The Resistance of Self-Justification to God’s GraceDigitalbulbs
What is the question to which justification-by-faith is the answer? Here it is: how does our gracious God rescue us from the practice of self-justification?1In the sixteenth-century the opposite of justification-by-faith was said by the Reformers to be justification by works or merit, for example, through indulgences and such. In our twenty-first cen-tury context, might we abstract from this five-century old debate to identify a more universal human propensity? If justification-by-faith is a genuine product of the New Testament gospel, then we expect it to illuminate theological anthropology in its broad and inclusive scope.
Answer FOUR questions. Each question is worth 10 points. 1. .docxjustine1simpson78276
Answer FOUR questions. Each question is worth 10 points.
1. What are some of the features of Plato’s theory of justice as set out in his Republic? How can these features of justice be applied to the opposed views on distributive justice according to the positions developed by Rawls and Nozick?
2. Explain Aristotle’s three-way distinction of human action as a) voluntary, b) involuntary and c) non-voluntary. Give examples of each kind of action. How can Aristotle’s theory of human agency be applied to the three models of punishment: retributivism, deterrence, and rehabilitation.
3. Explain the nature and role of ‘moral sentiment’ in Hume’s outline of morality. What role, if any, is played by reason in Hume’s account of moral action? In light of Hume’s theory, reconstruct the debate between Singer and Arthur.
4. Explain Kant’s two formulations of the ‘categorical imperative’ according to a) universalizability and b) non-instrumentalization. How might these formulations be applied to the question of preemptive international conflict. Give examples to illustrate these applications.
5. What is Mill’s concept of the basic ethical principle according to utilitarianism and what is his proof of this principle? What are Mill’s views on the freedom of speech and thought and how do these shed light on the debate about pornography between Altman and Brison?
Duties and Imperatives
The Ethics of Conflict
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
Remained his whole life in Königsberg (eastern Prussia).
Famous for his three Critiques: of “pure reason,” “practical reason,” and “judgment”.
Proposes a duty-based, universal, “deontological” theory of ethics.
Thought of morality and nature, values and facts as distinct.
Moral Agency
Kant insists that it is only the presence of a “good will” that makes any act morally valuable.
He rejects rival theories that locate moral worth primarily in: a) virtue, b) happiness, or c) sympathy.
Kant’s position is called “deontological” (from the Greek deon, “what must be”) and focuses on absolute moral duties.
It is opposed, classically to utilitarian (more broadly consequentialist) theories of ethics, which focus on good results.
Four basic mental powers
According to Kant there are four basic human mental powers: sensibility, imagination, understanding, and reason.
Sensibility and imagination are, respectively, capacities to be affected by and to bring together impressions from physical objects.
Understanding is the capacity to use concepts to organize the sense impressions that reach the mind via the senses.
Reason, as distinct from the understanding, is the mind’s ability to be guided by abstract ideas such as goodness, freedom, and God.
Reason and human nature
Kant makes the traditional assumption of western philosophy: reason is both essential and unique to human beings.
Whereas “understanding” is the human capacity for knowledge of nature (science), “reason” is the human capacity for being mora.
Duties and ImperativesThe Ethics of ConflictImmanuel Kan.docxsagarlesley
Duties and Imperatives
The Ethics of Conflict
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
Remained his whole life in Königsberg (eastern Prussia).
Famous for his three Critiques: of “pure reason,” “practical reason,” and “judgment”.
Proposes a duty-based, universal, “deontological” theory of ethics.
Thought of morality and nature, values and facts as distinct.
Moral Agency
Kant insists that it is only the presence of a “good will” that makes any act morally valuable.
He rejects rival theories that locate moral worth primarily in: a) virtue, b) happiness, or c) sympathy.
Kant’s position is called “deontological” (from the Greek deon, “what must be”) and focuses on absolute moral duties.
It is opposed, classically to utilitarian (more broadly consequentialist) theories of ethics, which focus on good results.
Four basic mental powers
According to Kant there are four basic human mental powers: sensibility, imagination, understanding, and reason.
Sensibility and imagination are, respectively, capacities to be affected by and to bring together impressions from physical objects.
Understanding is the capacity to use concepts to organize the sense impressions that reach the mind via the senses.
Reason, as distinct from the understanding, is the mind’s ability to be guided by abstract ideas such as goodness, freedom, and God.
Reason and human nature
Kant makes the traditional assumption of western philosophy: reason is both essential and unique to human beings.
Whereas “understanding” is the human capacity for knowledge of nature (science), “reason” is the human capacity for being moral.
Kant insists that the test of true morality is an individual’s ability to rise above self-interest for the sake of the rational moral community.
Reason is what makes each of us human, and being moral is the deliberate and consistent exercise of our rational capacity.
Morality resides “within”
Kant’s ethics is undoubtedly influenced by pietism: a religious movement within Lutheranism highlighting intense individual faith.
This influence may account to some degree for Kant’s idea that morality resides in individual good will and strict duty.
While Kant as an Enlightenment figure celebrated and added to scientific insights into nature, he saw morality a matter of humanity’s “inner” truth.
But this inner truth consists in everyone respecting and acting according to universal moral law. Kant strives to be the Newton of morality.
Hence the paradox: morality is individual conviction following universal law.
The solitary moral hero
Caspar David Friedrich, Wanderer Above a Sea of Fog (1818)
Questions
Why does Kant see the “good will” as the only source of pure moral worth?
Does Kant imply that an ethical agent should be unconcerned with human happiness?
What sense does it make to locate in human reason the capacity to be moral?
If morality is always a question of “good will,” how can we know when anyone is being truly moral?
Pure Practical Reaso ...
The two pathways for coping with the rage of being oppressed: increasing bitterness and violence or peacemaking and reconciliation? The way of Alinksy or the way of Assissi!! How does identifying rage then enable it to be turned into productive engagement in changing oppression?
