This document outlines the agenda for Class 13 of EWRT 2. It includes introducing new essay groups, reviewing previous readings, and introducing the next essay assignment on justice. Students will discuss an excerpt from Marcus Tullius Cicero's "The Defense of Injustice" focusing on rhetorical strategies and critical reading questions. Suggestions include reading Henry David Thoreau. The class will involve group work to analyze the readings and prompts for the upcoming essay.
Le web marketing ou comment bien communiquer sur la toileSylvie de Meeûs
Découvrons, en 4 étapes, les meilleurs outils et les bonnes pratiques pour :
Etape 1 : attirer les prospects
Etape 2 : convertir ses visiteurs en clients
Etape 3 : fidéliser et augmenter le panier moyen
Etape 4 : soigner sa communauté d’ambassadeurs et sa réputation.
Other means of persuasion, propaganda, & fallaciesWhat concept.docxalfred4lewis58146
Other means of persuasion, propaganda, & fallacies
What conception of the mind underlies critical reasoning? How do other means of persuasion rely on a different conception of the mind/self?
What conception of mind underlies critical reasoning?
Review slides 1 – 7 & 10 in Week 1’s power point: “What is critical reasoning anyhow?” & slides 2 & 5 in Week 3’s (Week 4 for the in-class section) power point: “What is an argument in logic?” (This is very important to doing your final essay. You may also want to review the description of the course on the syllabus).
Underlying this conception of critical reasoning is a conception of the mind that has varied somewhat in the history of Western philosophy, but tends to treat the mind as separate from the body [Descartes] and/or from the emotions [Kant], or if the emotions are taken into consideration, they are treated as subservient to the intellect [Socrates/Plato]. An exception to this “rule” is the philosopher Hume, who stated that reason is the slave of the emotions. Nietzsche can be interpreted as following in Hume’s footsteps.
Therefore, in critical reasoning, our capacity for logical thinking takes precedent over our desires, and logical non-contradiction takes precedence over efficient means to achieving our desires; appeals to “good reasons” to support our claims take precedent over appeals to emotions or to authority or to tradition.
In other words, evidence is supposed to replace even an expert’s judgment or the judgment of a tradition. This becomes tricky when an expert or authority is basing their judgment upon evidence that the rest of the public may not understand, or if any field of study has traditional ways of doing research, etc.
What does this conception of mind entail?
This conception of mind might underlie what Kant calls “enlightenment”, and it might also be part of the foundations of democratic thinking, insofar as the American and French revolutions were partly based on the idea that every individual citizen was capable of logical thought and had rational capacities, so deserved the vote.
Those who were still denied the vote, such as women or slaves, were often considered suspect in their ability to reason or think rationally.
Therefore, our conception of freedom was partly tied to the ability to think rationally, rather than to our capacity to feel pain or pleasure or to pursue our own desires.
This also involved the notion that our thinking is conscious.
Do we still believe in this same conception of mind?
Can we separate the emotions from rationality or thinking? This has been questioned by both recent neuroscientists, such as D’Amasio (who wrote a book, “Descartes’ Error”), and recent philosophers.
Should we want to separate the emotions from rationality? In what ways might emotions distort or undermine our rationality or our search for evidence, and in what ways might emotions contribute to our rationality and our search for evidence?
For instance, do.
Abortion 1. What according to Warren are the 5 conditions .docxdaniahendric
Abortion
1. What according to Warren are the 5 conditions for personhood? Why is it relevant to the abortion
debate?
2. What is a necessary/sufficient condition? Give examples. What does it have to do with the abortion
debate?
3. What is the traditional argument against abortion? Is it valid?
4. Why is the notion of personhood important to the argument against abortion?
5. Explain why a fetus, according to Warren, does not have a right to life.
6. What is the space explorer analogy and what is it supposed to show?
7. What is (are) an (the) objection(s) to Warren’s argument against banning abortion? Are there any
objections against it? Does she have any replies to those objection(s)? Are her replies any good? Explain
why or why not.
