Log in
HomeClass Notes1,200,000US530,000

PHIL 214 Lecture Notes - When Disaster Strikes...

53 views1 pages
melissadsmith50
14 Nov 2022
School
Biola University
Department
Philosophy
Course
PHIL 214
Professor

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Johnson says, similar considerations apply to the claim that if god interferes in disasters, he would destroy a considerable amount of moral urgency to make things right (124). When i first read this i didn"t understand what johnson was saying. I had to ask my dad what he was implying. After explaining it to me and reading it over and over again i finally understood not only what johnson was saying but also how this applies to our lives if this actually happened. When disaster strikes in the world, people do all sorts of things. But some of the common things people do are, come together in unity, work together to solve the situation at hand, and do whatever it takes to survive. But for right now we will focus on the first two actions. Now if god came and made the disaster go away, people at first would be happy and grateful.

Get access

Grade+
$40 USD/m
Billed monthly
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
10 Verified Answers
Class+
$30 USD/m
Billed monthly
Class+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
7 Verified Answers

Related Documents

PHIL 214 Lecture : 214 Weekly Assignment 9 (1)
melissadsmith50
PHIL 110 Lecture Notes - Lecture 2: Theism
azuremole431
POL SCI 40 Lecture Notes - Lecture 15: Executive Privilege, Endangerment, Endless Space
greygnat471

Related Questions

Brief and detail

If relativism is true, can you ever judge something as being morally wrong? Consider some really horrible actions,  genocide, murder, slavery, torture or add your own. If you feel a relativist could say that these things are actually wrong, what gives them this ability? If they can't, why not?

Agree or disagree

Similarly to what I said in the first discussion on what morality means to us, I think everyone has their own set of moral principles and obligations. So I do think that relativism is true, to a point however. I used Adolf Hitler and the Nazi empire as an example in the first discussion so I will use that here. Hitler knew in his brain that what he was doing was good for his nation and arguably the world. Now, as a modern day society we can agree that was wrong. For him, it was good. In his own mind, he is right. But it is relative to the person. Generally speaking we all have similar notions of what is right and what is wrong. Most people would say that going out of your way to help someone else is a morally good principle. Selflessness in society is seen a good thing by the vast majority of people. When I say that relativism is good to a point, I mean that there is a general basis in society that deems actions as good or bad. And since most of us would all agree that hitlers actions were bad, then we say that he had bad moral principles, even though to him, they were good. It’s a little confusing even for me to put into words. Basically, if you actions are generally viewed in society as good, then you have good moral principles even if they vary from person to person. No one will have the exact same moral standards, but generally they all are very similar in society. So relativism is true until the point where the majority of society would deem your actions and wrong. I hope this makes sense. 

Agree or disagree

If relativism is true, I don't think judging something as morally wrong is possible. Because the definition of ethical relativism is the moral standard only being correctly relative to each person/society, this means that the moral standard is created by you and/or the society you identify with and therefore eliminate the existence of an absolute moral principle. Since the moral standard is different for every individual, we cannot say that someone is morally wrong. If relativism is applied, that is. If a relativist were to say that they could judge someone as morally wrong, then that would contradict the main component of being a relativist. That every moral argument of yours is correct, therefore everyone else's is also correct. Quite problematic but that is my understanding on the matter

Having my first discussion assessment due soon but could use help, I have to explain if if I agree or don’t agree with them (I agree with both of them but not sure what to write) the response needs to be 6 sentences in length for each.

1) Give an example of when you feel that this method is the best approach.
The Socratic Method consisted of asking people questions about matters they presumably knew something about. Socrates would usually begin by asking for a definition of a concept like 'justice'. I believe it is an effective way of learning especially in a setting where it takes one a certain level of "know-how" l'd call it because it is engaging the student to stimulate their own answers and understanding. I took chemistry Summer 22' and my professor would always begin class or a new topic with a question such as "What do you think ___is?" We'd all answer. He then would say "why do you think this?" and if we were wrong he would tell us but if not, he would further explain the details behind it. So, he had me engaged from the moment he walked in. He also used a chalkboard so that brought back the nostalgia of when I was back in elementary school learning new things every day.

2) Give an example of when you feel that the Socratic method is ineffective.
I feel the Socratic method would not be effective in a courtroom. I believe this because the person being questioned will feel the need to hide what He or She knows. This will result in the complete opposite results desired from this method. Or maybe at a seminar when one's purpose is to explain and give information. For example at an apple device release.
 
 
I do believe the socratic method is a good strategy to learn because you tend to go back and forth on a discussion until you get to the point that you have been trying to prove. This way you are breaking down the discussion into smaller parts, making it easier to comprehend.
 
1) I would say the Socratic Method would be highly effective in the court of law. I have seen this play out in a few shows as well like Caso Cerrado and Dr. Phill. Where the interviewer will ask a few questions to get to the bottom of a conflict and depending on the interviewee's response, the interviewer will continue to ask questions until he/ she breaks and tells the truth or the way things actually are.
 
2) An example where the Socratic method would not work would be in a situation where the discussions has an indefinite amount of answers. For example " what is the purpose of life" ? One could argue that we are simply here as animals and our sole purpose is to repopulate the earth. On the other hand we could also say that we create our own purpose here, we decide what we will do with our lives. But who's to say that both answers are incorrect? Here the socratic method would continue in an endless loop.

I tried to solve this problem twice but i can't get the rightresults.

If a person of mass M simply moved forward with speed V, hiskinetic energy would be 1/2MV2 . However, in addition topossessing a forward motion, various parts of his body (such as thearms and legs) undergo rotation. Therefore, his total kineticenergy is the sum of the energy from his forward motion plus therotational kinetic energy of his arms and legs. The purpose of thisproblem is to see how much this rotational motion contributes tothe person's kinetic energy. Biomedical measurements show that thearms and hands together typically make up 13.0% of a person's mass,while the legs and feet together account for 37.0% . For a rough(but reasonable) calculation, we can model the arms and legs asthin uniform bars pivoting about the shoulder and hip,respectively. In a brisk walk, the arms and legs each move throughan angle of about ±30o (a total of 60o ) fromthe vertical in approximately 1 second. We shall assume that theyare held straight, rather than being bent, which is not quite true.Let us consider a 75.0 person walking at 5.00km/h having arms70.0cm long and legs 90.0cm long.

A)What is the average angular velocity of his arms and legs?

B)Using the average angular velocity from part A, calculate theamount of rotational kinetic energy in this person's arms and legsas he walks.

C)What is the total kinetic energy due to both his forwardmotion and his rotation?

D)What percentage of his kinetic energy is due to the rotationof his legs and arms?

If you want to help, you don't need to solve the whole problem.Just explain how to solve. If you understand or know how to solvethis problem, please help.