This page will be your link to the extra materials mentioned on Dr. Watson’s syllabus. Simply choose your class from the list on the right of this screen. This will take you to the syllabus and extra readings, and any other information you might be directed to download during the class.
Best wishes!
Dr. Watson
I regularly see bumper stickers that attempt to use the Religious Right’s values against them. For instance, many religious conservatives claim both to believe that Jesus is a divine authority on moral issues and that military action against rogue or immoral nations is morally permissible. Some dissenters attempt to highlight an apparent inconsistency in these claims with pithy one-liners:
and
The question these witticisms raise is, of course: What would Jesus really say about self-defense and just war?
As always, there are a couple of dead ends we should set aside from the start. The first is the verse where Jesus says:
“Judge not lest you be judged with the same measure with which you judge” (Matthew 7:1-2, NASB).
Some interpret this verse as expressing that no one should ever judge anyone. This interpretation, however, is unfortunate. Even reading the verse literally, it is a conditional claim: If you judge, then be prepared to be judged by the same standard. If your judgment is appropriate, you have nothing to worry about. For instance, if I buy a potato from you for $1 and I give you a $5 bill, but you only give me $3 in change, I judge that you short-changed me. I am perfectly willing to be judged by this standard, and I hope I am. Similarly, if I beat one of your children to a bloody pulp, then you should judge that I have acted immorally. I hope you’re willing to be judged by that standard, too.
So, should we interpret this passage as a call to refrain from all judgment or merely as a call to caution with respect to the standard of judgment we apply? Surely, it is the latter.
The second dead end passage is found in Romans where Paul writes:
“Never pay back evil for evil to anyone…. Never take your own revenge…for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Romans 12: 17, 19, NASB).
Some people interpret this passage to mean that we never have the right to seek justice. It would seem we are forever at the mercy of liars and thieves. What considerations might support this interpretation?
One consideration might be another of Jesus’s teachings: “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul, but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28, NASB). So, perhaps it is because we will live for eternity that we need not worry about justice in this life. But that seems strange given that the Bible includes so many moral commands we are supposed to keep during our time on Earth. And the context of this passage is specifically about being persecuted while preaching the Gospel, so, even if this were a complete restriction on seeking justice, it might apply only under these circumstances.
But another motivation might be an uncritical reading of the passage itself. “Never pay back evil for evil,” seems to some to suggest that seeking justice is evil. But a straightforward reading of the passage does not imply this. It literally says: If someone does something evil to you, do not do something evil in return. If someone steals $10 from you, you are morally entitled to that $10. Therefore, it is no evil for you to demand it back, or to seek coercive means of getting it back (e.g., [very] small claims court).
However, if you were to demand your $10 back, plus $100 more, or 50 lashes with a cane, then you are seeking more than what was taken from you. You are seeking to do “evil” in repayment for evil–you want something beyond justice, you want vengeance. Understood this way, Romans 12 says nothing different from the Mosaic Law. Many interpret the Mosaic Law (specifically, the Lex talionis) as a restriction on compensatory action, not a guide to it. “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” is a limitation on the damages you can seek in response to losing an eye or a tooth, not a prescription for what you should seek in every case. You cannot repay a lost eye by killing the offender’s family and livestock. You can seek damages up to, but not beyond, the offender’s eye.
So far, then, we have no reason to think believing that Jesus is a moral authority implies an obligation to suffer injustice or accept pacifism. But perhaps there are passages that more clearly express these implications. After all, the bumper sticker is right that Jesus says, “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44). More on this in a future post.
It is a common perception that philosophers (and the discipline of philosophy in general) have (has) nothing to offer the “practical man,” the person who works a “real job.” I never shared this perspective even before I became a philosopher. Nevertheless, I often find myself defensive of my field, and regularly attempt to present myself and my discipline as informing a particular debate or helping solve a particular problem–I attempt to make myself relevant.
Whether I should do this is a particularly important question, since, it would seem, some disciplines are valuable in and of themselves–they carry their virtues intrinsically, regardless of whether they are practical (I take it that studies in ancient literature, ancient medicine, religion, dead languages, and archaeology can carry some virtue irrespective of their practical benefits to contemporary culture or religious belief, etc.). Surely, philosophy is among these venerable disciplines.
