Discussion questions summaries

Below you will find summary posts from students when they were in charge of asking questions and facilitating discussion of them in a small group.

You can see them by discussion section day/time by going to the top menu dropdown, or you can organize them by philosopher by going to the menu on the right that has the list of philosophers.

At the bottom of this page are links to go to previous posts; the ones below are the most recent ones.


Discussion Summary: Kant

Discussion Summary Q1: Kant believes in universal rule, (a maxim) so if you act a certain way, you’re action show that you therefore believe everyone should act in a certain way. Let’s say someone who’s homeless and starving steals fruit everyday from a rich persons backyard. What would Kant say the maxim is? And can … Continue reading “Discussion Summary: Kant”

Discussion on Nussbaum

Using Nussbaum’s view, how do you think using the ten central capabilities to help solve poverty? In our discussion, we find that using the capabilities we could essentially send poverty children to gain education, education provides rational thinking which is key to fulfill the other capabilities With education, they will gain free thinking (depending on … Continue reading “Discussion on Nussbaum”

discussion summary on Nussbaum

Question 1: How does Nussbaum argue the advantages of capabilities approach(CA) compared to utilitarianism: In Nussbaum’s opinion, utilitarianism has three main problems. The first problem of utilitarianism is that this theory tends to think of the social total and neglect the silence of the boundaries between individual lives. Instead, CA considers the same rights for … Continue reading “discussion summary on Nussbaum”

Trolley Problem Discussion Summary

My discussion questions are a bit different in that it compares the situations of the Trolley Problem to each other. In my discussion, I talked about three situations that Thomson describes from Foot’s Trolley Problem: the Trolley Driver situation (Thomson 1985 P. 1395), the Surgeon situation (Thomson 1985 P. 1396) , and the Fat Man … Continue reading “Trolley Problem Discussion Summary”

Discussion Summary on Singer

What are your thoughts on the second premise in Singer’s argument? If you could alter the premise so that it is more feasible how would you do so? The second premise of Singer’s argument by principle, in particular the stronger version is quite controversial. It states that if it is within our ability to stop … Continue reading “Discussion Summary on Singer”

Discussion Summary PHIL 102 L07 (Fri. 11:00 pm) – Singer and Nussbaum

Mark Epshtein PHIL 102 003 Singer’s Paradox: To what extent can we give or save?   Question #1: Singer stresses the need for everyone to donate funds, time, expertise, etc. and help people from starvation and death (Bengal), to what point should you give away your time and money to struggling people in other countries, … Continue reading “Discussion Summary PHIL 102 L07 (Fri. 11:00 pm) – Singer and Nussbaum”

Summarizing Singer – The Discussion

  Discussion Summary Questions:  Peter Singer believes that all of your income should go towards helping others unless it’s of moral significance, he gives examples of what people should be doing but doesn’t exactly define what moral significance means. Do you think he should specify what moral significance means or is he right for leaving … Continue reading “Summarizing Singer – The Discussion”

Discussion Summary on Singer

In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, Singer introduces the example of Bob and his Bugatti, in which Bob parks his prized Bugatti on a railway track, and then is faced with the decision to either divert a runaway train to save a child; or save his car. In this scenario, Bob ends up letting … Continue reading “Discussion Summary on Singer”

Discussion Summary for ‘living moral lives’ by Singer

I led my discussion around the ideas of Singer. Specifically, I wanted to get a sense of how strongly people aligned themselves with Singers ideology. Q1: Do you think we are living morally wrong lives if we don’t follow Singers way of life? How this questions relates to Singers main argument: it tries to directly dismiss … Continue reading “Discussion Summary for ‘living moral lives’ by Singer”

Discussion Summary on Singer

Question 1: Do you think that if everyone lived the way that Singer suggests in his article, poverty would no longer exist? In his article, “Famine, Affluence and Morality”, Singer suggests that if everyone bought only the necessities to support themselves and their families, and donated all of their remaining money to charity (rather than spending … Continue reading “Discussion Summary on Singer”

Discussion Summary on Nussbaum

  Explain who Nussbaum is and her core beliefs Philosopher who believe in the “Capabilities Approach” She believes in the idea that all individuals should focus on creating the world a better place from within themselves out Criticisms of her beliefs, stem from the fact that she is against distribution and globalization, and that her … Continue reading “Discussion Summary on Nussbaum”

Discussion Summary for March 16, 2018

Q1. Referring to Singer’s analogy of a drowning child from “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, is it realistic to think we can literally save a life so easily? Maybe the child is an orphan, and saving them would mean we need to help them find a home/support afterwards, or maybe we have a child of our … Continue reading “Discussion Summary for March 16, 2018”

March 16th Discussion of Singer& Nussbaum

Question 1: How valid is Singer’s metaphor of the drowning child and an observers obligation to aid it? Singer argues that if we have the capacity to save a life, whether in front of us or not, we should do so. Ignoring our capacity to save a life without sacrificing anything of morally significance is … Continue reading “March 16th Discussion of Singer& Nussbaum”

Discussion Summary – Kant

Discussion Questions Do you agree with Kant’s anti-paternalistic views? Or do you think that, when helping others, a paternalistic approach would ultimately be more beneficial and, therefore, justifiably moral? Do you find the Categorical Imperative (particularly the first one) to be a good method when determining the morality of actions, or are there obvious exceptions? … Continue reading “Discussion Summary – Kant”

Discussion Summary on Kant

Question: When making categorical imperatives or any universal laws that many philosophers like to make, there will always be exceptions.  How small does this exception have to be to become irrelevant? -Kant’s CI’s assume some things, for example the suicide maxim assumes that most people want to avoid pain, which is reasonable. So, there will … Continue reading “Discussion Summary on Kant”

Kant, O’Neill Summary

Q1) “Justice is more fluid than absolute” (pg. 259) If stealing medicine to save a life is justified, where do we draw the line? Should the justice system incorporate moral reasoning into the way laws are enforced? (Examples- theft, drug addiction How this relates to the reading: This weeks reading was very much regarding morals … Continue reading “Kant, O’Neill Summary”

Discussion Summaries Kant Mill March 9th

Do you agree with Kant’s perspective on the example with the murderer at the door? Why or why not? At the end of Wednesday’s lectures, Dr. Hendricks briefly brought up an example, illustrating Kant’s stance on legal responsibility. The hypothetical scenario includes a murderer knocking on your door, looking to kill your friend. Your friend, … Continue reading “Discussion Summaries Kant Mill March 9th”

Kant Discussion Summary

1) “Kant does not, however, try to generate a set of precise rules defining human obligations in all possible circumstances; instead, he attempts to provide a set of principles of obligation that can be used as the starting points for moral reasoning in actual contexts of action. The primary focus of Kantian ethics is, then, … Continue reading “Kant Discussion Summary”

Discussion on Kant – Animals and Everyday Life

In Onara O’Neill’s “Kantian Approaches to Some Famine Problems”, there were mentions of the value of animal lives in human morality, and the lack of regard Kant has shown towards this issue. Should animals ever be used as mere means? What determines the value of an animal’s life? The answers to these question may vary … Continue reading “Discussion on Kant – Animals and Everyday Life”

Discussion summary: O’Neill and Kant’s CI (second form)

1. Is a lack of beneficience really immoral? To expand on this: Kant talks about justice and beneficience, the first being mandatory and the second being sometimes mandatory. Consider a person who is always just (ie. uses no one) but by some miracle manages to never help anyone (not beneficient). Would this person really be … Continue reading “Discussion summary: O’Neill and Kant’s CI (second form)”