REL101(WI) World ReligionsReflection Paper #2The Problem of.docxcarlt3
REL101(WI): World Religions
Reflection Paper #2
The Problem of Evil
The most formidable challenge a believer in God must face is known as “the problem of evil.” This problem, which goes back to ancient times yet is no less distressing today, asks about the relationship between belief in God and the existence of evil in the world. If God is truly good and cares for us, why do bad things continually happen to good people? How can there be so much unmerited evil and suffering in the world if an all-powerful and all-loving creator governs the universe? Like many other faiths, Judaism has had to confront such questions head on. While much of Jewish history is full of pain and suffering, nothing has tested the Jewish faith like the mass slaughter of Jews during the Holocaust (or Shoah). Given God’s covenantal promise of a blessed existence and God’s declaration that the Jews are his “chosen people,” many wonder today how they can possibly square the extermination of 6 million such people with belief in a deity who is said to be both compassionate and just. For this second Reflection Paper, you are asked to weigh in on this conflicted debate. Before you begin to write, consider the discussion of Judaism in class, read carefully the article “The Problem of Evil” posted under “Course Materials” on Blackboard, and research at least two other articles of your choice that address this topic. Then, in your paper, expand this difficult issue to all of the Western religions and offer your best insights on the ongoing attempt to make sense of the problem of evil. If you are a believer, how do you reconcile your belief in an all-powerful, all-loving God and the immense evil that surrounds us? Which of the many solutions to the problem of evil (officially known a “theodicy”), do you find convincing? If you are not committed to a religious belief, what is your opinion about the problem of evil? Is this problem great enough to lead one to atheism, as many have argued? Is one of the counterarguments presented in this discussion particularly powerful?
The Problem of Evil
Introduction: The Great Problem
We live in a world in shadow. It’s a fact, noted by every religion and belief system throughout history, that suffering plagues the human condition. Some of us experience far more pain than others, but it’s something we must all face during our lives. Possibly even worse than the existence of suffering is the randomness with which it strikes—often in the lives of people who have done nothing to deserve it—and our too-frequent powerlessness to help the afflicted innocent.
The great and terrible fact of suffering has been humanity’s constant companion. Our history as a species is a long, slow climb up from the darkness, punctuated by much faltering, backsliding, and frustration. For thousands of years of human history, every day was a struggle to stay alive. Plagues and epidemics swept continents like wildfire. Natural disasters led to the collapse of great empires..
The Resistance of Self-Justification to God’s GraceDigitalbulbs
What is the question to which justification-by-faith is the answer? Here it is: how does our gracious God rescue us from the practice of self-justification?1In the sixteenth-century the opposite of justification-by-faith was said by the Reformers to be justification by works or merit, for example, through indulgences and such. In our twenty-first cen-tury context, might we abstract from this five-century old debate to identify a more universal human propensity? If justification-by-faith is a genuine product of the New Testament gospel, then we expect it to illuminate theological anthropology in its broad and inclusive scope.
Answer FOUR questions. Each question is worth 10 points. 1. .docxjustine1simpson78276
Answer FOUR questions. Each question is worth 10 points.
1. What are some of the features of Plato’s theory of justice as set out in his Republic? How can these features of justice be applied to the opposed views on distributive justice according to the positions developed by Rawls and Nozick?
2. Explain Aristotle’s three-way distinction of human action as a) voluntary, b) involuntary and c) non-voluntary. Give examples of each kind of action. How can Aristotle’s theory of human agency be applied to the three models of punishment: retributivism, deterrence, and rehabilitation.
3. Explain the nature and role of ‘moral sentiment’ in Hume’s outline of morality. What role, if any, is played by reason in Hume’s account of moral action? In light of Hume’s theory, reconstruct the debate between Singer and Arthur.
4. Explain Kant’s two formulations of the ‘categorical imperative’ according to a) universalizability and b) non-instrumentalization. How might these formulations be applied to the question of preemptive international conflict. Give examples to illustrate these applications.
5. What is Mill’s concept of the basic ethical principle according to utilitarianism and what is his proof of this principle? What are Mill’s views on the freedom of speech and thought and how do these shed light on the debate about pornography between Altman and Brison?
Duties and Imperatives
The Ethics of Conflict
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
Remained his whole life in Königsberg (eastern Prussia).
Famous for his three Critiques: of “pure reason,” “practical reason,” and “judgment”.
Proposes a duty-based, universal, “deontological” theory of ethics.
Thought of morality and nature, values and facts as distinct.
Moral Agency
Kant insists that it is only the presence of a “good will” that makes any act morally valuable.
He rejects rival theories that locate moral worth primarily in: a) virtue, b) happiness, or c) sympathy.
Kant’s position is called “deontological” (from the Greek deon, “what must be”) and focuses on absolute moral duties.
It is opposed, classically to utilitarian (more broadly consequentialist) theories of ethics, which focus on good results.
Four basic mental powers
According to Kant there are four basic human mental powers: sensibility, imagination, understanding, and reason.
Sensibility and imagination are, respectively, capacities to be affected by and to bring together impressions from physical objects.
Understanding is the capacity to use concepts to organize the sense impressions that reach the mind via the senses.
Reason, as distinct from the understanding, is the mind’s ability to be guided by abstract ideas such as goodness, freedom, and God.
Reason and human nature
Kant makes the traditional assumption of western philosophy: reason is both essential and unique to human beings.
Whereas “understanding” is the human capacity for knowledge of nature (science), “reason” is the human capacity for being mora.
Duties and ImperativesThe Ethics of ConflictImmanuel Kan.docxsagarlesley
Duties and Imperatives
The Ethics of Conflict
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
Remained his whole life in Königsberg (eastern Prussia).
Famous for his three Critiques: of “pure reason,” “practical reason,” and “judgment”.
Proposes a duty-based, universal, “deontological” theory of ethics.
Thought of morality and nature, values and facts as distinct.
Moral Agency
Kant insists that it is only the presence of a “good will” that makes any act morally valuable.
He rejects rival theories that locate moral worth primarily in: a) virtue, b) happiness, or c) sympathy.
