Could human natural intuitions ever be fully repressed by moral convention? Could our emotions ever be fully rationalized? Are we indeed rational beings? Is it necessary for us to be rational? What do our emotions mean? How do we direct them? In this project I will try to challenge conventional morality towards the feeling we have for something that is considered to be wrong, namely murder. I will use the method of reflective equilibrium in order to test moral philosophy and convention with the authentic human intuitions. Human life is indeed valuable but the main point is that human impulses cannot (or maybe, should not) be fully rationalized.
Category: Stage 2
Overview
– Over time the British education system has witnessed various changes, some of which have led to improvements.
– Whereas others have created further problems rather than solutions within a very diverse and complex system.
– Educational reformists such as Michael Fullan and Andy Hargreaves highlighted the following problems:
o Overload of work
o Isolation of teachers
o Lack of leadership
o Pressure of assessments
o Cost
o Poor solutions and Failed reforms
Educational Reformists Ideas
– John Dewey believed that in its “broadest sense education is the means of the social continuity of life”.
– Michael Fullan and Andy Hargreaves suggested that changes need to be made to the education system in order to make it more successful.
– Mary Evans stated that the problems in education were as a result of it being a heavily bureaucratically controlled system with limited funds.
Schiller’s Thoughts On Education
– Schiller believed that the aesthetic experience could transform an individual and their society because of what morality and education demands from them.
– Therefore he believed it was important to have a good education in order to understand art and beauty.
The cultural dominance and ubiquity of the photographic image invites an uncritical acceptance of its impact and our unconscious absorption of its information.
Knowing that it is literally a ‘trick of the light’ does little to dent our sense of its veracity – after all, our vision functions by a similar trick. The traditional problems of sense-belief apply doubly to photographs, reality is dimensionally translated and reduced, then extrapolated from the photograph by our visual and imaginative conception.
We read and imbue significance in an image, in order to make emotional and visual statements for it, without being quite aware of how we do so. Neither are we aware of what we do when we create images- selected representations of our world, isolated outside time and space – or of their violence upon us – capturing and reproducing a part of ourselves that acts as a whole, suspended in limbo; changing the way we react and perform, changing the world they are meant to mirror.
Vilém Flusser’s ‘Philosophy of Photography’, Susan Sontag’s ‘On Photography’, Roland Barthes’ ‘Camera Lucida’, and various works by Tagg, Elkins, Benjamin and others, explore the truth and utility of the semiotic and ontological interrelation, and the effect of its assumption, as well as the processes of communication of abstract meaning and emotion. By these processes, the apparatus of photography can become a social power without a master, which we feed and sacrifice for, forgetting that such systems, as with money, information, or legislation, are self-interested powers that ought to act for us.
My project is an investigation into the ETHICS OF DRUG USE.
I used questionnaires and surveys done in the last 4 years on young people and most particularly, CLUBBERS. My empirical research showed me that the WAR ON DRUGS IS LOST, as almost 2 MILLION people use illegal substances EVERY MONTH.
I found that the EFFECTS OF DRUGS are EXAGGERATED in the media to support the SOCIAL ATTITUDE OF CONDEMNATION. I presented the arguments that DAVID HUSAK, a legal philosopher, puts forward as to why DRUGS SHOULD BE LEGALISED.
I explored the MOTIVATION BEHIND DRUG USE and concluded that for most, recreational drug use consists of a HEDONISTIC SEARCH FOR PLEASURE.
I used MILL’S HARM PRINCIPLE to explain why he might not condemn drug use, since in itself, it does not harm others and also looked into his ATTITUDE TO ALCOHOL. I also looked into a possible UTILITARIAN COUNTER ARGUMENT.
GUY DEBORD and the SITUATIONISTS help us to understand the CONDEMNATION of drug use by the MEDIA.
My most interesting CONCLUSION is that while we permit the consumption of alcohol, we must also PERMIT DRUG USE.
The aim of my project is to explore the potential repercussions of the non-dichotomous relationship between the genius, the madman, their works of art and the concept that said works of art may be used for the purposes of moral edification.
The western tradition of linking art with morality began with Plato and Aristotle, who each viewed the potential of art in a different way; Plato believed art was dangerous and should be censored, whilst Aristotle believed that art could get people to emotionally engage with traumatic events that they had not yet experienced.
However, the turning point for art originated in the 18th century with the work of Kant, who cemented the relationship between art and morality by concluding that judgements concerning beautiful things were of the same nature as judgements concerning the ethical and the good.
From Kant’s work, the concept arrived in the philosophies of Schiller and Schopenhauer. Schiller believed that art was necessary in order to heal that which he saw as the fractured human spirit; beautiful art would improve the soul and return it to its proper moral course. For Schopenhauer, the beautiful was a part of the realm of Ideas, a, concept for which Schopenhauer is indebted to Plato. In turning our intellect towards the study of the beautiful, in whose realm resides also the moral, we can cancel out the influence of the will on our lives, the will which is the source of all human suffering.