This question becomes especially apropos when I am faced with a skeptic. On one occasion, I was drawing a particularly technical distinction between two concepts in philosophy of action, when the especially astute evangelical pastor I was talking to asked, perhaps only half-jokingly, “Don’t you ever get tired of all the bullshit?” The answer, of course, is, “No, I’m a philosopher.” Nevertheless, there are sometimes glimmers of usefulness that shine through the haze of philosophical terminology. A few months back, I posted an article explaining how one of my former philosophy professors received a 4.4 million dollar grant to lead neuroscientists and psychologists in a study of free will:
In a similar vein, The Guardian just ran a story about philosophers who are helping physicians make moral decisions in cases with patients near the end of their lives. Just when you thought philosophers were useless, they help inform important decisions. So, I just have to share. Follow the link to the article. Enjoy:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jun/29/mental-health-patients-decisions
History is rife with political experiments. Some begin with the assumption that citizens are “children” of the state, and so the state has a “parental” responsibility for the well-being of its family. These experiments have a bad reputation for making people unhappy because the parents seem to know very little of what is best for the children. If these experiments are successful, it is typically only at the end of a gun.
Other experiments begin with the assumption that God has designated a unique individual to lead people according to morality and dictates from on high. Monarchs accomplish the will of God through the people. These experiments have a bad reputation for making people unhappy because, at some point, the Chosen One seems to lose sight of the will of the good God. Similar experiments that begin with the idea that a unique individual knows what is best for citizens, but that subtract the concept of “divine right,” tend to have even worse reputations, since the citizens are then treated according to the caprice of the king. If either type of experiment is successful to any degree, it is typically only at the end of a gun.
Other experiments, still, begin with the assumption that the government has a moral obligation to provide what is best for its citizens, but in these, the people determine, by vote and constitutional decree, how the government is to fulfill that obligation. These experiments have a reputation for being decent, keeping its citizens well-educated, well-fed, and in generally good health, though the amount of regulation required to sustain these experiments often restricts resources in such a way that there is little room for progress or wealth. If these types of experiments are sustained, it is typically by the wallets of those who work harder than the rest.
The American experiment is different from all of these. In the American experiment, individuals are more valuable than the government or any goals of its leaders. The goods of the nation are defined in terms of the goods of the individuals. If the individuals own anything, it is because they or someone close to them earned it. Fewer regulations make progress and wealth possible. With hard work and the compassion of a few, almost anyone can avoid poverty. With hard work and a measure of cleverness, almost anyone can retire comfortably.
How is this experiment doing? It has survived a civil war, two World Wars, civil uprisings, political scandals, and terrorist invasions. There are fewer liberties now than in the past. It is more difficult to compete in certain markets, including the political. Yet, we tell ourselves, “It remains the best of all the experiments.” And while it probably is, as you celebrate this Fourth of July–the inauguration of the American experiment–remember what the experiment set out to prove: that individual goods are the best measure of a nation’s goods, and that individual liberty is the most efficient way to achieve those goods. The results are good so far. Let’s not change the controls.
God bless America.
In recent months, there has been an increase in the number of criticisms and doubs about a traditional liberal arts education. One recent criticism can be found here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/books/25human.html
The demand for practical degrees (e.g., business, education, nursing) is on the rise, and when colleges can supply this demand, they make money. Higher education is a business like many others, and market demands must be met in order to continue competing in the market. So, why keep English or Philosophy or Religion around? If they are not required for a job, who should care about dead languages or ancient dramas? Why should anyone want to remember the distinction between Odysseus and Thrasymachus?
In my view, there are at least three important reasons to study traditional liberal arts fields. First, the liberal arts (literature, languages, philosophy, history, math, and science) introduce you to information that increases your ability to engage reality. What does this mean? If you know what Machiavelli said about politicians, then you will know what someone means who says, “That’s very Machiavellian.” If you understand the Hegelian dialectic, you will be more likely to react to a trend with caution, rather than rashly charging in the opposite direction. If you understand what Dewey wrote on the philosophy of learning, you will likely treat older audiences differently than younger audiences in your presentations, and you may substitute a more interactive teaching approach, rather than merely lecturing. This sort of information increases your ability to successfully wade the waters of reality.
Second, traditional liberal arts degress develop your ability to critically think through an issue. Rather than simply presenting the results of experiments and the accepted theories in a field, liberal arts courses help you engage this information by teaching you to ask hard, critical questions of it. What assumptions are being made? Are those assumptions plausible? Are the results accurate? Do researchers draw inappropriate or fallacious inferences from data? The ability to conduct this type of systematic query, using the tools of logic and language, increases your ability to understand, communicate, and solve significant problems in your life. Liberal arts courses include a critical component for the express purpose of helping you develop this skill.