Kant’s position is called “deontological” (from the Greek deon, “what must be”) and focuses on absolute moral duties.
It is opposed, classically to utilitarian (more broadly consequentialist) theories of ethics, which focus on good results.
Four basic mental powers
According to Kant there are four basic human mental powers: sensibility, imagination, understanding, and reason.
Sensibility and imagination are, respectively, capacities to be affected by and to bring together impressions from physical objects.
Understanding is the capacity to use concepts to organize the sense impressions that reach the mind via the senses.
Reason, as distinct from the understanding, is the mind’s ability to be guided by abstract ideas such as goodness, freedom, and God.
Reason and human nature
Kant makes the traditional assumption of western philosophy: reason is both essential and unique to human beings.
Whereas “understanding” is the human capacity for knowledge of nature (science), “reason” is the human capacity for being moral.
Kant insists that the test of true morality is an individual’s ability to rise above self-interest for the sake of the rational moral community.
Reason is what makes each of us human, and being moral is the deliberate and consistent exercise of our rational capacity.
Morality resides “within”
Kant’s ethics is undoubtedly influenced by pietism: a religious movement within Lutheranism highlighting intense individual faith.
This influence may account to some degree for Kant’s idea that morality resides in individual good will and strict duty.
While Kant as an Enlightenment figure celebrated and added to scientific insights into nature, he saw morality a matter of humanity’s “inner” truth.
But this inner truth consists in everyone respecting and acting according to universal moral law. Kant strives to be the Newton of morality.
Hence the paradox: morality is individual conviction following universal law.
The solitary moral hero
Caspar David Friedrich, Wanderer Above a Sea of Fog (1818)
Questions
Why does Kant see the “good will” as the only source of pure moral worth?
Does Kant imply that an ethical agent should be unconcerned with human happiness?
What sense does it make to locate in human reason the capacity to be moral?
If morality is always a question of “good will,” how can we know when anyone is being truly moral?
Pure Practical Reaso ...
The two pathways for coping with the rage of being oppressed: increasing bitterness and violence or peacemaking and reconciliation? The way of Alinksy or the way of Assissi!! How does identifying rage then enable it to be turned into productive engagement in changing oppression?
REL101(WI) World ReligionsReflection Paper #2The Problem of.docxcarlt3
REL101(WI): World Religions
Reflection Paper #2
The Problem of Evil
The most formidable challenge a believer in God must face is known as “the problem of evil.” This problem, which goes back to ancient times yet is no less distressing today, asks about the relationship between belief in God and the existence of evil in the world. If God is truly good and cares for us, why do bad things continually happen to good people? How can there be so much unmerited evil and suffering in the world if an all-powerful and all-loving creator governs the universe? Like many other faiths, Judaism has had to confront such questions head on. While much of Jewish history is full of pain and suffering, nothing has tested the Jewish faith like the mass slaughter of Jews during the Holocaust (or Shoah). Given God’s covenantal promise of a blessed existence and God’s declaration that the Jews are his “chosen people,” many wonder today how they can possibly square the extermination of 6 million such people with belief in a deity who is said to be both compassionate and just. For this second Reflection Paper, you are asked to weigh in on this conflicted debate. Before you begin to write, consider the discussion of Judaism in class, read carefully the article “The Problem of Evil” posted under “Course Materials” on Blackboard, and research at least two other articles of your choice that address this topic. Then, in your paper, expand this difficult issue to all of the Western religions and offer your best insights on the ongoing attempt to make sense of the problem of evil. If you are a believer, how do you reconcile your belief in an all-powerful, all-loving God and the immense evil that surrounds us? Which of the many solutions to the problem of evil (officially known a “theodicy”), do you find convincing? If you are not committed to a religious belief, what is your opinion about the problem of evil? Is this problem great enough to lead one to atheism, as many have argued? Is one of the counterarguments presented in this discussion particularly powerful?
The Problem of Evil
Introduction: The Great Problem
We live in a world in shadow. It’s a fact, noted by every religion and belief system throughout history, that suffering plagues the human condition. Some of us experience far more pain than others, but it’s something we must all face during our lives. Possibly even worse than the existence of suffering is the randomness with which it strikes—often in the lives of people who have done nothing to deserve it—and our too-frequent powerlessness to help the afflicted innocent.
The great and terrible fact of suffering has been humanity’s constant companion. Our history as a species is a long, slow climb up from the darkness, punctuated by much faltering, backsliding, and frustration. For thousands of years of human history, every day was a struggle to stay alive. Plagues and epidemics swept continents like wildfire. Natural disasters led to the collapse of great empires..
14 Social Alternatives Vol. 34 No. 1, 2015
Classical Stoicism and the Birth of a Global
Ethics: Cosmopolitan Duties in a
World of Local Loyalties
Lisa hiLL
Do I have responsibilities to strangers and, if so, why? Is a global ethics possible in the absence
of supra-national institutions? The responses of the classical Stoics to these questions directly
influenced modern conceptions of global citizenship and contemporary understandings of our
duties to others. This paper explores the Stoic rationale for a cosmopolitan ethic that makes
significant moral demands on its practitioners. It also uniquely addresses the objection that a
global ethics is impractical in the absence of supra-national institutions and law.
themed artiCLe
What do we owe to strangers and why? Is a global ethics possible in the face of national boundaries?
What should we do when bad governments order us to
mistreat strangers or the weak? These were just some
of the questions to which the ancient Stoics applied
themselves. Their answers, which emphasised the
equal worth and inherent dignity of every human being,
were to reverberate throughout the Western political
tradition and directly influence modern conceptions of
global citizenship. Yet, how the Stoics arrived at their
cosmopolitanism is often imperfectly understood, hence
the first part of the discussion. Objections that their ideas
were too utopian to be practically useful also reflect
misunderstandings about Stoicism, hence the second
part of the paper.
