The problem we discussed today is that most students don't care about the learning aspect of school so much as the grade that comes out of minimal thought. We discussed the syllabus of the course which showed the importance of actually learning, or else we follow everyone else, and have to do what they say because we haven't learned any better. Another reason to learn rather than memorize for a test is that wanting and pursuing knowledge is incredibly rewarding, and gives a student something to have control over and be proud of.
The problem in today's discussion was about how to construct and prepare for the upcoming essay as well as review a civil society and why it is important. A civil society is something that is seldom considered unless it eases the masses. It means many things, including a standard of tolerance, social norms, and an honest conversation. Overall, is sounds good, and is a logical choice. Why wouldn't we want a civil society?
Today was judgement day.. we had an essay about a civil society and intellectuals using it in theory only when the current predicament is of and unfortunate nature. I discussed the possibility of a civil society and connected it to my thesis that a civil society cannot occur in this world, but the working to achieve said topic can be beneficial. Come to think of it, i probably could have related more to the prompt, but overall, i think it was a fair essay, and i prepared for it as much as i could
Today we discussed the components of an honest conversation as well as go over the essay that we wrote yesterday. The honest conversation was something that I brought up in my essay, however I don't think I fully understood it until today. It is one of the component needed to achieve a civil society, because that is the only way that people can communicate correctly without unintended consequences or anterior motives. The honest conversation is a simple opinion to start out after a brief review, then after careful thought and in depth study, a judgement is created based on the knowledge accumulated. What I thought an honest conversation was, was simply telling the truth, but it turns out there's a lot more to it..
Today we started where we left off; talking about a civil society and honest conversation, and how people typically go into a conversation to win, and their 'opponent' will lose, however, we discussed that an honest conversation seeks to find a win win situation, and not a 'sum zero game'. Some questions we approached today were Do we have to develop a social norm to have a civil society? Could social norms be replaced by a law and order system? Do we have to persuade people about social norms? there are definitely some flaws with the law and order system, such as how do we maintain laws, or decide how to enforce said laws. to achieve social norms, we must find the similar whys between society and the individual. Thomas Hobbes shows that the importance of a cs1 is to provide safety to the masses, who will then comply to rules in order to maintain security.
Today, in the morning my co-conspirator and I went in the morning and discussed last weeks reading of "Why Be Civil" and as well reviewed it in class. In the class, in our review we discussed the problem in the reading and in our world today of how unjust is more profitable then being just and many times being just actually hurts the individual rather than benefit the individual doing the just action. And we can't really tell the difference between just and unjust. We also discussed that Plato was unsuccessful in his solution and only found that we need to be moral. Then we discussed the syllabus about how learning isn't really learning.
Today ( Tuesday) in class we went over two main things. We went over essay preparation where we discussed the requirements Mr. Berglund wants in our essay, a brief summary-we must have five pragraphs, with the first paragraph stating the problem and including a thesis , but we can get away with 4 paragraphs because if we defend our three points clearly a conclusion isn't really necessary. On the other topic we went in depth in the idea of civil society, and what is a civil society? And I found that there is no exact definition only, some people like to invent definitions, but there's no exact definition. Which is going to make it tough to right my essay about tomorrow because with there be no exact definition, I either have to invent my own definition or just describe what most definitions include. All requiring one thing, getting dirty. But back to the discussion, we also went into depth of why we need a civil society, but in reality we just need a civil society because it's logical, because most intellectuals only really use the idea of pursuing a civil society when there is a predicament, but I don't think they realize that if they just try to pursue this civil society, then I think that it would avoid the predicament in which they say they're pursuing a civil society when in reality it's just a way pasify individuals about the predicament, but there is a balance to the madness because to achieve the perfect civil society is impossible, but we can get close and have something to strive for to hope for the civil society. So we must focus on the idea in order to improve our society but if focused on too much I think it can distract us from other problems and be like a "wine and make us drunk".
Today (Wednesday), we wrote our essay in class, I feel confident on the ideas I had in my head, but not quite sure if I got them on paper right. For I think I did not condense the information right, so I wrote a lot, but that's okay I felt like I was struggling. As a side note I'm happy to finally see the alter lit up.
