Unit 4: The Individual (ETHICS)

Meaning of Life: Leo Tolstoy - A Confession:

How would you characterize Tolstoy’s state of mind?

Tolstoy is in a state of depression. He has lost his will and purpose to live and feels the need to end his life. He sees far too much pain in living and cannot find happiness.

Meaning of Life: Leo Tolstoy - A Confession:

Why does Tolstoy believe that the natural sciences cannot provide him with any answer to his question? Do you agree?

Tolstoy believes that the natural sciences cannot provide him with any answer to his question because they don't even address the concept of life and consider life as temporary and accidental. Sciences like astrophysics and biology failed to answer his question "What is the meaning of life?"

Meaning of Life: Leo Tolstoy - A Confession:

Do you agree with Tolstoy's answer to the question "How am I to live?” Why? Support your position.

I agree with Tolstoy's answer that believing in faith guides us on how we should live and gives meaning to one's life. I feel that faith allows people to believe in existing beyond life on Earth and lets us have less fear for the end of our lives, allowing us to live more freely.

Meaning of Life: Leo Tolstoy - A Confession:

What kinds of knowledge does Tolstoy distinguish?

Tolstoy distinguishes between rational knowledge and irrational knowledge. According to him, rational knowledge is understanding the sciences that concern the state of the mind, such as philosophy. Irrational knowledge provides us with notions to believe in so that we can support our will to live. He believes that rational knowledge looks at life somewhat exclusively while irrational knowledge provides more importance to life.

Meaning of Life: Epicurus - Epicurus to Menoeceus:

Why is the study of philosophy important?

The study of philosophy is important because it is concerned with the health of the soul. Understanding philosophy trains us to live a fulfilled life where our actions continuously aim to better our physical/mental health.

Meaning of Life: Epicurus - Epicurus to Menoeceus:

When Epicurus speaks of pleasure as the main goal in life, what does he mean to say?

When Epicurus speaks of pleasure as the main goal in life, he means that pleasure and the absence of pain are the only two true goods. He states that evil and good are sensations, and anything that doesn't cause pain or pleasure is a matter of indifference. DEATH is a loss of sensation therefore we cannot feel anything anymore. DEATH ends it all we don't have to worry about death because the sensation ends.

Is Dying an Evil? Lucretius - On the Nature of the Universe:

Why do we not have to fear death, according to Lucretius?

Lucretius believes we do not have to fear death because there is no real pain that occurs to us when we're dead, and that death itself has no relevance in our lives except for the definition of the end. He states that it's foolish of us to fear death because we then cause more pain by fearing it than death causes itself.

Is Dying an Evil? Lucretius - On the Nature of the Universe:

Lucretius compares the time before we were born to the time after we are dead. Why does he make that comparison? Do you agree with his conclusion?

Lucretius compares the time before we're born to the time after we're dead because they are both times when no pain or pleasure occurs. Thus, he believes they are equal in indifference. I understand where he's coming from because both of these times are devoid of physical life. However, I don't agree with this conclusion, because the time before birth is filled with potential and the development of the soul, while the time after death is the end of the motion of life and starts a new journey of the soul's existence in the afterlife.

Is Dying an Evil? Lucretius - On the Nature of the Universe:

What is your vision of hell? What does Lucretius tell us about hell?

My vision of hell is a red-hot fiery underworld, where the souls of those who lived their lives to do or spread evil go to be punished in their afterlives. Lucretius believes that hell doesn't exist in the afterlife because one cannot bear eternal pain. Instead, he says that hell is a concept reflected in the lives of fools because our characteristics of hell are displayed in those lives. He claims that we reject all of the bad things in the world and the concept of hell.

Is Dying an Evil: Parfit - Why We Should not Be Biased Towards the FutureIs Dying an Evil: Parfit - Why We Should not Be Biased Towards the Future:

What does Parfit mean by our bias towards the future, and what does he think about it?

Parfit means that our bias towards the future is that we care more for events in the future than past events. He thinks we would be happier if we viewed the future and the past as equal.

Is Dying an Evil: Parfit - Why We Should not Be Biased Towards the FutureIs Dying an Evil: Parfit - Why We Should not Be Biased Towards the Future:

What are the characteristics of the person called “Timeless”?

The characteristics of "Timeless" are that they are persistent, content, and optimistic. They view the events of the past and the possibilities of the future as equal in importance.

Is Dying an Evil: Parfit - Why We Should not Be Biased Towards the FutureIs Dying an Evil: Parfit - Why We Should not Be Biased Towards the Future:

How does the bias towards the future affect Lucretius’ argument [please note: Parfit refers to it as Epicurus’ argument] that our attitude towards our future non-existence should be the same as the attitude towards our past non-existence.