I begin by exploring the Stoic rationale for the cosmopolis,
the world state, after which I address the objection that
a global ethics is impractical in the absence of supra-
national institutions and law. Well aware that local
loyalties and the jealousy of sovereign states towards
their own jurisdictional authority would represent
significant obstacles to the practice of a global ethic, the
Stoics insisted that the cosmopolis could still be brought
into existence by those who unilaterally obeyed the laws
of ‘reason’ even within the confines of national borders
and in the face of hostile local institutions.
Background
Inspired by the teaching of Socrates and Diogenes of
Sinope (Diogenes the Cynic), Stoicism was founded
at Athens by Zeno of Citium in around 300 BCE and
was influential throughout the Greco-Roman world
until around 200 CE.1 Its teachings were transmitted
to later generations largely through the surviving Latin
writings of Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus, C. Musonius
Rufus and Marcus Aurelius, as well as the Greek
author Diogenes Laertius via his Lives and Opinions of
Eminent Philosophers. The Stoics not only influenced
later generations; they were extremely influential in their
own time. From the outset, Stoicism was a distinctive
voice in intellectual life, from the Early Stoa in the fourth
and third centuries BCE, the Middle Stoa in the second
and first centuries BCE, to Late Stoicism in the first
a ...
14 Social Alternatives Vol. 34 No. 1, 2015Classical .docxdrennanmicah
14 Social Alternatives Vol. 34 No. 1, 2015
Classical Stoicism and the Birth of a Global
Ethics: Cosmopolitan Duties in a
World of Local Loyalties
Lisa hiLL
Do I have responsibilities to strangers and, if so, why? Is a global ethics possible in the absence
of supra-national institutions? The responses of the classical Stoics to these questions directly
influenced modern conceptions of global citizenship and contemporary understandings of our
duties to others. This paper explores the Stoic rationale for a cosmopolitan ethic that makes
significant moral demands on its practitioners. It also uniquely addresses the objection that a
global ethics is impractical in the absence of supra-national institutions and law.
themed artiCLe
What do we owe to strangers and why? Is a global ethics possible in the face of national boundaries?
What should we do when bad governments order us to
mistreat strangers or the weak? These were just some
of the questions to which the ancient Stoics applied
themselves. Their answers, which emphasised the
equal worth and inherent dignity of every human being,
were to reverberate throughout the Western political
tradition and directly influence modern conceptions of
global citizenship. Yet, how the Stoics arrived at their
cosmopolitanism is often imperfectly understood, hence
the first part of the discussion. Objections that their ideas
were too utopian to be practically useful also reflect
misunderstandings about Stoicism, hence the second
part of the paper.
I begin by exploring the Stoic rationale for the cosmopolis,
the world state, after which I address the objection that
a global ethics is impractical in the absence of supra-
national institutions and law. Well aware that local
loyalties and the jealousy of sovereign states towards
their own jurisdictional authority would represent
significant obstacles to the practice of a global ethic, the
Stoics insisted that the cosmopolis could still be brought
into existence by those who unilaterally obeyed the laws
of ‘reason’ even within the confines of national borders
and in the face of hostile local institutions.
Background
Inspired by the teaching of Socrates and Diogenes of
Sinope (Diogenes the Cynic), Stoicism was founded
at Athens by Zeno of Citium in around 300 BCE and
was influential throughout the Greco-Roman world
until around 200 CE.1 Its teachings were transmitted
to later generations largely through the surviving Latin
writings of Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus, C. Musonius
Rufus and Marcus Aurelius, as well as the Greek
author Diogenes Laertius via his Lives and Opinions of
Eminent Philosophers. The Stoics not only influenced
later generations; they were extremely influential in their
own time. From the outset, Stoicism was a distinctive
voice in intellectual life, from the Early Stoa in the fourth
and third centuries BCE, the Middle Stoa in the second
and first centuries BCE, to Late Stoicism in the first
a.
14 Social Alternatives Vol. 34 No. 1, 2015Classical .docxaulasnilda
14 Social Alternatives Vol. 34 No. 1, 2015
Classical Stoicism and the Birth of a Global
Ethics: Cosmopolitan Duties in a
World of Local Loyalties
Lisa hiLL
Do I have responsibilities to strangers and, if so, why? Is a global ethics possible in the absence
of supra-national institutions? The responses of the classical Stoics to these questions directly
influenced modern conceptions of global citizenship and contemporary understandings of our
duties to others. This paper explores the Stoic rationale for a cosmopolitan ethic that makes
significant moral demands on its practitioners. It also uniquely addresses the objection that a
global ethics is impractical in the absence of supra-national institutions and law.
themed artiCLe
What do we owe to strangers and why? Is a global ethics possible in the face of national boundaries?
What should we do when bad governments order us to
mistreat strangers or the weak? These were just some
of the questions to which the ancient Stoics applied
themselves. Their answers, which emphasised the
equal worth and inherent dignity of every human being,
were to reverberate throughout the Western political
tradition and directly influence modern conceptions of
global citizenship. Yet, how the Stoics arrived at their
cosmopolitanism is often imperfectly understood, hence
the first part of the discussion. Objections that their ideas
were too utopian to be practically useful also reflect
misunderstandings about Stoicism, hence the second
part of the paper.
I begin by exploring the Stoic rationale for the cosmopolis,
the world state, after which I address the objection that
a global ethics is impractical in the absence of supra-
national institutions and law. Well aware that local
loyalties and the jealousy of sovereign states towards
their own jurisdictional authority would represent
significant obstacles to the practice of a global ethic, the
Stoics insisted that the cosmopolis could still be brought
into existence by those who unilaterally obeyed the laws
of ‘reason’ even within the confines of national borders
and in the face of hostile local institutions.
Background
Inspired by the teaching of Socrates and Diogenes of
Sinope (Diogenes the Cynic), Stoicism was founded
at Athens by Zeno of Citium in around 300 BCE and
was influential throughout the Greco-Roman world
until around 200 CE.1 Its teachings were transmitted
to later generations largely through the surviving Latin
writings of Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus, C. Musonius
Rufus and Marcus Aurelius, as well as the Greek
author Diogenes Laertius via his Lives and Opinions of
Eminent Philosophers. The Stoics not only influenced
later generations; they were extremely influential in their
own time. From the outset, Stoicism was a distinctive
voice in intellectual life, from the Early Stoa in the fourth
and third centuries BCE, the Middle Stoa in the second
and first centuries BCE, to Late Stoicism in the first
a ...
