AboutHank Hokamp Expertise Books, books and more book! Personal experiences can sometimes disprove philosophical discussions and writings.
My PHILOSOPHY: If you do wrong to people, you don't have the right to exist. Helping people is WHY we're here. At least it's my purpose of life. Why do people keep seeking humanism, nihilism and existentialism? Few seem to realize satisfaction. All humans are subject to death and Earth has not been cultivated into an earth-wide paradise. Perhaps it can be if we serve one another. I can't imagine a more satisfying life than using my free will to serve thy neighbor. Let's get started. It's 2009! In fact, it's 3/24/09!
Question These questions are on a review I received for my final exam. I just want to
make sure that I'm understanding everything correctly, so I capitalized and
put two asteriks by what I THOUGHT was the answer. If you could just review
them and help me understand why I was incorrect on something, I would
GREATLY appreciate it, as my final is coming up next week! Thanks!
Mill and Plato agree that
a) Society should only interfere with an individual's liberty to protect others
from harm.
**B) THE RIGHT EDUCATION IS ESSENTIAL TO CREATING A HAPPY SOCIETY.
c) Democracy is the best form of government.
d) The only thing that is good for its own sake is pleasure.
How would a defender of Mill's ethical beliefs--Utilitarianism and Moral
Hedonism--most likely reply to Socrates' claim that there are bad pleasures?
**A) BY MAINTAING THAT ALL PLEASURE IS GOOD IN ITSELF, BUT THAT SOME
PLEASURES PRODUCE MORE HARM IN THE LONG RUN.
b) By disagreeing and claiming that there is no such thing as a bad pleasure.
c) By agreeing that this is why pleasure is not the good.
d) By agreeing and maintaing that this is why knowledge is the good.
Mill claims that the higher pleasures
a) Are preferred by people who have experienced both the higher pleasures
and the lower ones.
b) Are qualitatively better than the lower pleasures.
c) Are pleasures that come from bodily sensations like the taste of food or
the feeling of being touched.
d) Are rarely preferred by anyone over the lower pleasures.
**E) A AND C
f) b and d
g) a and b
h) c and d
Mill's Principle of Utility and Singer's Principle of the Equality of Interests
(discussed in class on Monday) both have us be impartial over the value of
our own interests and the similar interests of others.
**A) TRUE
b) False
Mill contends that the Principle of Liberty does not allow the government to
level taxes on its citizens because doing so would interfere with the freedom
to dispose of one's money as one chooses.
**A) TRUE
b) False
Mill and Plato agree that
a) Society should only interfere with an individual's liberty to protect others
from harm.
b) The right education is essential to creating a happy society.
c) Democracy is the best form of government.
d) The only thing that is good for its own sake is pleasure.
How would a defender of Mill's ethical beliefs--Utilitarianism and Moral
Hedonism--most likely reply to Socrates' claim that there are bad pleasures?
a) By maintaining that all pleasure is good in itself, but that some pleasures
produce more harm in the long run.
b) By disagreeing and claiming that there is no such thing as a bad pleasure.
c) By agreeing that this is why pleasure is not the good.
d) By agreeing and maintaing that this is why knowledge is the good.
Mill claims that the higher pleasures
a) Are preferred by people who have experienced both the higher pleasures
and the lower ones.
b) Are qualitatively better than the lower pleasures.
c) Are pleasures that come from bodily sensations like the taste of food or
the feeling of being touched.
d) Are rarely preferred by anyone over the lower pleasures.
e) a and c
f) b and d
g) a and b
h) c and d
Mill's Principle of Utility and Singer's Principle of the Equality of Interests
(discussed in class on Monday) both have us be impartial over the value of
our own interests and the similar interests of others.
a) True
b) False
Mill contends that the Principle of Liberty does not allow the government to
level taxes on its citizens because doing so would interfere with the freedom
to dispose of one's money as one chooses.
Since your post has been in the Pool since May 5th, I thought I'd send you a little guideline that will help you satisfy your own questions. I'm a Philosophy Expert on here. So, you might wish to listen up.
You've unoubtedly run into the phrase RELATIVITY OF KNOWLEDGE which has two meanings: That no portion of knowledge is absolute, but is always affected by its relations to other portions of knowledge. The other contends that what we know are not absolute things in themselves, but things conditioned in their quality by our channels of knowledge.
Guess you have also run into INDUCTION and DEDUCTION. These two whirligigs fit hand in glove with the above and your subjects. You can apply what I write to your premises/conclusions one after the other and grade yourself via application.
In INDUCTIVE REASONING, the thinker, whether it be Plato or you, draws general conclusions from SPECIFIC observations. SCIENCE depends heavily in inductive reaoning based on carefully collected evidence but some evidence can be overlooked that contradicts your conclusion. Heaven forbid! As a Paralegal, I can sure relate to that.
Then we have the other kind of reasoning - DEDUCTIVE. The thinker starts with one or more general assumptions, or PREMISES, and draws SPECIFIC conclusions that follow logically. Using syllogisms come in handy.
So, Lexi, one must tie the two together by using DIALECTICAL REASONING which allows the ability to think critically about opposing points of view. Juries use this to arrive at verdicts. One caveat: Many people have trouble with DR because their self-esteem rests upon being right ad havng their beliefs and prejudices accepted. These people are dumb as rocks.
John Plamenatz, a goof ball who delves into Philosophy, says of Mill's "Utilitarianism" (1861, 1863), his "Liberty" (1859), and his "Considerations on Representative Government" (1861) that, "These three essays written by a sick man in his premature old age, exhibit all his defects as a thinker, his lack of clarity, his inconsistency, and his inability either to accept whole-heartedly or to reject the principles inherited from his father and from Bentham." Even Isaiah Berlin, one of Mill's more sympathetic interpreters, speaks of the "outdated psychology and lack of logical cogency" of "On Liberty, and concludes that "Rigour in argument is not among Mill's accomplishments."
WHO WANTS TO ARGUE? I LIKE TO DISCUSS ... IN A LOW VOICE!
)