Today (Thursday), we first went over what would be the "perfect" essay and what we would need to have, or what Mr. Berglund thought we should have. Either way, it was good to go over with, cause I feel it gave us an idea of how we all did on our essay. But after we continued on our discussion on a civil society or the CS1. We cleared that even thought a civil society is unachievable, we as a society must strive for it otherwise, if we think it's impossible then we will fall into moral disengagement which won't early hurt ourselves, but also our "law and order" system. Then after we found the need for a civil society, we talked about how we can get close to a civil society. To get close to a civil society, we need to achieve 3 things: 1. Must establish a social norm (set a community standard), 2. we need to develop a a degree of tolerance (must bring other people into consideration and not ignore the unintended consequences), 3. need to have an honest conversation (open to accept other ideas, having a win win situation not a zero sum game). Once we achieve these three things, we may be able to achieve a society close to a civil society, avoiding moral disengagement.
Today (Friday), we first went over the ideas we went over yesterday, about civil society. We first discussed how in achieving a civil society, we need to establish a social norm, need to develop a degree of tolerance, and need to have an honest conversation. But then the question came, can a social norm be developed by a law and order society. For a law can make an individual do anything if it ENFORCED. So then i believe, that a social norm can be replaced by a social norm because if used correct, a law and order society can avoid or fix moral disengagement. The only problem I find is that even though a law and order society can replace a social norm, I do not think it can lead to a civil society, because it can't coexist with the other two standards for a civil society to exist. For, a law may not have tolerance for others and have unintended consequences even thought it establishes a social norm. And even through history, we can see that a law and order society cannot keep a honest conversation because of the possible use of propaganda, and how most of the time the government system does not stay open to other/alternate ideas thus not able to have an honest conversation, which farther down the road, even though the laws may establish a social norm, it won''t be able to achieve a civil society.
Today we discussed the blow your mind friday. Plato describes a problem that we are unable to tell if someone is unjust and that people do not benefit from being just, they are punished or go unnoticed. People that are unjust change there perception so that people do not realize that they are bad. The way we find the solution is to find a way to reward the just and punish the unjust.
Today in class we talked about civil society. Civil society is not usually used as something that we want to achieve, but it is more of something that we strive to achieve a solution to a problem. We also try to achieve a civil society to find ways to make ourselves "just". Others say that civil society is achieved since we are looking for the pieces of ethics that we are missing. This can be described as something with social norms, tolerance to others, and can also to an honest conversation. One question i have is, can you explain the whys in the circles and how this would lead to a civil society?
Today we did an essay and though i did not understand the question i still did as much as i could. i then realized taht i did undertand the question half way through so i felt good and confident. what really scared me was the bells and the 5 and 2 minute warning. I feel like i did poor on the introduction but strong in my 4th paragraph. i belive i sold my idea effectively in the 4th paragraph.
THURSDAY FEBRUARY 9TH
The question in the essay is if we only look at civil society when society is going through problems. When you first supported the argument, i thought that you were wrong. We are always looking to find a civil society since the just are stepped on and punished and the unjust are rewarded and seem just. When you say that there arent many problems in the world, it is because you do not see the unjust since they have changed their perception. this is why a civil society is something what is always talked about since the just want to find ways to punish the unjust. You then said that a civil society is something that should always be talked about, i then agree with you.
We then talked about the goal of achieving a civil society. We have to start a quest to achieve the civil society. First we have to create a social norm (which i think is an ethical standard) then we have to have a degree of tolerance (which is accepting others and find the possiblilities of the consequences). And last we must an honest conversation. This is the hardest to achieve and the two parties have to promote there ideas, and the judgement must result in a win win situation, not a lose lose, and not a win lose
FRIDAY 10, 2017
Today, you tried to establish the law and order society and how it is created, but you were interrupted by hypothetical, "What if..." questions. I think that it would be better if we first discussed what we were learning. In the Honest Conversation we talked about how we have to have a win win situation. We also tried to debate is we should develope a social norm or CS^2. The purpose of developing a social norm is to have a civil society and avoid moral disengagement. This then brings the problem to see if social norms can be replaced with a law and order society since laws can control everything an individual does. It seems that a law and order society is bad but it is good since laws protect men from being bad. Thomas Hobbs says that civil society is to protect and keep us safe. The laws that protect us can be over used. This would make the individuals in society politically disengaged, and making the government have absolute control over the people. To solve this we make a republic.