14 Social Alternatives Vol. 34 No. 1, 2015Classical AnastaciaShadelb
14 Social Alternatives Vol. 34 No. 1, 2015
Classical Stoicism and the Birth of a Global
Ethics: Cosmopolitan Duties in a
World of Local Loyalties
Lisa hiLL
Do I have responsibilities to strangers and, if so, why? Is a global ethics possible in the absence
of supra-national institutions? The responses of the classical Stoics to these questions directly
influenced modern conceptions of global citizenship and contemporary understandings of our
duties to others. This paper explores the Stoic rationale for a cosmopolitan ethic that makes
significant moral demands on its practitioners. It also uniquely addresses the objection that a
global ethics is impractical in the absence of supra-national institutions and law.
themed artiCLe
What do we owe to strangers and why? Is a global ethics possible in the face of national boundaries?
What should we do when bad governments order us to
mistreat strangers or the weak? These were just some
of the questions to which the ancient Stoics applied
themselves. Their answers, which emphasised the
equal worth and inherent dignity of every human being,
were to reverberate throughout the Western political
tradition and directly influence modern conceptions of
global citizenship. Yet, how the Stoics arrived at their
cosmopolitanism is often imperfectly understood, hence
the first part of the discussion. Objections that their ideas
were too utopian to be practically useful also reflect
misunderstandings about Stoicism, hence the second
part of the paper.
I begin by exploring the Stoic rationale for the cosmopolis,
the world state, after which I address the objection that
a global ethics is impractical in the absence of supra-
national institutions and law. Well aware that local
loyalties and the jealousy of sovereign states towards
their own jurisdictional authority would represent
significant obstacles to the practice of a global ethic, the
Stoics insisted that the cosmopolis could still be brought
into existence by those who unilaterally obeyed the laws
of ‘reason’ even within the confines of national borders
and in the face of hostile local institutions.
Background
Inspired by the teaching of Socrates and Diogenes of
Sinope (Diogenes the Cynic), Stoicism was founded
at Athens by Zeno of Citium in around 300 BCE and
was influential throughout the Greco-Roman world
until around 200 CE.1 Its teachings were transmitted
to later generations largely through the surviving Latin
writings of Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus, C. Musonius
Rufus and Marcus Aurelius, as well as the Greek
author Diogenes Laertius via his Lives and Opinions of
Eminent Philosophers. The Stoics not only influenced
later generations; they were extremely influential in their
own time. From the outset, Stoicism was a distinctive
voice in intellectual life, from the Early Stoa in the fourth
and third centuries BCE, the Middle Stoa in the second
and first centuries BCE, to Late Stoicism in the first
a ...
Homo americanus vs Homo sovieticus: & EGALITARIANISM
#progress #Egalitarianism #western-societies #West #Western-Society #Tomislav-Sunic #Homo-americanus #Homo-sovieticus #arktos #Esotericism #Esoterism
https://bittube.tv/post/0980d385-47f7-4893-9846-572d6a7fea9b - Part 1
https://bittube.tv/post/e12990d8-a32f-4ff5-9bb0-d4a7b72763b9 - Part 2
https://odysee.com/@periodic-reset-of-civilizations:c/Homo-americanus-vs-Homo-sovieticus----EGALITARIANISM:b
https://tube.midov.pl/w/mv94VFTD2sA3fr9Xdds5jP
https://www.bitchute.com/video/i2GZEgRHtxAW/
All the platforms I Am on:
https://steemit.com/links/@resetciviliz/link-s
▶ BITCOIN
34c3XCeSyoi9DPRks867KL7GVD7tGVcxnH
▶ ETHEREUM
0xAc1FBaEBaCc83D332494B55123F5493a113cE457
▶ TEESPRING
https://periodic-reset.creator-spring.com
A lecture given for Arts One at the University of British Columbia. Discusses sublimation, repression, unconscious/preconscious/conscious, id/ego/superego in addition to this text.
You can find a video of this lecture on the Arts One Open site: http://artsone-open.arts.ubc.ca (go to "lectures and podcasts" and search for Freud).
14 Social Alternatives Vol. 34 No. 1, 2015
Classical Stoicism and the Birth of a Global
Ethics: Cosmopolitan Duties in a
World of Local Loyalties
Lisa hiLL
Do I have responsibilities to strangers and, if so, why? Is a global ethics possible in the absence
of supra-national institutions? The responses of the classical Stoics to these questions directly
influenced modern conceptions of global citizenship and contemporary understandings of our
duties to others. This paper explores the Stoic rationale for a cosmopolitan ethic that makes
significant moral demands on its practitioners. It also uniquely addresses the objection that a
global ethics is impractical in the absence of supra-national institutions and law.
themed artiCLe
What do we owe to strangers and why? Is a global ethics possible in the face of national boundaries?
What should we do when bad governments order us to
mistreat strangers or the weak? These were just some
of the questions to which the ancient Stoics applied
themselves. Their answers, which emphasised the
equal worth and inherent dignity of every human being,
were to reverberate throughout the Western political
tradition and directly influence modern conceptions of
global citizenship. Yet, how the Stoics arrived at their
cosmopolitanism is often imperfectly understood, hence
the first part of the discussion. Objections that their ideas
were too utopian to be practically useful also reflect
misunderstandings about Stoicism, hence the second
part of the paper.
I begin by exploring the Stoic rationale for the cosmopolis,
the world state, after which I address the objection that
a global ethics is impractical in the absence of supra-
national institutions and law. Well aware that local
loyalties and the jealousy of sovereign states towards
their own jurisdictional authority would represent
significant obstacles to the practice of a global ethic, the
Stoics insisted that the cosmopolis could still be brought
into existence by those who unilaterally obeyed the laws
of ‘reason’ even within the confines of national borders
and in the face of hostile local institutions.