8. What part of the traditional argument for the banning of abortion does Thompson attempt to
undermine? (How does she go about doing so?)
9. What is the violinist example in the Thompson article? What is it meant to show?
10. What is Marquis’ thesis about? Why does he think killing of innocents is wrong?
11. What argument does Marquis’ propose instead of the traditional personhood argument?
12. What are the implications of Marquis’ argument against abortion?
13. What are the various answer that Marquis considers to the question of why killing is wrong? Which
is the answer that he favors?
14. What is the discontinuation account of wrongful killing? How does it relate to Marquis’s argument?
Animal Ethics
15. What is “Speciesism”? Why is it wrong according to Singer? What are reasons for thinking this is a
kind of unjust discrimination?
16. Explain why Singer thinks it is impossible to justify the principle of equality among humans on the
basis of an actual, factual equality between humans.
17. Where should we draw the line between the beings who are worth of moral consideration, and the
ones who are not, according to Singer?
18. On which notion of right does Machan base his claim that animals do not have rights? How does it
relate to his argument about animal rights?
19. What is the fundamental difference between animals and humans according to Machan? How does
it relate to his argument about animal rights?
20. What are four ways of responding to the Norcross’s “causal argument”? Explain them.
21. State and explain Singer's response to the following objection: Animals and humans can't be morally
equal because they are factually very different from each other.
22. State and explain Singer's response to the following objection: Humans and animals should not get
equal treatment since this would involve absurdities like giving animals the right to vote and providing
them with a high school education.
23. What is the difference between a consequentialist moral theory like utilitarianism and a rights view
like Machan’s? Which factors do they consider when determining if an action is right/wrong? What is
Machan’s criterion of moral sta ...
The Document Common Sense By Thomas Paine
The Difference Between Common Sense and Science
Thomas Paine Common Sense Summary
Summary Of Common Sense By Thomas Paine
Common Sense : Human Rational Thinking
Essay On Common Sense By Thomas Paine
Common Sense Essay
Common Sense, By Thomas Paine Essay
Common Sense Essay
Dbq Essay On Common Sense By Thomas Paine
Essay on Common Sense
Thomas Paines Common Sense Essay
Senses Are Important For Everyday Life Essay
Summary Of Thomas Paines Common Sense
Common Sense Essay
Essay On Common Sense Dbq
Analysis Of Common Sense By Lonnie Rashid Jr.
Essay On Thomas Paines Common Sense
PHL 1010, Critical Thinking 1
Course Learning Outcomes for Unit VIII
Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:
5. Develop strategies for self-assessment.
6. Evaluate decision-making patterns that result in problem solving.
7. Detect bias and fallacies in messages from mass media and other sources.
Reading Assignment
Chapter 13:
Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation
Chapter 14:
Develop As an Ethical Reasoner
Unit Lesson
Ethical Life
Ethics is the study of the good life. There are two components of this study.
1. What does it mean to live a good life in the realm of human activity, thought, and action?
2. What does it mean to have a good life? What do I desire, and how can I bring that
ultimately good life about in my own life?
The responses to these aspects of life are numerous throughout the history of philosophy. Some philosophers
have focused on the actual aspects of life that relate to these questions and how you can attain a high level of
ethicality. Others have attempted to ground ethics in something universal that would make demands on all
humans. Finally, some hav e taken up a specific ethical viewpoint and then used that viewpoint to analyze the
goodness or badness of ethical issues in various fields of study and social life.
Most ethical philosophers believ e that there is, or are, universal ethical principles that make demands on all
humans. This is extremely important and it is where we will begin. It is common folk wisdom that there are no
universal ethical standards. It is puzzling for many philosophers to hear students claim that there are “no
universal truths” or that you cannot judge the practices of another culture because “what they do is right for
them.” Hopefully as you hav e engaged this course you have been exposed to the fallacious nature of this
thinking. If you were to consistently hold this position, it could lead to horrible outcomes for the individual. What
is more, it is often impossible for those students to avoid their own ethical universals when they feel they have
been treated unfairly or violently.
