GRADING FOR BLOG POST 3 HAS ENDED

SINCE GRADING FOR BLOG POST 3 (ON LOGIC) HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE, PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY MORE REPONSES TO THE QUESTION OR POST COMMENTS ON THE BLOG ITSELF.

IF YOU WANT LATE CREDIT, JUST TYPE UP YOUR POSTS AND RESPONSES TO POSTS, PRINT THEM OUT, AND TURN THEM IN DIRECTLY TO ME.

IF YOU POST THEM HERE A THIS POINT, I WILL NOT KNOW TO GIVE YOU LATE CREDIT.

THANKS,

Mr. B

Boswell's Response to the Group

Since a lot of the posts were similar, I wanted to respond to everyone in a single posting.

The one thing that I was surprised to see missing in your posts was the idea that most people don't even know what logic IS. They merely know how to sound logical. How well did you understand it until I drilled Aristotle's logical approach to discussing categories into you? Isn't much of the problems we have with people making logical arguments is due to the fact that their arguments aren't very logical? How many people could explain why one of these was logical and one of these was not?

All A is B.
All B is C.
Therefore, all A is C.

All A is B.
All B is C.
Therefore, all C is A.

If we all understood that there are RULES for the way we INFER things, wouldn't we be "right" more often in our arguments?

Many of you did bring up the idea that logic is more concerned with validity than truth, but are these things so distinct? If truth is something we discover, then we're not going to know we've found it if we're not methodical about it, right?

I was intrigued by the idea that logic is missing a spiritual element. I think there is something to that. Our capacity to understand life is limited in that humans are neither perfectly logical nor perfectly emotional. We rarely have all the facts; our perceptions are skewed by experience and by our natural tendency to stereotype and self-affirm. Our objectivity is often clouded, and we are thus apt to use premises that only seem certain to draw conclusions that only seem certain. Science tries very hard to be objective and has many controls in place to make this happen, but the bottom line is there is an infinite number of hypothesis out there. Until each an everyone is tested, science can't be certain about anything.

Having said that, I'd be cautious about dismissing knowledge as a grey area where nothing is certain. For starters, that statement doesn't hold water: if nothing is certain, even the statement that nothing is certain is uncertain. It doesn't get us anywhere. What's important to understand is that certainty is elusive (and we should remember that when we try to convince people that we're right).

Finally, a few of you said Euclid was "wrong" somehow. That needs some rethinking. His assumption about the 5th postulate being true has never been proven wrong any more than it has been proven right. No one has come up with a way to prove it, that's all. Lobechevski was trying to prove it by showing it's opposite would create contradictions. As it turned out, it didn't create any. So now we have two ideas about parallel lines that are both possibly true. Which takes us back to the idea that certainty is elusive.

Blog Post 3

I think that J.W. Krutch may be somewhat correct when he says that "logic is the art of going wrong with confidence," but that his assertion doesn't apply in every situation. Going by logic doesn't always lead to "going wrong," and it absolutely doesn't always lead to going right. I think that what he may really mean is that logic gives people a false sense of security and confidence, whether it leads them the right or wrong way, and I agree. When one uses logic to come to a certain conclusion, and their argument is logically sound, he or she may take it as a given that their conclusion is therefore correct when actually one of their beginning assumptions may have been wrong. However, I think it's probably too much of a generalization to say that logic is always going to lead people to go wrong with confidence, because logic can be a useful tool in backing up sound arguments as long as the assumptions the logical statement is based off of are correct, and as long as the tool of logic is used in the right way.

"Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence." by J.W. Krutch

My own interpretation of the quote above: The quote, by J.w. Krutch, suggests that logic in a sense does not exist but rather it is an idea or term that has a sense of confidence attached to it and therefore is believed to be logical and true. This logic may in, some cases actually be wrong, however the amount of legitamancy it is believed to have or the amount of confidence a society has about its accuracy makes the statement a logical one.

On the other hand, All logic was formed some way or another in order to progress as a society and create a system in which all can function. We must have some boundaries in order to survive and though this logic is quite possibly false, it is infact true because the society makes it true. A statement, in my opinion, can still be true if it is wrong because the society has accepted it as true and have functioned around it.

In my opinion it is very possibly that all logic is in fact false but we must accept it in order to progress as a human race. For example the Euclid logic asked us to simply accept certain logic in order to move forward in understanding Geometry however how can we ever truly know if what Euclid told us is true? We cant and therefor logic is often times ( or at least possibly) actually false however our society has built around such logic which in a way makes the logic in fact true.

Blog Post #3

When thinking about logic I try to believe that if something is logical it makes sense. After all logic dictates that, in the alphabet, A always comes after B and C comes next and so on and so forth. Logic is how we order ourselves by those few undeniable truths. If we didnt have those few rules nobody could agree on anything. For example if we didn't have the ABC rule I mentioned above nobody would be able to learn anything, maybe because one student learned that B always came after C while the student sitting next to him learned C always comes after B. We would never be able to agree on most things and would, in the worst case scenario, not advance as a society.

