PHIL 112 Notes: Week 2 (8/29/16-9/2/16)
PHIL 112 Notes: Week 2 (8/29/16-9/2/16) PHIL 112
Popular in Making Sense of Ourselves
Popular in Philosophy
This 3 page Class Notes was uploaded by Hadley Ashford on Friday September 2, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PHIL 112 at University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill taught by Martin Glazier in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 35 views. For similar materials see Making Sense of Ourselves in Philosophy at University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill.
Reviews for PHIL 112 Notes: Week 2 (8/29/16-9/2/16)
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
Date Created: 09/02/16
PHIL 112 Notes 8/29/16-9/2/16 8/29/16 - Death: o Socrates says there is no reason to fear death because it may not be as bad as people think Class objection: Socrates assumes everyone thinks death is bad, ignores fact that death could be bad o 2 options for death: dreamless sleep or another place to meet people Class objection: doesn’t take into account the possible negatives of those options, fear of death makes sense from living person’s brain even if it won’t matter after death - Plan for his defense: o First will defend himself against general belief that Socrates is bad (from random people a long time ago) o Then will defend himself against current accusers (Meletus) - Defense against first accusers: o Socrates’ wisdom: claims that his special wisdom caused his bad reputation, not anything he did wrong His wisdom is the fact that he knows/accepts that he doesn’t know everything His experiment to prove that wise people are not actually wise made many people dislike him, which caused motivation to slander - Defense against current accusers: o Charges: corrupting the young and not believing in gods Argument #1 against corruption: not true that he is the only one that corrupts the youth because it is more likely that few people have the specialized knowledge to improve the young. Therefore, there have to be more people that corrupt the young Objection: doesn’t make effective argument against original charge (that Socrates corrupts the young)- only debated the number of people that do the corrupting, never specifies that he does not do this Argument #2 against corruption: he would never willingly corrupt the young because wicked people hurt their neighbors and he wouldn’t want the people who he corrupts to later hurt him. Even if he unwillingly corrupted the young, that is not a sufficient reason to bring him to court Objection: ignores fact that people don’t always act with perfect self- control and regard for the future Argument #3 against corruption: his actions are positive and not actually unwilling corruption at all 8/31/16 - Crito’s first plea o Crito will lose a friend o The majority will believe that Crito did not try hard enough He will end up with bad reputation - Socrates response: doesn’t value opinion of majority o Believes that it is more important to value opinion of those who understand justice/truth - Crito says that you should still value opinion of majority because they can put you to death - Socrates response: is an unjust life even worth living? o Is it more important to save our lives or to act morally? o Objection: doesn’t leave room for idea of forgiveness How much immorality does it take to actually corrupt you? Isn’t necessarily true that an unjust life isn’t worth living might be less fulfilling, but not worth death - Crito’s second plea: doesn’t think Socrates is acting justly by letting himself be killed o Betrays sons by choosing to abandon them o Choosing “easiest path”- easy way out, not being courageous - Socrates response: examines whether or not his decision is “just” o Objection: Can’t leave out Crito’s other accusations because they play into the justness of his actions Does justness of sole action outweigh justness of all other considerations Selfish of him to only consider the value of his life in his ultimate decision - Argument #1 against escape: 1. No one should ever do any wrong or return that wrong when wronged by someone else 2. Breaking a just agreement is wrong 3. He has made an agreement with the city to abide by the law and decisions of the court a. Socrates made agreement with city because he lived in the city and used its resources- had option to leave if he didn’t want to agree to rules/institutions 4. Court decided he should be executed 5. Socrates must follow through with agreement in order to do no wrong - Objections: o Premise 1: ignores special cases in which doing wrong is justified (protecting oneself and/or others) o Premise 2/3: “justly made” implies consensual agreement, but Socrates does not believe that he deserved this punishment in “Apology” so wouldn’t really be consensual 9/2/16 - Background: King and supporters nonviolently protested racial segregation o Local law enforcement banned demonstrations o King and supporters ignored this and were arrested o White clergymen wrote “A Call to Unity”- open letter criticizing King’s methods o Letter from Birmingham Jail is response to that letter - King’s first objection: o Argues against accusation of his campaign being “unwise” o 4 steps of nonviolent campaigns shows that campaign is systematic, not haphazard Collect facts: King gives stats and data about presence of racism in Birmingham Negotiation: leaders refused to negotiate, economic community negotiators broke promises Failure of negotiations lead them to pursue next action Negotiations are still end goal: thinks demonstrations will eventually bring about negotiations Relates to Socrates’ method: Socrates creates tensions in the mind to bring about new/better ideas and King creates tension through demonstrations to bring out better negotiations - Third objection: accusers say that there should be another way o Response from King: historically, the privileged do not give up power voluntarily - Fourth objection: his actions precipitate violence o Response: basically victim blaming o Causal history confused with moral responsibility Even though victim of a robbery is part of causal story (had money), isn’t morally responsible for robber’s actions - Civil disobedience: contrasts Socrates’ argument in “Crito” o Accusers say King breaks some laws and obeys others (hypocritical, paradoxical) o King’s distinction between just and unjust laws: “an unjust law is no law at all”: unjust laws don’t have same properties as just laws, people no obligated to follow unjust laws Should disobey unjust laws because they are morally wrong and obeying unjust laws is morally wrong Does King argue that any unjust law can simply be disobeyed or that there are certain conditions to be met before unjust law is disobeyed? Socrates’ argument against King: o One shouldn’t do wrong o Breaking agreement is wrong o King has made agreement with city to follow laws by being citizen o Lawmakers prevented King from marching o King should have abided by agreement and not marched Class objections to Socrates’ argument: o ¾: just agreements are two-way and city didn’t uphold their end (providing safe, equal environment) so King no longer has to uphold his o 3: agreement wasn’t just because blacks didn’t get to vote/contribute to their creation