For example, if you were to be robbed at gunpoint, and you were an ethical relativist, you would not be able to
fundamentally justify calling the police for help. Of course, you might say that it was his ethical truth to rely on
the police when someone tries to rob another person. Howev er, the person doing the robbing would be making
the ethical claim that it is acceptable to steal from others using violent means. The pure relativist would have to
say that the ethical truth for the thief has just as much reality and import as the truth of the person being
robbed. Should the person being robbed then not call the police because robbery is truth for the robber?
Almost all humans feel a deep sense of violation and injustice when they undergo a traumatic robbery. They
UNIT VIII STUDY GUIDE
Fallacies: The A ...
Le web marketing ou comment bien communiquer sur la toileSylvie de Meeûs
Découvrons, en 4 étapes, les meilleurs outils et les bonnes pratiques pour :
Etape 1 : attirer les prospects
Etape 2 : convertir ses visiteurs en clients
Etape 3 : fidéliser et augmenter le panier moyen
Etape 4 : soigner sa communauté d’ambassadeurs et sa réputation.
Other means of persuasion, propaganda, & fallaciesWhat concept.docxalfred4lewis58146
Other means of persuasion, propaganda, & fallacies
What conception of the mind underlies critical reasoning? How do other means of persuasion rely on a different conception of the mind/self?
What conception of mind underlies critical reasoning?
Review slides 1 – 7 & 10 in Week 1’s power point: “What is critical reasoning anyhow?” & slides 2 & 5 in Week 3’s (Week 4 for the in-class section) power point: “What is an argument in logic?” (This is very important to doing your final essay. You may also want to review the description of the course on the syllabus).
Underlying this conception of critical reasoning is a conception of the mind that has varied somewhat in the history of Western philosophy, but tends to treat the mind as separate from the body [Descartes] and/or from the emotions [Kant], or if the emotions are taken into consideration, they are treated as subservient to the intellect [Socrates/Plato]. An exception to this “rule” is the philosopher Hume, who stated that reason is the slave of the emotions. Nietzsche can be interpreted as following in Hume’s footsteps.
Therefore, in critical reasoning, our capacity for logical thinking takes precedent over our desires, and logical non-contradiction takes precedence over efficient means to achieving our desires; appeals to “good reasons” to support our claims take precedent over appeals to emotions or to authority or to tradition.
In other words, evidence is supposed to replace even an expert’s judgment or the judgment of a tradition. This becomes tricky when an expert or authority is basing their judgment upon evidence that the rest of the public may not understand, or if any field of study has traditional ways of doing research, etc.
What does this conception of mind entail?
This conception of mind might underlie what Kant calls “enlightenment”, and it might also be part of the foundations of democratic thinking, insofar as the American and French revolutions were partly based on the idea that every individual citizen was capable of logical thought and had rational capacities, so deserved the vote.
Those who were still denied the vote, such as women or slaves, were often considered suspect in their ability to reason or think rationally.
Therefore, our conception of freedom was partly tied to the ability to think rationally, rather than to our capacity to feel pain or pleasure or to pursue our own desires.
This also involved the notion that our thinking is conscious.
Do we still believe in this same conception of mind?
Can we separate the emotions from rationality or thinking? This has been questioned by both recent neuroscientists, such as D’Amasio (who wrote a book, “Descartes’ Error”), and recent philosophers.
Should we want to separate the emotions from rationality? In what ways might emotions distort or undermine our rationality or our search for evidence, and in what ways might emotions contribute to our rationality and our search for evidence?
For instance, do.
Abortion 1. What according to Warren are the 5 conditions .docxdaniahendric
Abortion
1. What according to Warren are the 5 conditions for personhood? Why is it relevant to the abortion
debate?
2. What is a necessary/sufficient condition? Give examples. What does it have to do with the abortion
debate?
3. What is the traditional argument against abortion? Is it valid?
4. Why is the notion of personhood important to the argument against abortion?
5. Explain why a fetus, according to Warren, does not have a right to life.
6. What is the space explorer analogy and what is it supposed to show?
7. What is (are) an (the) objection(s) to Warren’s argument against banning abortion? Are there any
objections against it? Does she have any replies to those objection(s)? Are her replies any good? Explain
why or why not.