However, the quote "Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence." by J.W. Krutch got me thinking about the infallibility of those rules. One person could commit a terrible type of crime under the same logic that in his own mind is as simple and unbendable as the ABC rule. Everyone has different opinions on things. To a color blind person some colors may not exist or be other colors in their eyes. The only way a complicated claim can be logic is if you find someone else who agrees with you. If not then there will always be one loophole in your statement for someone else to exploit.

The conclusion that I have come to about logic is that outside of those few truths you are only truly right if someone agrees with what you are saying and/or you sound convincing enough to recruit people to your way of thinking. So you could go the wrong way, just make sure you're convincing about it.

I agree with the statement made by american writer, critic, and naturalist J. W. Krutch's quote "Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence." I feel this way because today, people of this world dare not to challenge there human intelligence or stand up for any opposing logics in which the posses. For example, in today's society we go by principles that were established by other human beings, only for the fact that that has just how its been for centuries. By us doing so, we are not exercising the mind and brain itself on our logic. In other words, by abiding to other peoples logics, we have simply put down our confidence on what we think is right and wrong, etc. Having logic provides one with great confidence because for example in a scenario in which you are having an argument with another person, the logic that you provide and consume of with will offer you a great deal of confidence that the point of view you are defending is valid and effective.

Blog 3

“Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.”

Logic is the process of reasoning in a clear and capable manner. A logical syllogism consists of three phrases. Two individual premises are first stated, with the third being a conclusion that results from those first two premises. When perfectly constructed, the syllogism cannot be argued against. This type of confidence is powerful when used correctly. Still, there are many cases in which a logical syllogism can be used to create a falsehood even with full confidence in the argument. For example:

All apples are oranges.

All oranges are tomatoes.

Therefore, all apples are tomatoes.

While we all know that this is a false statement, it is still a perfectly logical syllogism. With the confidence I can put into any argument, I can still effectively make it logically sound no matter how ridiculous the substance of it is. However if the first two premises can be agreed upon, and when perfectly constructed, the syllogism’s logic cannot be denied.

Blog Resonse 3

“Logic is neither a science or an art, but a dodge.”

Science is the search for knowledge and understanding of the natural world. When we hear that something is scientifically proven we are most likely to believe that over "because i said so" reasoning. Our knowledge of the natural world is based on the carefully observed and consistent observations and experiments.

Art on the other hand is a persons personal interpretation of the world surrounding them. You cant be wrong in art because its a personal interpretation.

Logic on the other hand is neither one of these two. It is merely the analysis of the argument, it is not looking for the answer. It is dodging the search for the answer and is only analyzing the argument.

Blog Response 3

To assess the words of Benjamin Jowett, who said “Logic is neither a science nor an art, but a dodge,” one must define science and art.

Science is generally accepted as knowledge based on facts that come from direct observations and experiments. Science is precise; it deals with life and questions in a systematic manner. Art is slightly more difficult to define – art takes its surroundings and observations and produces a thing in it of itself. Art does not claim to be sterile and fair, it is often imbedded with personal opinions and judgments based on intangible ideas such as aesthetics. The “art” of producing something, be it a painting, a sonnet, or a family strives towards an intangible ideal that can vary from individuals and cultures.

Assuming that Jowett defines art and science in a somewhat similar way, you now know that logic is not these things. It does not necessarily depend upon hard facts or the appealing nature of things. Unlike science, logic does not need to be experiment in order to prove theories. Unlike art, logic has no humane aspect that responds to stimuli and beauty.

One could argue against Jowett and say that logic is indeed a science and an art. Logic, as we all witnessed when testing syllogisms, can employ a set of standards or laws. In order for a statement to be logical and therefore valid, it must be preceded by two premises. The three statements have to meet certain requirements in a fashion similar to science which also must meet certain requirements – for example, all experiments must have independent, dependent, and control variables in order to be valid and prove something. Logic can be considered an art because it is a way of making sense of the world around you in a neat fashion. It responds to events and applies a unique approach to making sense.

I think the point of Jowett’s words is that by using logic, you conclude nothing and produce nothing. Rather than sticking to the factual side of information or more emotionally charged information, you waver in between by using logic. Logic can be seen as an excuse or cop out because a methodical approach is applied but there is no true meaning or evidence behind the logic. Science has the support of facts, experiments, concrete evidence to support it and help it hold weight. Art and the art of action have such an intangible humanness to it that it can impress ideas on others and also comes with a personal satisfaction. Logic offers none of these things, it is rather a dead end or a dodge in that the person employing logic fails to reach a decision.

