we only do good things because we are anxious, and we should continue to be anxious so we keep doing more things. I really hate this because a society should express a sense of community out of love, rather than fear. This is so much better for your mental state, and I feel that we shouldn’t think humans are that selfish that we only do good things because we are never going to be good enough so we have to keep doing more good things. I also disagreed with Zizek and his thoughts on ecological catastrophes. I liked where he was going at first with people seeming to ignore what’s happening to our environment, although I disagree with how he was saying that we needed to become more artificial in order to recognize the ecological catastrophes that are going to come. This is just really contradicting to me, because then nothing for the environment would actually get better, we would just let it get worse until the scope of the world now completely changes, which also doesn’t make a lot of sense since the planet would just be destroyed.

    ReplyDelete
  11. For me, personally, Judith Butler is the only person whose ideas really appealed to me. Maybe it’s because, as everyone else has been saying, it was one of the most comprehensible. She boiled things down to the simplest explanations and it felt more natural as she discussed with someone else, having someone to bounce back ideas with rather than spewing lots of long words at a camera for ten minutes with no interruption or reiteration. It was a very intriguing discussion she had with Sunny, regarding disabilities and the way society works as a whole. That is a topic that has always interested me, so it was naturally one that kept me more engaged than all the others.

    I had a hard time understanding most of the other ones, they talked rather fast and spit out lots of big words and complex ideas that I didn’t have time to process the way I wanted to. I think that Cornell West was the hardest for me to understand, mostly because his topic of conversation seemed all over the place. I wasn’t grasping his comparison of philosophical ideas to jazz music, and he seemed a bit scattered for my liking. I’m sure that if I had more time to sit down and dissect his ideas, as well as many of the others ideas, I would feel a bit differently. However, with the time constraints we had, it was difficult to keep up with people who so clearly know what they are talking about and can discuss it in a way that me, as a student, cannot.

    Bella

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think the trolley problem, if the joker is the trolley and batman is the one controlling the lever, I think the situation would be batman letting the trolley (aka the joker) continue going into the five people instead of pulling the lever and killing one person. I think this because it seems as though batman would rather save the joker than those five innocent people. I think batman shouldn’t go and seek out the joker during a regular Sunday afternoon when the joker isn’t doing any harm, but I do think batman should kill the joker when the joker is terrorizing the town and forcing people to choose whether or not to kill other people. I mean, batman had the joker right on the edge of a tall building where one drop would kill someone and batman decided not to let the joker fall. Seeing what the joker just did to, I don’t know, thousands of people, why go out of your way to save someone like that? I think the joker, if he were to die, should die because of his past crimes. He’s already committed those crimes and he’s been to jail for them and I know it’s definitely going to happen but maybe the joker won’t commit any other crimes so it wouldn’t be fair to kill him for future events. Superheroes shouldn’t have a no killing rule. Honestly, death is hard to dodge in the first place, and in the situation of batman and the joker sometimes people just need to die. I think that even though a superhero killing someone could lead to more crime, in most cases it would prevent more crime than it would create. I definitely think the concept of utilitarianism is useful in real life. I mean, I absolutely hate hurting everyone and I hate knowing that people get hurt, but honestly if that’s what’s best for the greater good I can’t really say it’s a bad thing.

    wallie

    ReplyDelete

  13. 1. The most appealing outlook on life had to come from Judith Butler who states that
    how sex and gender roles are flexible and shouldn't be as confining as we tend to see them in our society. She then goes on to say gender identity does not necessarily reflect who are in our "inner core" and that “gender is secondary”. I find this not only most appealing, but most interesting because of the way that I was raised on the subject of gender identity which many people in our society find as primary. This has caused me to step out of my personal views but look at the bigger picture of “what if I decided to be trans?” This is what I came up with. If I decided to be trans I would then try to prove the same point of gender being secondary. These concept of being without actually being is appealing when thinking about people who feel that they are the wrong gender but try to convince themselves that they are weird or abnormal. For the reason of being yourself whatever or whoever that is this outlook was very appealing for futuristic references staring with legalizing of gay marriage to who knows what else.

    2. Peter Singer has that least appealing outlook in which he states that he is opposed to animal experimentation as well as eating meat. Also he feels very strongly that the wealthy have an obligation to provide help for those in extreme poverty. I don’t think his thoughts are unappealing but in fact his reasoning’s are off to me. For one I believe that meat is not required every day but it is needed to give us a specific protein in the body. Also since animals are not humans they have no right to be treated like a human which comes with the harsh labor to make meat needed to feed the human species. On the other hand in referring to the rich having to give back which isn’t always the case because what if your wealth came all of a sudden? Even if it didn’t what if you have always worked so hard for your wealth? In these situations I believe that one who is wealthy has every right to spoil themselves with something expensive and nice. It is part of the lifestyle. Who wants to be rich to never do for themselves?

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for commenting. Your message will appear as soon as Mr. W. approves it. Thanks.