These ideas form the philosophical basis of my project, in which the next step would be to apply the concepts of Schiller and Schopenhauer’s philosophy to the work of an accepted genius/madman.
For this part of the project I chose the work of Sylvia Plath, as I think she fulfils the criteria for both the genius and the madman. After her suicide, Plath left behind a rich body of poetic works, the themes of which correlate nicely with the work of Schiller and Schopenhauer. As such, I was able to examine her poetry using their philosophy and conclude that there are undeniable repercussions associated with the study of the artwork of a mad genius.
At the end of my study, I was able to discern that art, in a moral capacity, exists as somewhat of a double-edged sword and that we should be careful not to put too much faith in its ability to lead us to morality.
Aims:
To highlight the impotence, invalidity and ineffectiveness of our current economic and political systems. Whilst illustrating the detriment this causes to our social and personal lives.
To promote Anarchism as a means to securing greater freedom and liberty whilst overcoming the problems of our current system.
Thinkers:
Kropotkin – A collection of Revolutionary writings.
Nietzsche – Thus spoke Zarathustra
Chomsky – On Anarchism
In my project I discuss the effect that celebrity culture has on modern day society. The mass media have a stranglehold on what we see, what we read and what we believe through television, newspapers and the internet. It is almost inescapable but the question is does the power of the mass media and the cult of celebrity alienate us from ourselves and stunt our true desires in life?
In order to philosophically deconstruct this phenomenon my methodology revolves around the examination of the theories of Guy Debord and his notion of the spectacle, Theodor Adorno’s attack on mass culture in The Culture Industry and Karl Marx’s critique of commodity fetishism in Das Kapital.
“The more he contemplates, the less he lives; the more he identifies with the dominant images of need, the less he understands his own life and his own desires” (Debord, Society of the spectacle 16: 2004)
My Project is based upon the serial killer Ted Bundy who murdered and raped at least 30 women.
The initial preconception is that there is something ‘evil’ about Bundy.
My aim is to look beyond these initial preconceived ideas and understand the mind of Bundy by focusing on his rationality.
The philosophical concepts I will use include:
Freud’s notion of the unconscious: Investigating Bundy’s childhood in relation to the Oedipus complex. Looking at the Id, Ego, and Superego and the possible variations in neurosis and psychosis.
Kantian rationality: Transcendental rationality in the moral law vs. Instrumental rationality in the sensible world. The need for duty as opposed to inclinations. The Categorical Imperative vs. The Hypothetical Imperative and the notion of Radical Evil.
Durkheim’s social thesis: The need for serial killing in deviant behaviour. The Division of Labour on modern society. The impact of capitalism on the rise of serial killing and the concept of organic solidarity.
Each theory will give a different perspective determining to what extent Bundy is rational; the inference of this will be an evaluation of whether the initial preconceived ideas of Bundy being ‘evil’ is credible.
This year I used the topic conjoined twins in my project. I was inspired to do so after watching a channel four documentary, ‘Bodyshock: The twins who share a brain’. This featured two sets of female craniopagis (joined by the head) twins one pair 48 years older than their junior. After realising the presence of lots of sets of conjoined twins alive today I began to query far reaching questions about the nature of their life. I used these girls as empirical research and included lots of quotes from interviews with 49 year old Schappell twins Reba and Lori in order to help me answer the question above. I also read their biography, and several books about conjoined twins in general and especially their sociological transition through history.
I also used philosophy and practically applied the notion of aborting conjoined twins, to the theories of two philosophers John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant. For Mill the abortion would be acceptable according to his hedonistic greatest number principle. I argued using quotes from Mill’s work that he would opt for them to be aborted since they would inflict various levels of pain upon all those involved. Kant would not accept their abortion, he would see it as a virtue of their mother not to do this, and sees abortion in general as a non-universalizable maxim. In order to do this I read several books on the philosophers some are listed below. I then explained in my own words what each of the philosophers would say about this issue. I started my project by thinking that the quality of lives of twins eternally joined together would be very low, but by the end of the project I had completely changed my mind. I learned that conjoined twins do not mind (even favour) their situation, possibly because it is all they have known. All the evidence I found showed them stating emphatically that they would not wish for separation even if it was possible. They claimed not feeling a sense of unwillingly feeling trapped to another person as I imagined. They have also found a purpose and place among society in the twenty first century in a way that they did not in the eighteenth as were forced to join the freak show. Therefore I agreed with Mill over Kant but for different reasons and in my conclusion I argued their case using evidence of the excellent life quality conjoined twins have experienced in the past.