The analysis of the class syllabus in class today relates to the problems we've been talking about in class because the issues in talks about are similar to issues in society. One example of this is kids "sleeping" or not being engaged in their education. That in a way is a type of moral disengagement in which they negate the why of learning and start with the what, which is a negative emotion they feel towards school. Another example of the relation is that society is teaching students to strive for grades instead of education which makes "learning" not really learning at all which part of the problem with civil society. If we cant establish a clear standard of education it is difficult to establish a standard for morality. This is also a problem because we don't teach kids to strive for education so why would they strive for something as difficult to achieve as a civil society? One point of confusion I found was the what of society and the what of the individual in terms of education. When the definition is different between the two how can we be expected to really learn in school?
Today in class we discussed civil society. We talked about how civil society is a concept that was put in place for people to strive towards in times of hardship. It connects to the concepts Plato talked about in why be moral, because through the concept of civil society we are able to justify actions as being just. We also discussed the basis of what a civil society entails, like societal norms, appropriate discourse and standard of tolerance. We talked about how all of that is subjective because the standard for what those are vary from person to person. So something I'm still confused about is how if we as individuals have different interests, how are we supposed to put aside our personal interest and compromise with others? Especially when, just as plato says, there is more to gain from acting unjustly or in your own interest than the interest of others.
Today in class we wrote our first essay. The prompt was concerning if we look at civil society in times of need in order to feel like there is a goal to achieve in terms of morality. I feel like I did okay on the essay, but it was kind of written in a stream of conscious type format instead of an essay. I think for the most part I got important points across, but I did think that the prompt was tricky. I also had difficulty explaining clearly why it is that society uses civil society only in times of need and not all the time.
Today in class we came to the conclusion that a civil society is completely necessary. We talked about how in order to move towards a civil society we need to form societal norms, a standard of tolerance, and we need to be able to have a honest conversation. We need to openly express our own ideas, keeping our individuality, while still keeping others in consideration while having a conversation. We also need to consider the affect our ideas have on others, instead of only how they affect you. In other words you are keeping in mind the unintended consequences. It is basically the idea of putting enough of your own self interest aside so that you can come to a compromise with others, without losing all of your individualism. I was kind of confused about why it Is that there is no question about whether we need a civil society or not. I think that it is questionable because if we are morally disengaged and see no problems until obvious wrongs are apparent than we are only really striving for that goal when we are in need.
Today in class we discussed social norms. We pondered the question whether or not a law and order society can replace social norms in a civil society effectively. Technically speaking you can replace social norms with a law and order society but that doesn't necessarily get you to a civil society. The question was up to debate because if we have individuals who are morally disengaged governing laws, how can we be sure the laws are just? We also talked about how the reason for social norms could be safety, which leads to prosperity.
Today in class we went over our syllabus and we went over how to do this assignment.
Today in class we talked about what we need in our essay. I learned that a civil society means many things. It can be social norms, standards for tolerance, and appropriate discourse (honest conversation). A civil society sounds good and is a utopia that is hard to achieve. It is logical that we need a civil society.
Today in class we had our first test/essay. The topic was hard but i think i did pretty good because i discussed everything we talked about in class and i discussed some readings we talked about on blow your mind friday.
2/9 Today in class we talked about the essay we wrote and we started a new section. We discussed that we need to have a continual thought about civil society. We brought up the question do we only think about a civil society when we need to? I also learned today that we need to make an assumption that we need a CS1. 1) we need to develop a community standard. 2) we need to develop a degree of tolerance 3) Need to have an honest conversation.
2/10. In class we went over the new section and discussed the question, Can we solve problems by a law and order society? we had the example of two golden circles and the two why's lead to moral disengagement. We discussed whether we can be replaced by a law and order society and we also questioned, do we have to PERSUADE people to develop a social norm? How can we develop a social norm?? the simplest answer to this question would be to have a similar why. We also talked about whether we can make laws in order to solve the problem. Enforcing the laws would mean everyone being forced, and possible punishment. We also discussed our desire to have a social norm.
2\6 Today, we went over how signing up for the China trip is soon and we also reviewed the syllabus.