Background
Inspired by the teaching of Socrates and Diogenes of
Sinope (Diogenes the Cynic), Stoicism was founded
at Athens by Zeno of Citium in around 300 BCE and
was influential throughout the Greco-Roman world
until around 200 CE.1 Its teachings were transmitted
to later generations largely through the surviving Latin
writings of Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus, C. Musonius
Rufus and Marcus Aurelius, as well as the Greek
author Diogenes Laertius via his Lives and Opinions of
Eminent Philosophers. The Stoics not only influenced
later generations; they were extremely influential in their
own time. From the outset, Stoicism was a distinctive
voice in intellectual life, from the Early Stoa in the fourth
and third centuries BCE, the Middle Stoa in the second
and first centuries BCE, to Late Stoicism in the first
a ...
14 Social Alternatives Vol. 34 No. 1, 2015Classical .docxdrennanmicah
14 Social Alternatives Vol. 34 No. 1, 2015
Classical Stoicism and the Birth of a Global
Ethics: Cosmopolitan Duties in a
World of Local Loyalties
Lisa hiLL
Do I have responsibilities to strangers and, if so, why? Is a global ethics possible in the absence
of supra-national institutions? The responses of the classical Stoics to these questions directly
influenced modern conceptions of global citizenship and contemporary understandings of our
duties to others. This paper explores the Stoic rationale for a cosmopolitan ethic that makes
significant moral demands on its practitioners. It also uniquely addresses the objection that a
global ethics is impractical in the absence of supra-national institutions and law.
themed artiCLe
What do we owe to strangers and why? Is a global ethics possible in the face of national boundaries?
What should we do when bad governments order us to
mistreat strangers or the weak? These were just some
of the questions to which the ancient Stoics applied
themselves. Their answers, which emphasised the
equal worth and inherent dignity of every human being,
were to reverberate throughout the Western political
tradition and directly influence modern conceptions of
global citizenship. Yet, how the Stoics arrived at their
cosmopolitanism is often imperfectly understood, hence
the first part of the discussion. Objections that their ideas
were too utopian to be practically useful also reflect
misunderstandings about Stoicism, hence the second
part of the paper.
I begin by exploring the Stoic rationale for the cosmopolis,
the world state, after which I address the objection that
a global ethics is impractical in the absence of supra-
national institutions and law. Well aware that local
loyalties and the jealousy of sovereign states towards
their own jurisdictional authority would represent
significant obstacles to the practice of a global ethic, the
Stoics insisted that the cosmopolis could still be brought
into existence by those who unilaterally obeyed the laws
of ‘reason’ even within the confines of national borders
and in the face of hostile local institutions.
Background
Inspired by the teaching of Socrates and Diogenes of
Sinope (Diogenes the Cynic), Stoicism was founded
at Athens by Zeno of Citium in around 300 BCE and
was influential throughout the Greco-Roman world
until around 200 CE.1 Its teachings were transmitted
to later generations largely through the surviving Latin
writings of Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus, C. Musonius
Rufus and Marcus Aurelius, as well as the Greek
author Diogenes Laertius via his Lives and Opinions of
Eminent Philosophers. The Stoics not only influenced
later generations; they were extremely influential in their
own time. From the outset, Stoicism was a distinctive
voice in intellectual life, from the Early Stoa in the fourth
and third centuries BCE, the Middle Stoa in the second
and first centuries BCE, to Late Stoicism in the first
a.
14 Social Alternatives Vol. 34 No. 1, 2015Classical .docxaulasnilda
14 Social Alternatives Vol. 34 No. 1, 2015
Classical Stoicism and the Birth of a Global
Ethics: Cosmopolitan Duties in a
World of Local Loyalties
Lisa hiLL
Do I have responsibilities to strangers and, if so, why? Is a global ethics possible in the absence
of supra-national institutions? The responses of the classical Stoics to these questions directly
influenced modern conceptions of global citizenship and contemporary understandings of our
duties to others. This paper explores the Stoic rationale for a cosmopolitan ethic that makes
significant moral demands on its practitioners. It also uniquely addresses the objection that a
global ethics is impractical in the absence of supra-national institutions and law.
themed artiCLe
What do we owe to strangers and why? Is a global ethics possible in the face of national boundaries?
What should we do when bad governments order us to
mistreat strangers or the weak? These were just some
of the questions to which the ancient Stoics applied
themselves. Their answers, which emphasised the
equal worth and inherent dignity of every human being,
were to reverberate throughout the Western political
tradition and directly influence modern conceptions of
global citizenship. Yet, how the Stoics arrived at their
cosmopolitanism is often imperfectly understood, hence
the first part of the discussion. Objections that their ideas
were too utopian to be practically useful also reflect
misunderstandings about Stoicism, hence the second
part of the paper.
I begin by exploring the Stoic rationale for the cosmopolis,
the world state, after which I address the objection that
a global ethics is impractical in the absence of supra-
national institutions and law. Well aware that local
loyalties and the jealousy of sovereign states towards
their own jurisdictional authority would represent
significant obstacles to the practice of a global ethic, the
Stoics insisted that the cosmopolis could still be brought
into existence by those who unilaterally obeyed the laws
of ‘reason’ even within the confines of national borders
and in the face of hostile local institutions.
Background
Inspired by the teaching of Socrates and Diogenes of
Sinope (Diogenes the Cynic), Stoicism was founded
at Athens by Zeno of Citium in around 300 BCE and
was influential throughout the Greco-Roman world
until around 200 CE.1 Its teachings were transmitted
to later generations largely through the surviving Latin
writings of Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus, C. Musonius
Rufus and Marcus Aurelius, as well as the Greek
author Diogenes Laertius via his Lives and Opinions of
Eminent Philosophers. The Stoics not only influenced
later generations; they were extremely influential in their
own time. From the outset, Stoicism was a distinctive
voice in intellectual life, from the Early Stoa in the fourth
and third centuries BCE, the Middle Stoa in the second
and first centuries BCE, to Late Stoicism in the first
a ...