Logic and

“Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.”
Euclid could be said to have gone wrong with confidence. He wrote about geometry and made hundreds of theorems based on a few propositions which most people would believe to be true. If these propositions are considered true the geometry all makes sense and there are no contradictions. It would not be prudent to assume from this that this must be the way the world works. Nicholas Lobachevski, in his Theory of Parallels proved that these propositions don't have to be true for geometry to make sense. He denied the fifth postulate in The Elements and ended up with different but equally valid conclusions about geometry.
This example illustrates that logic can lead someone to conclusions that aren't accurate. To come up with valid conclusions there have to be premises with which to work. Euclid no doubt made his premises based on what he had observed to start his logic of geometry off. But he has no proof for his propositions. You might say that he has based them on what he has observed. But as we have seen in our previous areas of study one cannot trust their senses entirely.
We see from geometry that logic is not the perfect tool for knowledge. The premises on which it is based are not certainly correct. Euclid based all of his knowledge on premises which aren't proven. he was sure that what he learned was absolutely true. But then Lobachevski proved he wasn't certainly correct. Euclid was 'wrong with confidence;' he firmly believed in what wasn't necessarily true. Another example of someone being wrong with confidence is someone who based all their beliefs on what someone else told them. Logic for them could lead to some terrible conclusions if they are being fed incorrect facts the whole time.

Blogpost #3

"Logic is neither a science or an art, but a dodge".”

I would say that logic is the study of arguments and it is one kind of critical thinking. Sometimes is it translated as a sentence or a reason, but that is still not enough to help us understand the more specialized meaning of it today. There are many principles, but the main thing that we study in logic are principles governing the validity of arguments. If you take three arguments that are obviously good arguments but only in the sense that their conclusions follow from the assumptions. If the assumptions of the arguments are true, the conclusion of the argument must also be true. Some claim that logic is the study of truth, and is the most basic and fundamental science. While every science aims at truth, logic is the science of truth itself. It tries to discover the truth about the truth.

blog response

“Logic is neither a science or an art, but a dodge.” Logic is the ability to place complete trust behind your ideas, and define them as knowledge. Logic is often considered to be an object that is gained/discovered through thorough investigation and knowledge of other similar facts. However, logic is obtained through placing complete faith in abstract ideas and relating them to a topic. An example of this, is the recently obtained remedies to common illnesses such as cancer. Though the cure has yet to be found, often times medicines that help aide cancer are discovered through the mixing of random chemicals and simply “hoping for the best”. Often times, though not always, most medicines are obtained through taking a dodge. This can also be proven through Euclid’s discovery of geometry. Euclid’s method of geometry was definitely a dodge. He used abstract ideas and common knowledge to collate ideas.

I also believe that not all knowledge is achieved through taking a dodge. There are some instances that involve serious investigation, analysis and reasoning to create a conclusion and obtain logic. An example of this is crime science analysis. A crime scene analysts uses distinct research to compare reasoning and gain logic behind their topic.

Blog Response 3

The best way I know how to describe the world/our existence is this: it’s all grey area. So, when we promote an opinion or idea we are inevitably incorrect in some capacity. How, then, do people convince others that they are right? How do they lobby their beliefs and get others to join their side? Confidence.

“Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.”

I agree with JW Krutch in this statement. Logic in the Aristotelian sense is the study of the argument. It is not the study of truth, or of fact, or even a measure of one’s knowledge. When you perfect your argument, you perfect your logic, regardless of how technically correct your idea is.

So it is the layout of your argument, the presentation of your ideas, (your “confidence”) which determines the success of your logic. Logical reasoning as we’ve learned it consists of a premise, another premise, and a conclusion. The difficult part is not composing a conclusion. The difficulty rests in getting your audience to agree with your premises.

If with my confidence I can convince my audience that

All red is green

and

All green is white,

then my audience will inevitably and unfailingly agree that all red is white.

Obviously that’s not true. But with the confidence I employed both in constructing my argument and delivering it, I have successfully convinced an audience that two completely separate colors are the same. That is effective reasoning.

So ultimately, we should not view a persuasive syllogism as “the truth”, but we can credit the composer with having the strength and confidence to win the argument.

Blog Post 3

I agree with J.W. Krutch's quote "Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence" because the logic we see today we dare not to challenge it because it has been around society for such a long period of time. Logic does give people confidence because when you are arguing a certain point of view of a issue the logic you use will definitely make you feel confident that what you just said is indeed valid. As i pointed out earlier in society we don't really dare to attack some of the logic put out because we just want to agree with what we are told instead of thinking for ourselves and challenging it. I am not sure if logic is a type of art I do believe that logic does require confidence because you need to have confidence that your argument is valid even though it might not.

Blog Response #3

"Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence."
Obviously logic gives a person confidence, whatever the message or argument. Because of how precisely Aristotle mapped out his version of logic, and the way it all fits together, if someone sets up an argument with his method, the logic should be flawless, and therefore at least half of the reasoning should be flawless. For teh most part, Aristotle's logic is generally accepted today as the model of good reasoning, and syllogisms are still studied in law school today. Aristotelian logic being wrong would uproot much of our present society. That isn't to say that there is no way Aristotelian logic is false, but I find that it makes sense, especially in the context of our present society.
However, even if one takes Aristotle's logic as The Truth, it is only as good as the premises used themselves. As can be seen from Euclid's geometry, some premises are too strange to be taken as true--like postulate five, which Lobachevsky and others have tried to disprove. If postulate five were wrong, most of what Euclid concluded would be wrong, and then many of the theorems we take for truth would also be wrong. Krutch would be right that Euclid was wrong--but so confidently wrong that the rest of us believe him.
So, logic can be the art of going wrong with confidence, but only with faulty premises. If a premise is accepted and "right", however, logic should deliver someone to a correct answer. So it is probably more suitable to say that incorrect premises are the art of going wrong with confidence.