2\7 During the beginning of class, we reviewed what to incorporate into the essay. We should bring in the what.why.how circle as well as the previous readings we have gotten. In one of our paragraphs, we should describe what a civil society is. In a second paragraph, we could describe what an individual culture is. in a third, we could describe what their relation is. After discussing this, we went into defining what a civil society is exactly. A civil society is like searching for lost treasure, as told by Macintyre. It means a social norm, a standard for tolerance, and an appropriate discourse.
Today in class, we wrote the dreaded essay. I wish I had more time to expand on my ideas. I tried to incorporate the what, why, how circle. I started by talking about why we need a civil society and then i went into how as individuals we can make decisions to work towards a civil society. Then, i described what a civil society is exactly. I then explained what the problem is and why we can never truly achieve it.
2/9 We discussed a presidents' day project and how it could apply to our ethics class. We reviewed our essays that we read yesterday and how we only consider a civil society after something bad happens. We stated that this is our current problem and that we always need to be trying for a civil society in all of our decision. Once we finished discussing this, we decided that we need a civil society. In order to accomplish this, we need to develop a social norm, a degree of tolerance, and have an honest conversation.
2/10 We posed the question, do we have to develop a social norm? The purpose of this would be to acheive a civil society of course or to avoid moral disengagement. An important question that follows is could a social norm, or our ethics, be replaced with a law and order society? Establishing laws would provide safety. This would bring us closer to a civil society. We do this today by establishing republics. We are okay with this because we are so afraid of evil so we sacrifice some of our individualism to the government so we can be safe.
2/13 Thomas Hobbes said that an individual is willing to give up some of their freedom to the government in order to be safe, This would give us a civil society. In a law and order society, three things are established: guidelines, suggestions, and policy. IN a republic, which is what we have, we are concerned on the individual when making laws which makes us more tolerable for others. This leads to us having a honest conversation. Both of these things will most likely produce an essence of ethics. So laws pretty much create a civil society except for the fact that laws do not regulate common sense.
Today I learned that one cannot tell and unjust person from a just person, if you are noble and just you go unnoticed and are viewed unjust, and if an unjust person can convince society that they are just then they receive all the rewards a of a just person even though they don't deserve it. This relates to the problem of why should i be moral because if you do the right thing and are punished that goes against your self interest, because of this you are unjust in order to protect yourself and do what benefits you. This causes confusion because theoretically if you do good you should receive good and if you do bad, bad will be done unto you. But, this theory of unjust people being the only ones that profit completely throws off this logic.
Today we went over some more pointers about what should be included in our essay like what a cs1 is and what the individual culture is. We also went into further detail about what a civil society is and if we need it. We said that intellectuals view civil society as the solutions to our problems and is only considered when something bad happens in order to put everyone at ease, instead of a constant pursuit to have this civil society. Some definitions of civil society are social norms, standard for tolerance, and appropriate discourse (honest conversation).
Today we wrote our first essay. I think I did well on what ideas i wanted to express but I need to work more on how to organize them and how to clearly express what I was trying to convey. I also need to work on time management and how to quickly write down what i needed.
Today in class we went over what we need in a civil society. We need to develope a social norm which is what the standard for our community is. we also need to develope a degree of tolerance. we also need to have a honest conversation. We also went over a Zero Sum Game which is when theres a win lose situation this means that there is not an honest conversation. When the situation is a win win then both parties are having a honest conversation.
Today in class we brought up the question if we actually need to develope a social norm or a cs2. We went over Theodore Hobbes theory that in order to make people abide by the social norms we need to make them feel safe and secure. We also went over how to save the individual society you create a republic .
Well I don't remember exactly what happened in class seeing that I have ADHD and it was very difficult to focus, but I do remember having a recap on what we talked about on Friday. In Friday we talked about the problem that Plato presents, why must we be moral? Today in class we talked about how the unjust is rewarded and the just is punished. The problem is that. The three main pints are how people who are just are punished, and how the unjust are rewarded and how we are only trying to be perceived as just so that we obtain respect
Today we talked about how one could prepare for the essay we will be writing tomorrow. We talked about a civil society, is it achievable?, is it over rated ?? We also talked about how to write the essay, and a list of things we must include in the essay to get a good grade. The problem presented today was that we were freaking out over the essay, and the solution was to give us pointers and explain it further to help us understand it. The only concern I have for tommorow is that I will fail the essay and disappoint myself, but other than that u seem to mostly understand what is happening in class
Love is the answer to all problems. There is no way this can be disputed.