14 Social Alternatives Vol. 34 No. 1, 2015Classical AnastaciaShadelb
14 Social Alternatives Vol. 34 No. 1, 2015
Classical Stoicism and the Birth of a Global
Ethics: Cosmopolitan Duties in a
World of Local Loyalties
Lisa hiLL
Do I have responsibilities to strangers and, if so, why? Is a global ethics possible in the absence
of supra-national institutions? The responses of the classical Stoics to these questions directly
influenced modern conceptions of global citizenship and contemporary understandings of our
duties to others. This paper explores the Stoic rationale for a cosmopolitan ethic that makes
significant moral demands on its practitioners. It also uniquely addresses the objection that a
global ethics is impractical in the absence of supra-national institutions and law.
themed artiCLe
What do we owe to strangers and why? Is a global ethics possible in the face of national boundaries?
What should we do when bad governments order us to
mistreat strangers or the weak? These were just some
of the questions to which the ancient Stoics applied
themselves. Their answers, which emphasised the
equal worth and inherent dignity of every human being,
were to reverberate throughout the Western political
tradition and directly influence modern conceptions of
global citizenship. Yet, how the Stoics arrived at their
cosmopolitanism is often imperfectly understood, hence
the first part of the discussion. Objections that their ideas
were too utopian to be practically useful also reflect
misunderstandings about Stoicism, hence the second
part of the paper.
I begin by exploring the Stoic rationale for the cosmopolis,
the world state, after which I address the objection that
a global ethics is impractical in the absence of supra-
national institutions and law. Well aware that local
loyalties and the jealousy of sovereign states towards
their own jurisdictional authority would represent
significant obstacles to the practice of a global ethic, the
Stoics insisted that the cosmopolis could still be brought
into existence by those who unilaterally obeyed the laws
of ‘reason’ even within the confines of national borders
and in the face of hostile local institutions.
Background
Inspired by the teaching of Socrates and Diogenes of
Sinope (Diogenes the Cynic), Stoicism was founded
at Athens by Zeno of Citium in around 300 BCE and
was influential throughout the Greco-Roman world
until around 200 CE.1 Its teachings were transmitted
to later generations largely through the surviving Latin
writings of Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus, C. Musonius
Rufus and Marcus Aurelius, as well as the Greek
author Diogenes Laertius via his Lives and Opinions of
Eminent Philosophers. The Stoics not only influenced
later generations; they were extremely influential in their
own time. From the outset, Stoicism was a distinctive
voice in intellectual life, from the Early Stoa in the fourth
and third centuries BCE, the Middle Stoa in the second
and first centuries BCE, to Late Stoicism in the first
a ...
Homo americanus vs Homo sovieticus: & EGALITARIANISM
#progress #Egalitarianism #western-societies #West #Western-Society #Tomislav-Sunic #Homo-americanus #Homo-sovieticus #arktos #Esotericism #Esoterism
https://bittube.tv/post/0980d385-47f7-4893-9846-572d6a7fea9b - Part 1
https://bittube.tv/post/e12990d8-a32f-4ff5-9bb0-d4a7b72763b9 - Part 2
https://odysee.com/@periodic-reset-of-civilizations:c/Homo-americanus-vs-Homo-sovieticus----EGALITARIANISM:b
https://tube.midov.pl/w/mv94VFTD2sA3fr9Xdds5jP
https://www.bitchute.com/video/i2GZEgRHtxAW/
All the platforms I Am on:
https://steemit.com/links/@resetciviliz/link-s
▶ BITCOIN
34c3XCeSyoi9DPRks867KL7GVD7tGVcxnH
▶ ETHEREUM
0xAc1FBaEBaCc83D332494B55123F5493a113cE457
▶ TEESPRING
https://periodic-reset.creator-spring.com
A lecture given for Arts One at the University of British Columbia. Discusses sublimation, repression, unconscious/preconscious/conscious, id/ego/superego in addition to this text.
You can find a video of this lecture on the Arts One Open site: http://artsone-open.arts.ubc.ca (go to "lectures and podcasts" and search for Freud).
Unit 8 - Information and Communication Technology (Paper I).pdfThiyagu K
This slides describes the basic concepts of ICT, basics of Email, Emerging Technology and Digital Initiatives in Education. This presentations aligns with the UGC Paper I syllabus.
How to Split Bills in the Odoo 17 POS ModuleCeline George
Bills have a main role in point of sale procedure. It will help to track sales, handling payments and giving receipts to customers. Bill splitting also has an important role in POS. For example, If some friends come together for dinner and if they want to divide the bill then it is possible by POS bill splitting. This slide will show how to split bills in odoo 17 POS.
Solid waste management & Types of Basic civil Engineering notes by DJ Sir.pptxDenish Jangid
Solid waste management & Types of Basic civil Engineering notes by DJ Sir
Types of SWM
Liquid wastes
Gaseous wastes
Solid wastes.
CLASSIFICATION OF SOLID WASTE:
Based on their sources of origin
Based on physical nature
SYSTEMS FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT:
METHODS FOR DISPOSAL OF THE SOLID WASTE:
OPEN DUMPS:
LANDFILLS:
Sanitary landfills
COMPOSTING
Different stages of composting
VERMICOMPOSTING:
Vermicomposting process:
Encapsulation:
Incineration
MANAGEMENT OF SOLID WASTE:
Refuse
Reuse
Recycle
Reduce
FACTORS AFFECTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT:
Palestine last event orientationfvgnh .pptxRaedMohamed3
An EFL lesson about the current events in Palestine. It is intended to be for intermediate students who wish to increase their listening skills through a short lesson in power point.