8. What part of the traditional argument for the banning of abortion does Thompson attempt to
undermine? (How does she go about doing so?)
9. What is the violinist example in the Thompson article? What is it meant to show?
10. What is Marquis’ thesis about? Why does he think killing of innocents is wrong?
11. What argument does Marquis’ propose instead of the traditional personhood argument?
12. What are the implications of Marquis’ argument against abortion?
13. What are the various answer that Marquis considers to the question of why killing is wrong? Which
is the answer that he favors?
14. What is the discontinuation account of wrongful killing? How does it relate to Marquis’s argument?
Animal Ethics
15. What is “Speciesism”? Why is it wrong according to Singer? What are reasons for thinking this is a
kind of unjust discrimination?
16. Explain why Singer thinks it is impossible to justify the principle of equality among humans on the
basis of an actual, factual equality between humans.
17. Where should we draw the line between the beings who are worth of moral consideration, and the
ones who are not, according to Singer?
18. On which notion of right does Machan base his claim that animals do not have rights? How does it
relate to his argument about animal rights?
19. What is the fundamental difference between animals and humans according to Machan? How does
it relate to his argument about animal rights?
20. What are four ways of responding to the Norcross’s “causal argument”? Explain them.
21. State and explain Singer's response to the following objection: Animals and humans can't be morally
equal because they are factually very different from each other.
22. State and explain Singer's response to the following objection: Humans and animals should not get
equal treatment since this would involve absurdities like giving animals the right to vote and providing
them with a high school education.
23. What is the difference between a consequentialist moral theory like utilitarianism and a rights view
like Machan’s? Which factors do they consider when determining if an action is right/wrong? What is
Machan’s criterion of moral sta ...
The Document Common Sense By Thomas Paine
The Difference Between Common Sense and Science
Thomas Paine Common Sense Summary
Summary Of Common Sense By Thomas Paine
Common Sense : Human Rational Thinking
Essay On Common Sense By Thomas Paine
Common Sense Essay
Common Sense, By Thomas Paine Essay
Common Sense Essay
Dbq Essay On Common Sense By Thomas Paine
Essay on Common Sense
Thomas Paines Common Sense Essay
Senses Are Important For Everyday Life Essay
Summary Of Thomas Paines Common Sense
Common Sense Essay
Essay On Common Sense Dbq
Analysis Of Common Sense By Lonnie Rashid Jr.
Essay On Thomas Paines Common Sense
PHL 1010, Critical Thinking 1
Course Learning Outcomes for Unit VIII
Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:
5. Develop strategies for self-assessment.
6. Evaluate decision-making patterns that result in problem solving.
7. Detect bias and fallacies in messages from mass media and other sources.
Reading Assignment
Chapter 13:
Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation
Chapter 14:
Develop As an Ethical Reasoner
Unit Lesson
Ethical Life
Ethics is the study of the good life. There are two components of this study.
1. What does it mean to live a good life in the realm of human activity, thought, and action?
2. What does it mean to have a good life? What do I desire, and how can I bring that
ultimately good life about in my own life?
The responses to these aspects of life are numerous throughout the history of philosophy. Some philosophers
have focused on the actual aspects of life that relate to these questions and how you can attain a high level of
ethicality. Others have attempted to ground ethics in something universal that would make demands on all
humans. Finally, some hav e taken up a specific ethical viewpoint and then used that viewpoint to analyze the
goodness or badness of ethical issues in various fields of study and social life.
Most ethical philosophers believ e that there is, or are, universal ethical principles that make demands on all
humans. This is extremely important and it is where we will begin. It is common folk wisdom that there are no
universal ethical standards. It is puzzling for many philosophers to hear students claim that there are “no
universal truths” or that you cannot judge the practices of another culture because “what they do is right for
them.” Hopefully as you hav e engaged this course you have been exposed to the fallacious nature of this
thinking. If you were to consistently hold this position, it could lead to horrible outcomes for the individual. What
is more, it is often impossible for those students to avoid their own ethical universals when they feel they have
been treated unfairly or violently.