Sources…
Dreger, A. (2004) One of us, Conjoined Twins and the Future of Normal. Harvard University Press, London.
Mill, J S. (2001) Utilitarianism. Hackett Publishing Company, United States of America.
Guyer, P. (2006) Kant. Routledge Publishing, Abingdon.
Face to Face: The Schappell Twins (2000 United States of America) Television Broadcast. Ellen Weissbrod. New York, A&E Television Networks. Documentary and Living channel, 05/01/2000 8pm, Series 2 Episode, 3.
Aim: To determine the morality behind WikiLeaks with reference to both Kant and Mill.
•WikiLeaks aims to publish secret, confidential and classified material so it becomes freely available to the public. Julian Assange, the key spokesperson, believes that WikiLeaks will help create a freer, less corrupted world.
•Mill believed no opinion should be silenced. In order to gain a true opinion of something it is necessary to know all the facts. Therefore Mill would have been pro WikiLeaks as long as the information released posed no legitimate harm to society.
•Kant argued that publicity is required in order to have peace within a society. No information should be kept secret as this involves lying and prevents individuals from understanding their situation. According to the categorical imperative lying is always wrong. Kant would have strongly supported WikiLeaks.
With regards to Mill, I will focus mainly on his text On Liberty. I will analyse Kant’s texts The Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals and Perpetual Peace. I will use various internet sources and secondary texts in order to gain the greatest understanding of my concept and territory.
TOPIC:
• A study of how the unconvicted detainees are subject to torture through ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ in Guantanamo Bay.
• I will relate this to Mill’s Utilitarianism, in particular to the Harm Principle: people are free until they harm others.
•I will reconcile this with Mill’s On Liberty which expresses that we should maximize happiness and in the absence of harm, never restrict one’s liberty.
Discussion: Mills states that it is only in cases of self-defence or direct harm on society, in which we can intervene with restrictions. It is true that we have to safe guard the security and autonomy of everyone. Although, when human rights are violated, it is often the case the violator will perceive their action to be in the best interests of society. (Guards/workers at Guantanamo bay) This is the short fall of Guantanamo Bay, rights should not be violated but should be best calculated to promote the good.
I will explore:
1. The life of the Binyam Mohamed, held at Guantanamo Bay for five years but released without conviction.
2. What would be Mill’s response to Guantanamo Bay closing?
3. Does this pose a threat to society?
4. Are they too dangerous to set free?
5. Do we have a right to control where they are placed, inside our borders or back to their homelands?
6. If they are not convicted, is it right that we can impinge on their liberty? Surely they are FREE.
Depression is often negatively viewed by society. I aim to assess whether it is accurate that we simply class depression as a medical mental disorder or whether it should be given a new definition that gives depression a positive outlook. Depression can allow the suffering individual to undertake a philosophical journey where they are able to question, analyse and possibly reassess their lives and morals.
Questioning whether depression is just a disease or a philosophical undertaking (or both) is contemporarily relevant and relevant in history for it has affected some great thinkers who have gone on to produce major works, such as John Stuart Mill’s ‘On liberty’ that was written out of his depression, that have helped form modern society. When I question whether depression is a philosophical undertaking, what I mean by this is whether a depression can promote types of innovative thoughts (political, social and individual thoughts) that can be acted upon or written about that would not have occurred in a person who has not suffered a period of depression, like a ‘phoenix from the flame’. It is relevant to study due to the increase of diagnosed sufferers and the effects it can have on the individual and on society. I want to assess what depression is, whether it can produce innovation within the individual and, if it does cause innovative genius, whether it should, in some cases, be encouraged.
Purpose
• Key concept: the invasion of individual’s privacy in relation to public interest
• Do journalists always have the sole intention of providing us with the truth?
• Do they pursue the truth by the right means for the right reasons?
Philosophy
• Mill’s Harm Principle
• Pragmatism as a theory of truth
• Correspondence Theory of Truth
• Kant’s Moral Philosophy: Obligation
The aim: To develop a project that looked at why Britain’s happiness on the whole is in decline.
Methodology: To compare contemporary attitudes with those of the 1950’s. Is the definition of depression still the same? An examination of self-help guides. What do these manuals claim will make us happier?
Thinkers: Oliver James – A clinical psychologist and writer. His primary thoughts indicate that our relatively new ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ attitude is what is leading us to emotional distress. Nietzsche – Christianity only provides us with a sense of guilt; Buddhism is a better religion to follow.
Conclusion: Guides can provide us with a renewed sense of cheerfulness on the whole. Yet, it is important to be aware that although they have the ability to make us happy for a short period of time, they most certainly cannot cure us from anything more serious than an episode of the blues.