Blog Post 3 Response

I agree with J.W. Krutch when he said, "Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence." Logical things are only considered correct when we have no other way to prove that it is wrong. Rather then trying to go against what sounds accurate, we find it easier to nod our heads and agree

with what is being "proven." Therefore, this instills a sense of false confidence in someone. Yet,

is it really "false" if it can not be proven any other way? I believe this question is what we ponder on a daily basis, yet, choose to look past. If everyone was constantly trying to provide evidence

that everyone in the world was wrong in their theories, we would have no progress in anything.

Although, I am not sure if I support his theory that logic is an art. Yes, it requires a certain way of thinking, but most of the time it is the most obvious information available.

BLOG POST #3: THE POWER OF LOGIC AND REASONING

In light of our lessons on Aristotelian logic and Euclid’s use of it, reflect on one of the following quotations:

a. by American writer, critic, and naturalist J.W. Krutch: “Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.”

b. by English scholar and theologian Benjamin Jowett: “Logic is neither a science or an art, but a dodge.”

The best responses will discuss both the inherent strengths and weaknesses of deductive reasoning.

POST DUE: Tuesday, December 21 by start of class.
2 RESPONSES TO POSTS DUE: Thursday, December 23 by the start of class.

Note: Remember to create your own post for your main response (your teacher modeled this in class). That way, people will be able to click on the word “comment” below your post to respond to what you said.

GRADING FOR BLOG POST 2 HAS ENDED

SINCE GRADING FOR BLOG POST 2 (IS THERE A WAY WE OUGHT TO BEHAVE?) HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE, PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY MORE REPONSES TO THE QUESTION OR POST COMMENTS ON THE BLOG ITSELF.

IF YOU WANT LATE CREDIT, JUST TYPE UP YOUR POSTS AND RESPONSES TO POSTS, PRINT THEM OUT, AND TURN THEM IN DIRECTLY TO ME.

IF YOU POST THEM HERE A THIS POINT, I WILL NOT KNOW TO GIVE YOU LATE CREDIT.

THANKS,

Mr. B

Blog post 2

I believe that when it comes to power there should always be a limit as to how much the people in power should have. This has been proven over time with people like hitler or stalin who managed to become dictators and have no limits to their power which led them to abuse their power in such a way that it is unforgivable. I am not saying that our form of government is not perfect because it is flawed in many aspects but its system of checks and balances has kept this country running and it does not allow for the rise of dictators. In the case of the Athenians over taking the Melians, is the perfect example about the abuse of power. Just because the Athenians had more power, it does not mean that that they should simply just storm in and take over. There is however the exception, just like Hitler other foreign powers came and overthrew the gov't allowing the people from being denied their natural rights of free will. I do not believe that because i don't wish to exercise power means i have weakness it more like wise. By not over stepping ones boundaries keeps things at peace.

Blog response 2

If people had no restraints on their power, then we wouldn’t have had such a thing as justice and the different between right and wrong. I strongly belive that the reason for our actions comes from our moral. We are suppose to know what is right and wrong. The way the Athenians acted is not right at all, even though it is another time then from right now, doesn’t that make it more ok. Even though they did gain the military advantage, they also had to take the consequences. After killing so many men, didn't they gain the trust of the Melians.

It is not really a way to stop a person in power from do as they want. But I think that in many cases the stronger should have a lot of power in order, as long as no one is harmed from their beliefs and actions.

blog #2

I say that might does make right. The reason is natures way. The Lion can eat the zebra if it is strong enough to kill it. Also if might does not equal right than everybody has to divide there wealth equally with everyone in the world. You wouldnt have the right to live better than any body else on the planet. Fundimentally, might does make right. But, the basic most primitive technology for securing a claim or and idea is a showing of superior force. However, securing a claim based on superior force has little ablility to ensure this because philosophy ensures that a claim or idea is protected. In this case, might does not make right.

Blog Post two

I agree with you Mr. Boswell that moral codes can not necessarily be written out before hand or one set of rules applies to everyone because over many years and in many various countries, these rules change and differ. I do believe however that there should be a set of laws or rights of and for each human being and whether they are followed in each country is something entirely different. Each human is entitled to a very basic set of rights which is then expanded upon or restricted in various countries and periods of time however there has always, in my opinion, been a foundation for rights. There is much evidence that these rights have been broken in various scenarios however they still exist and each human is entitled to them.

To be in power is almost an oxymoron because those in power are always slaves of those they rule. They must always find a way to stay in power and therefore they never truly gain absolute power. I believe each human has his own power or right which returns to the moral code i believe exists in each community, country, etc.