For example, if you were to be robbed at gunpoint, and you were an ethical relativist, you would not be able to
fundamentally justify calling the police for help. Of course, you might say that it was his ethical truth to rely on
the police when someone tries to rob another person. Howev er, the person doing the robbing would be making
the ethical claim that it is acceptable to steal from others using violent means. The pure relativist would have to
say that the ethical truth for the thief has just as much reality and import as the truth of the person being
robbed. Should the person being robbed then not call the police because robbery is truth for the robber?
Almost all humans feel a deep sense of violation and injustice when they undergo a traumatic robbery. They
UNIT VIII STUDY GUIDE
Fallacies: The A ...
Explain what is meant by Moral Relativism - A-Level Religious Studies .... Moral relativism - 175 Words - NerdySeal. Moral Relativism Essay - To what extent, if any, is moral relativism a .... Moral Relativism and Objective Moral Values Free Essay Sample on .... Explain what is meant by moral relativism - A-Level Religious Studies .... Essay On Moral Relativism. Free Why People Accept Moral Relativism And Why Philosophers Reject .... Cultural Ethical Relativism Essay Relativism Anthropology. Moral Relativism. Explain what is meant by Moral Relativism. Assess the strengths the .... Explain moral relativism essay. Moral Relativism Vs. Moral Objectivism Essay Example 600 Words .... Moral amp; Cultural Relativism Essay Example Topics and Well Written .... What is meant by Moral Relativism? - A-Level Religious Studies .... moral relativism and situation ethics - A-Level Religious Studies .... What Is Moral Relativity olympiapublishers.com. Online Essay Help amazonia.fiocruz.br. PDF Moral Relativism. Need help do my essay argument against moral relativism - aegaa.x.fc2.com. Moral Right and Moral Relativism. Peter Kreeft Quote: Moral relativism says morality is relative, not .... Moral relativism essay. Moral Relativism Essays: Examples, Topics .... Ethical relativism essay. Arguments against ethical relativism. Arguments For and Against .... Ethical Relativism, Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes Example. Moral Relativism: Ruth Benedict on Conventionalism. Philosophy Evaluate Rachels Claims against Cultural Relativism Essay .... Week 1 Morality Introduction Argument Relativism. 12th Grade - Humanities - Moral Relativism. Relativism and Morality Assignment Example Topics and Well Written .... Moral relativism essay - Get Help From Custom College Essay Writing and .... Moral relativism essay - Reliable Writing Help From HQ Writers. Relativism Relativism Morality Free 30-day Trial Scribd Moral Relativism Essay Moral Relativism Essay
Unit 7 Assignment – Freedom and DeterminismInstructions Please .docxmarilucorr
Unit 7 Assignment – Freedom and Determinism
Instructions: Please note that the questions below are based on the Unit readings and are intended to be both an outline of the units’ material and the basis for your Unit Assessment, so please give your best effort to answering them thoroughly. The task is to respond to all 15 of the questions below. Each question will be worth two points.
The format for submission is to include the questions with the replies. Example:
How does one know what the good life is?
- The good life is…
1. Define Free Will. What is meant philosophically by the “Problem of Free Will or Dilemma of Determinism”?
2. In what ways do you think you are free? In what way do you think you are determined? (This answer doesn’t require the readings, just your reflection.)
3. Give an example to show why “freedom does not mean the ability to make decisions and to act without undesirable consequences.”
4. What are the origins of the English words liberty and freedom? In what way are the similar and in what nuance are they distinct?
5. “Most people born in the twentieth century were raised with a conflicting set of beliefs concerning the issue of freedom. “ What does your textbook mean by this statement? (Quote in Chapter 7: FREEDOM and DETERMINISM)
6. Are you one of those people who claim to believe in FATE? Do you think that all things occur as they were meant to occur? Do you believe that "What will be, will be”? Explain and try to give an example.