Today in class we only wrote out essays . So we literally didn't talk about anything except the comforting fact that all the dead presidents would be with us while we wrote our essays
Mon: In class today we reviewed the problem and solution in Plato's "Why be moral?" The problem is that there seems to be no benefit from being moral. Those who are unjust without being seen have beneficial results for themselves, while people who are just don't have the same benefits as the unjust. That being said, there is really no solution given by Plato. He leaves the people who analyze his writing to come up with a solution themselves. Now the question really is why be moral if those who aren't moral have better results in life than those who are moral?
Tues: After discussing the essay, we discussed information about a civil society.We talked about how man views a civil society as salvation, and a civil society is desired because it seems logical. Typically we only really think about ways to achieve a civil society when we are dealing with problems. A civil society is tried to be achieved to put the mass at ease. Civil society has multiple definitions, and is perceived differently by each individual. What might be a civil society to one person can be completely different to the next. However, reaching a civil society is not possible. Society can strive every day to perfect our world, but it can never be truly perfect. We must try to get as close to as we can, so that our world is worth living in.
Wed: Today we wrote our essay. I feel confident that I covered enough about what we learned. I discussed a lot about the why circle, and how individualism relates to a civil society. I think that even though I did cover a lot about the topics we have been taught in class, I may have missed ideas about an individualistic culture, and possibly did not expand enough on my ideas or condensed my ideas well enough. Otherwise, I am curious about what my grade will be and excited to go over it once it has been graded.
Thurs: At the beginning of class we reviewed our essays from yesterday. We expanded on what a civil society is. A civil society is not just salvation for the intellectual, it is more than that. We will always need a civil society, however unachievable it may be. If we do not try to reach a civil society we will become morally disengaged. Our goal is to solve problems. To fix these problems we need to develop a social norm, or a community standard. We need acceptance and to develop a degree of tolerance as well. One problem that is nearly impossible to fix is having an honest conversation. Tolerance is a major part to having an honest conversation, so there is an area of acceptance that is achievable. An honest conversation has to be a win-win situation, with equal results for both parts of the conversation. Overall, an honest conversation can not be a zero sum game. Now, what is left is trying to achieve this win-win situation, an honest conversation.
Fri: Our focus today was social norms. Do we have to develop a social norm, and why? The reason behind developing a social norm is to try to get as close as possible to a civil society. To achieve this civil society we need to get similar whys for the individual and for society. But how do we develop social norms without force, or a law and order society? Does the social norm have to be replaced by a law and order society? The thought that man can be legislated to be better is the goal of a law and order society. It seems that we have decided to fix moral disengagement by creating more laws to set a path for society to follow to be morally engaged. But are the laws created moral in the first place? Next, should we just enforce laws instead of creating a social norm for society? Falling back on a law and order society makes it seem possible that over time we will reach a civil society. After discussing a law and order society, we came back to talking about the nature of man. If man is bad, should a law and order society be made so that we do not have the option to be bad? Making a bad decision is easier than making a good decision in most cases, so therefore society tends to be more bad than good. Thomas Hobbes said that the motivation behind a civil society is safety and security, which I agree with. Can laws by themselves secure a sense of safety for society? Achieving a civil society has a lot more components than being a good person.
Today in class, we discussed the problem of Justice and the recurring question "Why be Moral?" as stated by Plato.
In short, the problem is that the individual benefits much more from being Unjust than Just and that the Just are actually harmed by society. We then ask ourselves why we need to be moral if being Just leads to pain and being Unjust (without being caught or bound by society's laws) leads us to pleasure. This is a problem because the formation of a Civil Society is impossible where true Justice is shunned and the mask of Justice hiding an Unjust person is revered.
Plato's solution to this problem is less than clear as he doesn't give a truly valid "cure" to this horrid problem. He hypothesizes that we need a higher justice in order to rid ourselves of the problem. By doing this, he gives the reader a hope that we aren't as doomed as David Hume paints us to be.
Plato's problem is truly horrific and will most assuredly not be easily remedied, but I am personally still confused about Plato's solution. What does he mean by higher justice? Is it divine or man-made? If it is man-made, wouldn't it be contradicting Man's inclination to be Unjust than Just? If it is Divine, how is this deity's will enforced?