Our bias toward the future affects Lucretius' argument because we are selective in what we look back on from the past, and often we regret things of the past, so then we fear things in the future. According to Parfit, the only way Lucretius' argument works is if we don't have a bias towards the future and we don't regret the past, which no human is currently capable of. BIASED to the future is more important than the past. We have past experience that influence out future outlook.

Is Dying an Evil: Parfit - Why We Should not Be Biased Towards the FutureIs Dying an Evil: Parfit - Why We Should not Be Biased Towards the Future:

How does Parfit support his statement that we should not be greatly troubled, if we have nothing to look forward to?

He supports his experiment with a thought experiment/diagram. Being at the end of one's life is similar to being at the start of one's life because they each have little to regret. Parfit claims that we should not be greatly troubled if we have an equal outlook on both the past and future. If we are at the beginning of life, we have nothing to look back to and we can only look toward the future. If we are at the end of life, while we may not have anything to look forward to, we still have all of our past to look back on.

Is Dying an Evil: Parfit - Why We Should not Be Biased Towards the FutureIs Dying an Evil: Parfit - Why We Should not Be Biased Towards the Future:

Why would we be happier, if we were like “Timeless”?

We would be happier if we were like "Timeless" because we would have an equal amount of joy and lessons learned for the future because they mirror the joys and mistakes of the past. Thus, we would be contemptuous of both the past and the future.

Is Dying an Evil: Glover - Suicide and Gambling with Life:

a) What are the views Glover is arguing against, and b) what is his own position?

Glover argues against the view that suicide doesn't raise a moral question because it's either a symptom of mental disturbance or the free choice of an individual. His position is that suicide raises moral questions for the person who wants to commit suicide and the people trying to prevent suicide.

Is Dying an Evil: Glover - Suicide and Gambling with Life:

What kinds of suicidal and near suicidal acts does Glover distinguish?

He distinguishes suicidal acts as people who kill themselves in conformity with altruistic motives, people who are happy but kill themselves as a result of temporary depression, and people who kill themselves to escape from pain or incurable illness. He claims that near-suicidal acts are either a gamble on life or a cry for help that may end one's life but doesn't have the full intent to do so.

Is Dying an Evil: Glover - Suicide and Gambling with Life:

What do you think it means to gamble with one’s life? Do you know people who gamble with their lives? What do they do?

I think to gamble with one's life means to have less care about whether someone lives a longer or healthier life, and instead do acts that have the risk of ending one's life. In Glover's terms, I do know a couple of people who gamble with their lives, due to excessive drinking. However, they don't attempt to end their lives, they just simply struggle with an addiction.

Is Dying an Evil: Glover - Suicide and Gambling with Life:

What are the two moral questions Glover raises with regard to people who choose death or risk death?

The two moral questions that Glover raises about people who choose death or risk death are "Should they kill themselves or risk their lives?" and "Should other people intervene to prevent suicide?" They both rely on predicting the future, which is challenging and makes it hard for the individual to find the best answer for themselves.

Is Dying an Evil: Glover - Suicide and Gambling with Life:

If we contemplate suicide, what are the questions we should ask ourselves?

If we contemplate suicide, we should ask ourselves "What would my own future life be like, and would it be worth living?" and "What effect would my decision to kill or not kill myself have on other people?" For question 1, we must calculate how likely or unlikely it is for life to improve. We must also talk to loved ones and consider a less radical step. For question 2, we must calculate how our loved ones would be affected by our death. We must ask whether people would be better off if we were dead. They must also consider the emotions of others who will be affected and how much they contribute to society. These are difficult questions to answer because we believe our lives are so bad that they are no longer worth living. However, we should talk to others to find an alternate and healthier solution.

Is Dying an Evil: Glover - Suicide and Gambling with Life:

What are the principles that should guide intervention? What are, according to Glover, the implications of the principle of autonomy for suicide-intervention? Do you agree?

The two principles that should guide intervention are that it's desirable to save a life worth living and it's also desirable to respect a person's autonomy. These two principles can conflict, because you may want to save the person but they may want to end their life. According to Glover, the principle of autonomy makes it so that you can persuade a suicidal person to not kill themselves at least once, but they should decide on whether to end or continue their life on their merit. He also says that you must save the maximum number of worthwhile lives with respect to the person's autonomy, meaning that you must also limit the number of times you prevent the person from killing themselves. Eventually, if the person keeps trying to commit suicide, you need to let them go and do as they wish with their lives. RESPECT the autonomy of the person

Is Dying an Evil: Glover - Suicide and Gambling with Life:

Do you think that intervention is justified when someone places his or her own life at risk?

I think that intervention is justified when someone places their life at risk because we have the right to preserve a life that is worth living. We should think about the benefits that result from taking the risk, the degree of the risk, and the consequences of the various kinds of intervention.