And finally, in exposing you to insights from centuries of critical reflection on reality, you learn more about yourself–who you are as a human, where you fit into society, how you can contribute to making the world a better place. Rather than fostering self-centeredness, liberal arts courses help you identify you in the context of your intellecual and cultural climate. Understanding that many Hindus still believe in reincarnation and that many Muslims do not, forces you to consider where you stand in relation to these belief systems and why. In asking (and hopefully answering) important “why” questions, you develop a richer sense of self than you would merely memorizing the periodic table.
So, should you avoid practical degrees? BY NO MEANS. Some people are best suited for a life of practice. And, let’s face it, there aren’t many job adverts for “Liberal Arts Major.” My point is simply that a liberal arts major is fulfilling and empowering, and that liberal arts courses are a powerful supplement to any practical degree.
For more on the benefits of a liberal arts education, visit these sites:
http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~janzb/humanities/humcareers.htm
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/50-ways-to-improve-your-life/2008/12/18/learn-philosophy.html
In 1971, philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson published a paper arguing that abortion in cases of rape is morally permissible. In this paper she introduced a thought experiment called the “Famous Violinist” case. The thought experiment is intended to pique your moral intuition in such a way that you will agree that abortion in rape cases is permissible. Interestingly, the case received mixed responses.
Recently, philosopher Jeremy Stangroom has offered an interactive version of the Famous Violinist case in order to better understand people’s intuitions about the case and to gather data about consistency in moral reasoning. The link to this interactive version is below. Click on the site, answer the questions, read the explanations, then do it again. Feel free to post comments about your results. I learned something about how I interpret certain moral claims.
http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/whosebody/Default.aspx
Judith Jarvis Thomson
Antony Flew was known, for most of his career, as a rationalist, a Humean, and an atheist. His controversial essay, “The Presumption of Atheism,” raised a slew of debate on methodology in philosophy of religion. In an interesting twist, Flew recanted his former views on the existence of God in 2004, and in 2007 published, There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. Though never adopting Christianity or any other religious worldview, Flew attributed his change to a reconsideration of two of Thomas Aquinas’s Five Ways (Way 1, the argument for a prime mover and Way 5, the argument from design). After extended consideration, Flew concluded that DNA research has “shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved.”
Flew died on 8 April, 2010, after a prolonged illness.
For more on Flew’s life and work, read an obituary at the following link:
Your brain is not malevolent. At least, scientists are pretty sure it’s not malevolent. It does not seem to have anything against you…not personally, anyway. Your brain is adapted to survive. Sometimes survival depends on getting you to believe false things. For instance, red things are probably dangerous, along with things that slither; and a good meal
now is more important than a good meal next week (since, otherwise you may not be here next week).
But this survival strategy doesn’t translate easily and simply into abstract concepts like long-term planning, especially when it comes to money or relationships. If someone offers you a choice between $50 now and $300 next year, you may be tempted to take the $50 now, especially if you are barely scraping by. But it is not clear that you could invest $50 and turn it into $300 by next year. So, delaying gratification seems prudent.
Similarly, if you graduate college, your income is likely to be somewhere between $35,000 and $50,000, whereas if you spend an extra two to three years in graduate school (getting an MBA, law degree, finance, accounting, etc.) your income is likely to be much, much higher… even in the 6 figure range. What are those three years worth to you? More than thousands of dollars?
A writer from Cracked.com (associated with the perrenial classic Cracked Magazine) has compiled a list of ways your brain deceives you. So, take note, beware, end the deception. But don’t be too hard on your brain. We’re pretty sure it’s not malevolent…
http://www.cracked.com/article_18388_6-logical-fallacies-that-cost-you-money-every-day_p1.html
The moral: delay gratification.
The Social and Behavioral Sciences Division and Arts & Assemblies invite you to a lecture by Juan Melendez April 6th, 7 pm in Wilson Lecture Hall. Juan Melendez spent nearly 18 years on Florida’s death row for a crime he did not commit. He was released with evidence of innocence on January 3, 2002.
Mr. Melendez’s presentation takes approximately 50 minutes, followed by Q & A. Please encourage students to attend!
Click below to see the trailer for a documentary about his life:
http://nylatino.bside.com/2009/films/juanmelendez6446_nylatino2009
Coming soon, I will post an excerpt on the value of philosophy from a forthcoming book. Until then, here are some classic philosophical writings on the value of philosophy:
Epicurus, “Letter to Menoeceus” http://www.epicurus.net/en/menoeceus.html
Immanuel Kant, “What is Enlightenment?” http://www.english.upenn.edu/~mgamer/Etexts/kant.html
Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy (especially chapter XV) http://www.ditext.com/russell/russell.html
John Dewey, “The Need for a Recovery of Philosophy” http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Dewey/Dewey_1917b.html