The Melians were following a basic moral code and claimed the land upon discovering it first however the Athenians broke this moral code when they chose to kill all the inhabitants of the island. This does not mean that such a moral code did not exist, it simply means the Athenians broke this almost unspoken moral code and exercised power over the Melians.

I will say that i myself can not describe one set of rules that all societies have always followed but i believe basic human instinct leaves each of us with some type of understanding of our rights.

Blog question 2 dtg

I believe that people don't inherently have rights that cannot be taken away. As stated in earlier posts whoever has the power can do whatever they want. That's what it means to have absolute power: nobody can stop you from doing what you want. However if the ruled really don't like the way you run things when in power they may rise up and try to take your right, and ability, to rule, and become the authority themselves. So staying in power means not just doing what you want, but also keeping subjects from taking your power.
I don't believe there are a completely objective set of rules of conduct with regard to how one should be ruled. There can't be a moral code that guides our actions for all people for all time. For example, the rights we would say are inalienable now we unheard of two thousand years ago. And the moral code in one modern society will differ greatly from other societies. This shouldn't suggest however that there are no morals at all, just that they aren't the same for every person ever. There definitely are morals that we should follow. The bully who takes another kid's lunch money is obviously going against these morals.
In the case of the Melians and the Athenians these morals come into play. The Melians argued that they were right, and their right to the island should stop the Athenians from taking it. they didn't have some objective right to it though, they just happened to be there first. the Athenians taking it wasn't a breach of morals. The text does say that they killed all the Melians after they won. This is a breach of morals. Here they obviously were angry that the Melians had not conceded without a fight. to get revenge they murdered everyone, and surely they justified this by saying that there is no such thing as a right or a moral.

Yes, I highly believe that they should have restrained themselves and that countries or any empire should in fact adaopt a level of restraint on the amount of power one has. I say this becuase without this restraint in power the world and or the region that is being governed with be in terms "a mess". Choatic, and things wouldn't flow as how they should. Yes this is a sign of weakness though not all signs are certain and permanent. One can always regain control and rebound with much more strength then before. In the Peloponnesian War excerpt by Thucydides, the Athenians were without a doubt extremely more powerful than the Melians who were far under them in class status. However, rather than taking control and "stepping all over them" they opted to instead engage their power into negotiating with the nobles of Island. Though, when they know that they can easily just take over and conquer them so that there will be no need for any type of negotiation becuase the Melians are much weaker than them. What is being displayed by the Athenians are there loyal character, and restraint or power. Now, in my opinion this does not make the Athenians powerless or weaker than before. Being fair is apart of your responsibility with power.

Blog Post 2

What humans "ought to do" has been an age old principle with no clear answer. I believe that this could go both ways.

In a way, I agree with how the Athenians acted because it is almost irrefutable to say that the weak could overcome those stronger then them in a psychical stand point. Technically, the stronger should have more power since there is no one to stand in there way. Yet, over centuries there have been many examples to prove this statement wrong in the sense of politics and culture.

I believe that in many cases the stronger should have power in order to ensure productivity, as long as no one is harmed in the process due to size or beliefs. There is a democratic and humane way to execute power despite size. Though, if threatened individuals are guaranteed the right to fight back and retaliate, much like the Melians.

There are endless ways to defend each point of view, but in the end, power is equipped with a set of morals, boundaries and questioning of character. Such as do "rights" really exist? If they do, who has the authority to give them if a higher power is out of the question? It is a question of culture as well as restraint to act out against others because of behavior.

To conclude, there is no correct answer, none the less an answer at all, to which morals are correct or appropriate. Ideas and other politically correct statements will continue to be examined for years to come.

Societies should have some mutually agreed upon boundaries on conduct otherwise the society becomes a time bomb. There would be no functioning government laws or fair justice system because nobody would be able to agree on what should be outlawed or punished. There have to be if not rules guidelines and the either the majority or the people near the top of the chain of command would make those guidelines. That is an example of might makes right.

Some people have their own internal guidelines that they set for themselves, call it a moral compass, a conscience or voice of experience, there is a little voice inside everybody's head that says do or don't do that. You could say that it is keeping us from doing what we want by telling us what could happen, or in some cases what we are doing to the other person.