‘Isn’t it enough to see that the garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?’ (Adams, 2009)
Object of study – Which creation story appears to be more valid in our society. I will compare Genesis and the Big Bang theory. I will critically analyse whether science assumes that Genesis is an explanatory theory, when perhaps it is not. It is very much a scientific discourse.
I plan to find that The Big Bang theory is a better explanation of creation in today’s society, and whether an atheist can explain creation.
Richard Dawkins – The God Delusion
Kant – The Critique of Pure Reason
David Hume – Meditations concerning natural religion
Thomas Aquinas
Thomas Nagel – The View from Nowhere
My project is an investigation into the housing market and provision in Great Britain and whether its needs alteration and if so what and how. This is done by direct comparison to Danish Housing provision.
I will be looking into the current system in Britain whilst referring to three economic philosophers: Marx, Keynes and Freidman. I will also consider whether our system is satisfactory and just. In addition, I will focus on the positives and negatives of a housing economy compared with Government provision.
I took sources from the people affected by private investment housing: the tenants of the Duke of Devonshire.
In interviewed those in council housing and those who owned privately.
I also looked into Government rental documents and the statistics in the private housing market in the Estate Agent ‘Savills’ review
Philosophy
• Kant’s theory of punishment is based on desert and not about consequences. It insists on retribution. (Kant, Groundwork)
• Utilitarianism appeals to consequences, hence reparation programmes and deterrence. Yet if a severe crime creates greater consequences then it should be carried out regardless of desert. (Mill, Utilitarianism)
Territory
• America demonstrates a penal system of harsh retributive punishment and also harsh utilitarian forms of punishment. (Death penalty, 3 strikes)
• Scandinavia utilitarian in its aims of reparation and prevention
• UK show like America a combination yet is more focussed on probation programmes than America.
Project Aims
– To outline the differences in penal systems in Scandinavia, UK and America
– To demonstrate the effectiveness of various forms of punishment.
– To demonstrate how these countries’ penal systems reflect Kantian retribution and utilitarianism
– To critically compare these approaches
Aims:
– Personal work on an issue that interests me
– An issue that relates to possible career path
– Increase understanding of poverty
– Look into solving poverty
– Seeing whether the systems we live by are moral
– Questioning the status quo of my society
Grounding:
– Economist Paul Collier, author of background book
– Marx, philosopher and sociologist, author of Communist manifesto
Outcome:
Capitalism is the answer to solving poverty, communism is not applicable, nor desired, it cannot come into being without capitalism. In order to alleviate world poverty, capitalist society must embrace the third world into our bosom, aid, investment, trade, military intervention and laws, will elevate the third world out of poverty.
Territory: My aim is to look at modern day writers who focus their studies on the concept of past lives; mainly focusing on Dr Brian Weiss M. D., who claims to have aided over four thousand patients through their mental and physical pains through past life regression. I shall also be comparing the findings from Weiss’ work to beliefs which are rooted in Buddhism and trying to discover whether the work studied by Weiss allows people ‘a gateway to the spiritual peace’ which Buddhism claims we can develop through meditation. I have also looked at writers such as Shakti Gawain who describes the concept of ‘creative visualization’ to help me understand the power of positive thought and will.
Concepts: I shall focus on Nietzsche’s work in ‘The Antichrist,’ where Nietzsche’s negative attitude towards Christianity implies that the religion is stopping people from ‘truly living’ and where he argues that Christianity makes people ‘weak’ as we no longer are willed to do what is right but we merely obey forces with more power than ourselves.
Using Nietzsche and Weiss I shall compare Christianity and Buddhism and find the positives and negatives of each contrasting religion or belief.
“God is Dead”
Stephen Hawking stated in “The Grand Design” (2010) that “philosophy is dead”, and certainly as far as furthering our understanding of the physical nature of the Universe, that job seems much better suited to physicists than Priests and Theologians. However this increasingly empiricist attitude of society has lead to a crisis of values and an onset of nihilism.
It’s my opinion that of all the philosophers I’ve studied Friedrich Nietzsche, despite dying over a Century ago, grasps and provides the most convincing answer to the potentially valueless existence we face today. Nietzsche’s answer isn’t a normative one however but is in need of personal study and analysis by all who seek to learn something from it.
Go Beyond Good and Evil by journeying through time and Space
I’ve chosen to use “Doctor Who” (2005-present) as a way of interpreting and critiquing Nietzsche’s moral philosophy.
I feel I’m justified in this comparison given the immensely positive critical reception of this series which is often praised for being innovative and challenging, recently being described as a show that: “makes your mind work…” by the site www.avtoday.co.uk.
And Crucially the head producers Russell T Davies and Stephen Moffat have not only got a reputation for exploring deep philosophical issues with their dramas in a way that often borders on the unnerving, but both their runs of “Doctor Who” have been characterized by an undeniably existentialist and atheistic edge. Going so far as to pit the protagonist against the devil itself!