7. Explain the distinct philosophical views of the “compatibilist” and the incompatibilist” as they relate to free will and divine foreknowledge.
8. Give a formal definition of Fate and Destiny. Briefly describe the 3 possible scenarios that “those who consider the matter of fate, destiny, and freedom seriously must consider.”
9. Define Causal Determinism, Hard Determinism, Soft Determinism, Indeterminism, and Libertarianism.
10. List some of the arguments used by libertarians in support of freedom of will. (Hint: the Data of Experience)
11. How does the modern American philosopher Richard Taylor define deliberation, and what does he say the presuppositions of deliberation are?
12. Read the “Summary of Taylor's view by Omonia Vinieris” and give your own analysis of Taylor’s Theory. (75-100 words)
13. What is John Searle’s
Solution
to the Freewill Problem?
14. What is the Existentialist approach to the free will debate? Be sure to include the thoughts of both the French Existentialist Jean Paul Sartre as well as Nietzsche. (75-100 words)
15. What is Universal Determinism? State the “Thesis of Determinism.” What is fatalism?
...
2. AGENDA
New Groups
Review: Thoughts on Machiavelli or LaoTzu
Introduce Essay #3: Justice: Due Nov 15
Discussion: Marcus Tullius Cicero "The
Defense of Injustice"
Bio
Rhetorical Strategies
Questions for Critical Reading
QHQs
Suggestions for Reading: Thoreau
3. STAND IF YOU
ARE NOT IN A
GROUP
1.
You must
change at least
half of your
team after
each essay.
2.
You may never
have a new
team
composed of
more than
50% of any
prior team.
4. REVIEW DISCUSSION
Do you agree with Machiavelli’s thesis that stability
and power are the only qualities that matter in the
evaluation of governments? If not, what else
matters?
Can we have Lao-Tzu’s peace, even though there is
ambition, materialism, war, and famine on earth?
How is it possible?
5. ESSAY #3: JUSTICE
Essay #3 will be in response to either the excerpt
from Cicero, Thoreau, or both.
Choose your topic from "Suggestions for
Writing" on pages 129-30, prompts 1-9 or on
pages 157-58 prompts 1-6. The prompts are also
listed on the website.
It should be a least two pages long but not longer than
three pages (excluding a works cited page).
It should be formatted MLA style.
It is due Friday (Nov 15) of next week
6. RESPONDING TO A PROMPT: CICERO #3
Clarify what Philus means by the term “wisdom,” which
he introduces in paragraph 18. How do you understand
his use of the term and how appropriate is the word
“wisdom” for the ideas he describes? Would most
people today regard the behavior he sketches out as
an example of wisdom? Is it wisdom for you? What
moral or ethical problems arise from Philus’s concept
of wisdom?
7. TAKE IT APART AND BRIEFLY RESPOND TO
EACH QUESTION
1. Clarify what Philus means by the term “wisdom,” which he
introduces in paragraph 18.
2. How do you understand his use of the term
a. how appropriate is the word “wisdom” for the ideas he
describes?
3. Would most people today regard the behavior he sketches
out as an example of wisdom?
4. Is it wisdom for you?
5. What moral or ethical problems arise from Philus’s concept
of wisdom?
8. THE THESIS: LOOK AT THE BRIEF ANSWERS YOU GAVE TO THE
QUESTIONS. THEN, BEGIN TO WORK THEM INTO A SHORT ANSWER.
YOUR THESIS WILL LIKELY BE A COMBINATION OF ANSWERS TO THE
MOST IMPORTANT OR COMPELLING OF THE QUESTIONS.
1. Clarify what Philus means by the term “wisdom,” which
he introduces in paragraph 18.
a. How do you understand his use of the term
I.
how appropriate is the word “wisdom” for the ideas he describes?
2. Would most people today regard the behavior he
sketches out as an example of wisdom?
a. Is it wisdom for you?
3. What moral or ethical problems arise from Philus’s
concept of wisdom?
9. NOT ONLY A THESIS, BUT AN OUTLINE
Now, write a brief directed summary as an introduction, and conclude it
with your thesis.