In the Pelopennisian Wars section I believe that the Athenians should have restrained themselves on the matter of the Melians, if nothing else than as a good faith gesture to show they mean no harm to the other islands. I can't help but think of those actions and the long term consequences. The act of standing down could work in the Athenians favor by giving them allies in the war against Sparta. The Melians could ally with the Spartans and rise up against the hold the Athenians who would lose lives and waste resources by trying to hold off an uprising that could have been avoided with a compromise. This isnt a naive gesture of fairness it is a calculated move that could work in the favor of all parties

Blog post #2

It's true that might makes right in that those in power usually decide what the definition of "right" is--as in, what is lawfully considered "right." However, might does not make right in that individual conscience is up to the individual. No matter how much people in power control the definition of right, they can never definitively control anyone's individual conscience. I think there are two separate definitions of right--the "right" that is publicly and legally enforced, and the "right" that guides individuals to act as they do. If there was a political party in power that legalized rape, for instance, it would mean that rapists would not be punished legally for straying from what is right. However, most people's conscience would probably prevent them from raping anyone, because the definition of right would not seem right to them. In other words, true right is not up to the majority but up to the individual, while political and legal right is not up to the individual but to the majority. Some people might say that it doesn't matter what individuals think right is, since individuals who don't belong to the majority do not control what's legally considered right, but to that I would say that it makes all the difference in the world. For instance, if one person does something to a weaker person that the weaker person considers wrong, they may not be able to stop the stronger person from going through with their actions, but their personal idea of right and wrong may stop the weaker person from retaliating somehow. Individual conscience may not be as powerful as "right" as defined by the majority, but it is important and valid.

Blog 2

Restraints should not be placed on human conduct. Charles Darwin believed in the survival of the fittest, which basically means that only the stronger deserve to and will survive. Under this suggested law of nature, the Athenians had every right to conquer the Melians. Even if their actions of violence may have been cruel, they still had every right to go forth with their actions. In addition, the Melians also have every right to retaliate in their future.

We could compare this to a scenario where I get punched in the stomach for my lunch money by a bully that is three times my size. Sure it would be a bit unfair for me and I would probably complain a bit, but he has every right to act that way under the laws of nature simply because he is stronger than me. However under the same laws, I have my own right to retaliate. Say maybe I take boxing lessons and return a few months later to vengefully punch him in the gut for his own lunch money.

To summarize this metaphor, the Melians as well as I, have the sweet option of retaliation towards our offenders. Although one may argue that it is unjust for the Athenians to strike down at a weaker foe, they cannot be blamed for finding their own ways to gain their superiority in strength over time. And in a world where much of nature is defined by having the stronger prevail, the Athenians actions toward the Melians, although harsh, cruel, and unethical, are still just.

Blog Response 2

Humans should willingly restrain their conduct to some sort of moral belief that is ideally along like the lines of the Golden Rule, quoted in the Bible as "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” Even when the Golden Rule is taken away from its religious context, it is a valuable standard; the idea that individuals should behave towards others in a particular manner only if they are willing to accept reciprocal behavior.

In the Thucydides excerpt, the Athenians proclaim “Right and wrong come into play only between people whose power is equal.” The lesser Melians respond, saying, “You Athenians should want to protect this custom [acknowledging what is fair and right] too. You’ll need it if you’re ever defeated.” The Melians have acknowledged an important factor in society; the individual or group holding power is continuously changing. Yes, some groups are dominant for decades or centuries, but there is not one group that has dominated another group infinitely. The Athenians have no way of ensuring that they will always be the most powerful. If the Athenians abuse their subjects and many years later, they are subject to the abuse of the new power, they have no protection because they deserve the same treatment that they gave.

Furthermore, the definition of power is continuously changing as well as who holds the power. It’s difficult to define a “naïve view of fairness” without defining a “naïve view of power.” One group might dominate politically, but another group could dominate in athletics and yet another in academics.

As Americans, we can superficially call ourselves the strongest and most powerful nation on Earth. However, many Americans who hold this power of being well educated, well exposed, and readily connected to the world do not abuse this power and certainly believe that the United States has a responsibility to restrain itself in subjecting lesser nations to abuse. I think many Americans would state that the American government, although arguably the most powerful, lacks the right to do whatever they please.

Blog Response 2

Philosophers have often wondered: do morals exist outside of power? More specifically, do we have rights in a state of nature, or do those with authority give us those “rights”? I personally believe that, contrary to what we might hope, rights do not exist. The most fundamental right that most people would claim mankind has been given, is life. As John Locke would argue, in a state of nature we are given the right to live. But who gave us this right? Just because we are born, does not mean we have some “right to life” that no one can take away. If a person comes up to you with a big stick, they can kill you. They can take away your life, simply by having a superior weapon. By having power.

However, if that person with the big stick decides that you deserve to live, suddenly you have been given the “right” to your life, because if anyone else tries to kill you, the person with the big stick will stop them (or at least punish them afterwards). But that right to life did not exist independently of the person with the big stick; it was given to you by an entity of power.

But whether or not we should exercise restraint on our conduct is a different question all together. I do believe that ethics exist, even if rights don’t.

Just because you have power does not mean that you should inflict harm upon others. This other person may not have the right to his life, but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t feel some sort of ethical obligation to let him live. He is a living, breathing, conscious being; if you have any natural moral principles you will recognize that the pain and suffering you cause him and his family by killing him is bad.

I do not believe the Melians had the right to rule their own island, because rights don’t exist. Athens was more powerful, therefore Melos would only have the “right” to rule themselves if Athens granted it to them. Athens did not, so Melos had no right to self-government. However, I think the Athenians should have placed restraint on their conduct. Maybe it is a quixotic outlook, but I do believe there are some things we ought to do -- not harming others unnecessarily is one of them.