This presentation provides an introduction to quantitative trait loci (QTL) analysis and marker-assisted selection (MAS) in plant breeding. The presentation begins by explaining the type of quantitative traits. The process of QTL analysis, including the use of molecular genetic markers and statistical methods, is discussed. Practical examples demonstrating the power of MAS are provided, such as its use in improving crop traits in plant breeding programs. Overall, this presentation offers a comprehensive overview of these important genomics-based approaches that are transforming modern agriculture.
Power-sharing Class 10 is a vital aspect of democratic governance. It refers to the distribution of power among different organs of government, levels of government, and social groups. This ensures that no single entity can control all aspects of governance, promoting stability and unity in a diverse society.
For more information, visit-www.vavaclasses.com
Students, digital devices and success - Andreas Schleicher - 27 May 2024..pptxEduSkills OECD
Andreas Schleicher presents at the OECD webinar ‘Digital devices in schools: detrimental distraction or secret to success?’ on 27 May 2024. The presentation was based on findings from PISA 2022 results and the webinar helped launch the PISA in Focus ‘Managing screen time: How to protect and equip students against distraction’ https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/managing-screen-time_7c225af4-en and the OECD Education Policy Perspective ‘Students, digital devices and success’ can be found here - https://oe.cd/il/5yV
Instructions for Submissions thorugh G- Classroom.pptxJheel Barad
This presentation provides a briefing on how to upload submissions and documents in Google Classroom. It was prepared as part of an orientation for new Sainik School in-service teacher trainees. As a training officer, my goal is to ensure that you are comfortable and proficient with this essential tool for managing assignments and fostering student engagement.
Instructions for Submissions thorugh G- Classroom.pptx
as we progress.pptx
1. Nietzsche and the Critique of
Morality
Week 11
GM = On the Genealogy of Morality
BGE = Beyond Good and Evil
2. Antimoralism
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) is a famous antimoralist
Antimoralism = moral claims are false, or deceptive
There are three broad types of antimoralism:
1. scope limitation: some individuals are exempt from moral standards that apply to the rest of us
2. content critique: a rejection of a basic moral principle (e.g. compassion, democracy)
3. formal critique: a rejection of a basic moral concept (e.g. duty, free will, guilt)
Nietzsche’s writings combine all three types of antimoralism
3. Some general themes in Nietzsche
Christian morality has made modern society sick
This sickness also engulfs politics
‘[T]he democratic movement is heir to the Christian movement’ (Beyond Good and Evil, § 202)
Nietzsche writes to resurrect an aristocratic culture
4. Will to power
For Nietzsche, the fundamental character of all being is 'will to power' (GM 2:12), the drive
to overcome an existing level of strength, or self-overcoming
It embraces 'the spontaneous, aggressive, expansive, re-interpreting, re-directing … forces'
(GM 2:12)
The will to power links all things in the world in struggle
The will to power also provides the perspective from which all evaluation takes place
5. Implications of will to power
Consequently:
All universal morality is an illusion
Society's task is to develop a higher type of personality
‘[W]ar is as much a necessity for the state as the slave for society'
(The Greek State, in the book On the Genealogy of Morality)
It is unavoidable most people will toil for others' benefit and merely survive. But the
culture of sacrifice induced by war can promote genius
6. Nietzsche’s genealogical method
Genealogy literally means ‘tracing of descent’.
The subtitle of the book is: 'A Polemic'.
Its question is: 'under what conditions did man invent the value judgments good and evil?
and what value do they themselves have? Have they obstructed or promoted human
flourishing' (Preface § 3)
A genealogy will need to reveal other values in order to explain existing ones
This will affect the self-confidence with which existing values are held
Other values can then be presented as according better with will to power
7. First essay: how does a belief in good arise?
Good (in both utilitarianism and Christianity) is action that benefits others
But ‘the judgment “good” does not emanate from those to whom goodness is shown'
(GM 1:2)
A recipient’s perspective, and belief in free will, are later inventions of society
Originally, good relates to the actor, and to their whole person. It is a matter of rank.
The traits of the first in rank differ between peoples: physical strength (warrior
peoples e.g. the Romans) or purity (priestly peoples e.g. the Jews). They will clash.
After the warriors enslave all others, the priests' will to power is expressed in
imagination
8. Ressentiment
The emotion of wanting to inflict intellectual pain on an attacker by reversing their values,
and thereby restoring to oneself a feeling of superiority
It is confined to the weak: ‘lambs bear a grudge towards large birds of prey’, but birds of
prey do not begrudge lambs; 'in fact we love them, nothing is tastier’ (GM1:13)
Hatred is increased by a belief in free will that results from the ‘seduction of language’
(GM 1:13)
‘the man of ressentiment … has conceived of the “evil enemy” as a basic idea to which he
now thinks up a counterpart, the “good one” - himself!’ (GM 1:10)
Evil = to deliberately inflict pain on others; good = to show compassion
9. Ressentiment and the belief in God
Under continued domination, the weak learn ‘all about keeping quiet, not forgetting,
waiting’ (GM 1:10) and indefinite suffering can only be born by a universal morality
As the weak cannot themselves end their oppression, they must invent god: ‘let us be
different from evil people, let us be good! And a good person is anyone who .... does not
harm anyone ... does not retaliate, who leaves revenge to God’ (GM 1:13)
By means of God, the weak are just as cruel: 'the whole old world and all it gave birth to
are consumed in one fire ... At which shall I exalt, when I see so many kings ... groaning in
the deepest darkness ... to some extent we have such things already through faith' (GM
1:15)
10. Nietzsche’s diagnosis of democracy
Christian obedience involves a kind of debase equality that dissolves political ranks
Ressentiment also arises among the lowest in political rank, against legal privileges
But notions of human equality are illusory, and simply foster mediocrity:
‘The more the feeling of their unity with their fellow humans wins out over men, the
more uniform they will become, the more rigorously they will feel any difference as
immoral. Humanity's sanding thus necessarily appears: all the same, very small, very
round. Up until now, Christianity and democracy have brought humanity furthest onto
the path of this metamorphosis into sand.’ (Fragment, Spring 1880)