Expand your list of questions into an outline.
Find textual support for answers that will come from the text
Clarify what Philus means by the term “wisdom,” which he introduces in
paragraph 18.
how appropriate is the word “wisdom” for the ideas he describes?
What moral or ethical problems arise from Philus’s concept of wisdom?
Find examples or support for answers that will come from another source
Would most people today regard the behavior he sketches out as an example of
wisdom?
Express your opinion where the question asks for it.
How do you understand his use of the term [wisdom]
Is it wisdom for you?
10. PUT YOUR EVIDENCE, EXPLANATION, AND
ANALYSIS INTO YOUR OUTLINE
Directed Summary
Thesis
Section 1: Clarify what Philus means by the term “wisdom,”
which he introduces in paragraph 18.
How do you understand his use of the term
how appropriate is the word “wisdom” for the ideas he describes?
Section 2: Would most people today regard the behavior he
sketches out as an example of wisdom?
Is it wisdom for you?
Section 3: What moral or ethical problems arise from Philus’s
concept of wisdom?
Conclusion
13. MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO: A BRIEF BIOGRAPHY
Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) was one of the most
important orators, intellectuals, and philosophers in the Roman
Republic.
He was highly educated and served as Quaestor (a financial
administrator) in Sicily, Aedile (an official) in Rome, and as
Praetor (Lawyer). He was eventually elected Consul in 63.
In 44, when Caesar was murdered, Cicero championed the
Republic. He tried to win over Octavian, but failed. He also gave
his greatest speech, the Philipics, aimed at Marc Antony.
However, this backfired, as the Second Triumvirate was
formed, and Cicero's name was on the list of enemies. He fled
Rome, but he was captured and executed.
Cicero's oration, philosophy, rhetoric, poetry, and letters create a
vast collection of works that are matched by few in the modern
world.
14. IN YOUR GROUPS
Discuss the rhetorical strategies
of Cicero.
Discuss the “Questions for
Critical Thinking” on page 129.
Find textual support for your
answers!
15.
16. RHETORICAL STRATEGIES
Argument Dialogue
Compares
(Between Philus and Laelius)
Definition/interpretation
(What is Justice?)
Offers Alternatives
(perform injustice/not suffer it;
perform and suffer; neither perform
or suffer it)
(Justice to policies of
Rome)
Contrasts
(Wisdom with Justice)
Analogy
(virtuous man vs. ruffian)
Evaluation
Counterargument
(perform injustice and not
suffer it)
(by Laelius at the end to
make his point)
24. WHICH OF LAELIUS’S STATEMENTS IN THE FINAL PARAGRAPHS OF THE SELECTION SEEM
WEAKEST TO YOU? WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS?
25.
26. Q. Why does Philus feel that “human beings are
not just, by nature, at all”?
Q. Why does Philus use the example of the two
men, one a good man and one a criminal, to
explain the idea of injustice?
Q. Would this example be as just as effective to
explain the idea of justice?
Q. What truth does having a devil’s advocate in the
text reveal about the nature of justice?
27. TRUE AND NATURAL JUSTICE AND LAW?
Q. Why is justice not natural?
Q. If justice is not natural, can wisdom be
natural?
Q. Can there be a “true law”?
Q. So what does “true law” mean?
Q. What is a universal law?
Q. Does true justice exist at all?
28. Q. When laws vary in each country, how do we
know what is just and what is wrong?
Q. Has our society evolved and grown to inherit
universal-natural laws over time?
Q. If Cicero were still alive today, how would he
go about refreshing the infrastructure and
workings of our polarized government to
maximize the efficiency of law making and
effective implementation?
29. JUSTICE
• Get into your groups
• Divide up the questions in the
“Critical Reading” section of the
Thoreau essay.
• We will reconvene to discuss
the homework
Suggestions for Critical
Reading
Page 157
30. Read A World of Ideas: Henry David Thoreau
"Civil Disobedience" (133-157)
Post #25 Questions (TBD) for Critical Reading:
(page 157)
Post #26 QHQ Thoreau
HOMEWORK