In the end, there’s no real way to stop a person in power from doing as they please, but most of the time those in power are kept in check, as they should be, by their ethical consciences. Ultimately, whether or not they actually will restrain themselves, I believe those in power should restrain themselves from doing things that harm others, because pain and suffering is bad.

Blog Response 2

People should not have to place restraints on their power--as Thrasymachus said, power determines justice. The Athenians had the strength to defeat and subdue the Melians, so if they wanted to conquer the Melians, nothing should stop them. As far as the analogy of accepting a bully punching me in the stomach and taking my money, I suppose I would have to accept it. As a smaller and less powerful person, I cannot physically defend myself from such a bully. Yet, while the bully may be punching me now, there is nothing to say that in the future the tables wouldn't turn, and that I would not end up being the boss of that bully, and able to return every offense of the bully. There is a quote "Most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of being rich than face the reality of being poor", which I feel fits with this situation. The Melians might never be able to return the offenses of the Athenians, but there is the slight possibility that they could assume the dominance of the Athenians, and then they would want to be able to sack Athens in return. Until that point, however, the Melians should not complain, lest the offenses become worse.

However, I do think that the limitation of not hurting others is a valid point. The Athenians could have easily taken over Melos, and stuck with simply collecting taxes and dues. However, the Athenians continued to the seemingly unnecessary step of killing all the men and enslaving all the women and children on the island. Not only does this seem a pointless and unnecessary action, it seems rather counterproductive. The men who could have helped the island thrive, so the Athenians could make a profit have been killed, and it has given the children a reason to seek revenge on Athens when they grow older. If people restrained from hurting others, they could still harness their power for their political advantage, and use it in a way that does not harm weaker people too much.

BLOG POST #2: IS WHAT'S RIGHT INDEPENDENT OF POWER?

2. Considering the three Sophists we read in class (Protagoras, Critias, and Thrasymachus), answer the following: Is there anything at all that humans ought to do—in other words, should we willingly place any restraint on our conduct, no matter how powerful we are? Discuss what the Athenians in the Thucydides excerpt should have done given their enormous power.
--If you believe they should have restrained themselves, is this not a sign that you yourself are relatively powerless and weak, and that you're simply trying to enslave the strong with your naïve view of fairness?
--If you believe they behaved correctly, is this not a sign that you would not complain if someone bigger than you punched you in the stomach each day to get your lunch money? The powerful are always right, right?
Something else to consider (optional): Some people think that we are free to do whatever we wish as long as we don’t hurt someone else doing it. Is this a good rule for what makes an action moral and right?

POST DUE: Thursday, Nov. 4 by start of class.
2 RESPONSES TO POSTS DUE: Tuesday, Nov. 9 by the start of class.

GRADING FOR QUESTION 1 HAS ENDED

SINCE GRADING FOR BLOG QUESTION 1 (WHAT IS BEST?) HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE, PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY MORE REPONSES TO QUESTION 1 OR COMMENTS ON POSTS ON THE BLOG ITSELF.

IF YOU WANT LATE CREDIT, JUST TYPE UP YOUR POSTS AND RESPONSES TO POSTS, PRINT THEM OUT, AND TURN THEM IN DIRECTLY TO ME.

IF YOU POST THEM HERE A THIS POINT, I WILL NOT KNOW TO GIVE YOU LATE CREDIT.

THANKS,

Mr. B

reponse 1

To determine the best of any class one needs to investigate what qualties the product holds that makes it far superior to any product in the same class, the cost of the item, the labor force used to make the product, and the economic and environmental impact of our decisions. It is the responsibility of experts to determine how and where the product comes from and it is our responsibility as consumers to factor in our moral values to also determine whether we would buy the product. Seeing as we live on a resource limited planet and knowing that eventually we WILL run out of resources, I think that it is extremely important to know where the products that aren't used go, and be responsible enough as consumers to reject products that affect the global encomomy and environment.

Post Response #1

There can be no concrete definition of best for anything because its based on opinion. Something that everybody has and is likewise different for each person. To come up with our own criteria for best we should find some combination of options a and b. We should consider what we are getting yes, but we should also consider what went into getting these features, as you cant have one without the other. Ideally, we would value what effect that the product has on the world around us but that is not the case for the entire population. It helps to be thinking more globally because then you can make a difference in the world around you. And maybe that would eventually affect the products you buy.

Response 1

(b) When making a decision as to what is the “best” in a group, it is absolutely necessary to look beyond the finished product. It is commonly accepted in consumer societies to look at a product and determine that it is the best simply because it has the newest innovations, is the fastest, or it offers another feature, therefore making it the most valuable. These characteristics would be adequate if we were living in a simply consumer society with an infinite number of resources and a location to store extraordinary amounts of waste. Because Earth is not such a planet, it is necessary as global citizens living in connected world that we choose the “best” and value products with characteristics that go beyond the mind of a consumer. A product cannot be deemed the “best” if it has not been ethically produced. For example, one company’s beef might taste better, but what if the company’s cattle had been fed by GMOs created by Monsanto, a company that has made it for farmers to independently grow soybeans? Not only does the beef you are eating contain altered food and therefore chemicals, it is also supporting a company that has put dozens of farmers into serious debt. As Americans living a consumer society, it is up to us to be the “best” and most globally responsible consumers possible.

What should be valued is what has been righteously produced with respect to humans, animals, and the environment. I know that as I write this I sound hypocritical, because in our society it is practically impossible to know where one’s food, clothing, furniture, sheets, cars, gasoline, and much more, comes from. I do know that from my personal experience of living in a community where clothing came from the yarn that came from the llamas that lived in the front yard, drinking water came from the stream to the left of the house, and the light in the house came from the llama fat of the llama you raised from birth and later sacrificed…it is possible to live in a world where what is valued and depended on for life comes from sources that are in harmony with other humans, animals, and the environment.

Response 1

It’s impossible to definitively determine what’s “best”, because the title is so subjective in nature. But when judging products, we tend to say a product is the best when it performs its function the fastest and most thoroughly. We usually consider a computer the best when it surfs the Internet seamlessly and quickly, without considering how it was manufactured or its impact on the environment. But as a society we claim to value these ethical issues, so how can we maintain that this computer still be the best without considering these other aspects?

I would argue that this computer is still in fact the best, because it does what a computer is supposed to do in a superlative fashion. But I don’t think we should value it over other products because of its preeminent performance; we must first reflect on how it was made, how it has been priced, and other ethical considerations. A product that is technically the best should not necessarily be what is most valued.

In my opinion, to “value” something denotes a greater, worldlier understanding of the work. A computer may be the best computer on the market because it is the fastest, but it is not important to our society. If slave laborers made this product that American consumers are enjoying, the product probably does not give back to society as much as it takes, and therefore should not be valued.

We should value what has cultural import, what contributes to society, what promotes good ethics and what conserves the environment. We should also realize that products and works that are the “best” may not be most deserving of such value.

Best is almost always a matter of opinion. What one person values is usually different from what another person values, so it stands to reason that there shouldn't be one definition of best that spreads across all categories of products and services. Besides this, most people value the best products for what they are. In other words, a person can absolutely value touch phone that they consider the best because of its apps, physical properties, and uses, but may not value the methods by which it is made. What is best and what is valued, while they often coincide, are not the same thing, and what's more, we can value two things at once. We can value an iPhone's apps and built-in iPod and value humane methods and ethics at the same time. If the question is which should be more valued, I believe that methods, morals and ethics are more important, but that "best" should not be solely made up of either characteristics of the object nor of the values of its producer, and that short of atrocities of the magnitude of, say, the Holocaust, some room should be left in the matter for individual opinion.

Post Responce #1

The term best should be defined through the final product; something is best because it is the fastest, lightest, or most comfortable. The best is based on quality, and the tangible characteristics of a product or event, not what happened in the making of those things. Many people would tell you that the iPhone has the best feautures--it's the quickest, the lightest, has the best apps, even if that isn't the phone they would buy themselves. Many people will say that Beethoven is very good music--even if they would never listen to it. Value is not tied to what is the best. I can say that Hitler had the best military strategy, but it doesn't mean I value him at all. What we value is the balance between what is the best and what has certain characteristics we hold important--like eco friendly and made by well-treated workers. We value the best products that comply with those important characteristics.

Blog response #1

When deciding if something is the best in its category, we must realize that the definition of the best is something of the "highest quality". Not once is the word value used or even implied in the various definitions of best because, though it may not be fair or just, the way we obtain the best does not take away from which one is the best. The item with the best qualities or features is simply the best no matter who created it, its effects on the environment, or whether it will harm humans because we are not attempting to buy an item we are simply assessing which device or item we consider to be the best. On that note no item would be harmful to the extent that it would be endangering lives because we must meet certain guidelines when manufacturing products so i believe that argument is a bit unrealistic.

BLOG POST #1: SHOULD WE VALUE THE BEST?

When judging a product to BEST in its group,

a. should we consider only the characteristics of the finished product (whether it is the fasted, lightest, smartest, most reliable, technologically cutting-edge, sleekest, most aesthetically appealing, most compatible, etc.)

OR

b. should we also look beyond the finished product (whether only the wealthy can afford it, its impact on the environment, the human labor practices of the manufacturer, the country or person supplying the materials needed to make it, the ethical business practices of company CEOs and executives, the producers' other products, etc.)?

Consider the implications of your answer to this question:

Don’t we normally VALUE (respect, hold in high esteem, praise, desire) what is best? Should you value something that is functionally brilliant but also could be harmful to the earth and human rights? Should you value something made by unscrupulous people who care only about making money?

If you believe that something could be the BEST but you don’t have to value it, then what should be valued?

POST DUE: Thursday, September 16 by start of class.
2 RESPONSES TO POSTS DUE: Monday, September 20 by the start of class.