As today is the day before THE essay, we discussed the arguments and points that our essay should touch on and received more information on the Civil Society.
For our thesis, we should explain what the question is asking and what we are trying to prove. For our body, we should talk about the problem of the Individual and the Individualistic culture that we live in, we should talk about the "Group" and define what a Civil Society is, talk about the relationship between the Individual and Group and their need for a Civil Society. We should also try (very hard) to include a reading such as Plato, "Ought" "Is", or a Disquieting Suggestion. We also had more information from a Powerpoint on the Civil Society, which included how Intellectuals see this Civil Society and what a Civil Society means.
The thing that I think I would also need more clarity on the definitions of a Civil Society.
Today I learned the importance of preparation as we took our first essay today. I was quite nervous and I'm sure that affected my performance. The part of the essay that I need to work on is the introduction because in the first few minutes, I had no direction and just went with what came to me. This is a problem because of the fact that, if I had taken the time to really plan my essay out, I'm sure I would have had a stronger essay.
Today in class, we moved on from the question of needing a Civil Society and are now asking WHY we need one. We discussed the necessities of a Civil Society and what Intellectuals really are. Yes, philosophers and great thinkers are Intellectuals, but we ourselves are Intellectuals because of the fact that we are questioning the 3 P's of society. We also asked the question of "Why do we need Ethics?" because in fact, there are other ways to reach a Civil Society besides going through the "Whys" of the Individual and Society.
I understand the things that lead to a Civil Society, but I think I need more clarity on what a Civil Society entails.
Today there was conversation about Plato's article "Why Be Moral?" and how it applies to society. He talks about how the unjust are held in positions of power and influence, giving them the ability to be unjust without consequences and still seeming to be just. The just man in the mean time has no influence and is in a place where instead of being rewarded for his just ways he is punished. Why is this? If the outcome of being unjust is better then the outcome of being just why be moral, and why is it important to society? It is in one's self interest to be unjust but is not helpful at all to society and its common goal with the individual, a civil society. Therefore the answer must be that we must not act in our self-interest but in the interest of all. If all are interested in the good of all then all are happy. Does this mean we must completely ignore our self-interest which in my opinion is a part of our humanity and our instincts since the beginning of time. (self-preservation) I wonder if there is a balance between our self-interest and always seeking to help others. If all are seeking to help others then there will be no need for you to care for yourself. This would maybe be possible with a person who is just in power who can encourage this new way of life. At the same time, if put in power, the person will be given the opportunity to pursue injustice without the consequences. Although Plato plays the Devil's Advocate in his article encouraging injustice, Plato reveals in the end that he does not believe in injustice but in justice. I think this is because we will never be able to come any closer to a Civil Society with injustice/self-interest, as our main motivator. If we care about the good of all then none of these problems discussed will be an obstacle in the way of a Civil Society.
Today's topic was of civil Society and the intellectuals who run what we consider to our interpretation of a Civil Society. They are the government, the press, and in some people's perspective, our religious leaders. When the masses begin to notice the jeopardy in their Civil Society, due to our inability to ever reach it and an overall ignorance to its existence, they become nervous and sometimes unstable. In answer to soothe the masses, the intellectuals will provide them with information, and answer to their problem. Much of this ignorance can be attributed to society and the individual approaching their problems from the what instead of the why. They have no clue as to what they are trying to accomplish but make differences in order to achieve a why they don't know of. For example, Hitler was empowered by people's search for an answer in desperate times. He provided a scapegoat and proceeded towards the what. The why of the situation was Civil Society, which they never achieved. Many of the people continued to live in society and because they never identified the problem, only added to their troubles. I believe these intellectuals are unjust because the come in times of weakness, when people are easily influenced and take power. Maybe it is possible they can use this situation for the good of all. A Civil Society is a society where all are content in their living conditions and life and yet always improving. It is a perfect world, a utopia. Always, we have been pursuing a civilization where all can live peacefully. This, of course is not possible. But we must always strive towards this, for if we give up our situation will only be worse.
There were some things that I felt I did not have the time to discuss in my essay. This experience also revealed that I do not write well under pressure. I struggled to include examples from the texts you provided and to have clear thoughts. I do not know why, but I am hopeful that you will be lenient in your grading. I hope you will consider my previous entries in this blog when grading my essay, much of my thinking process is expressed here. The question, I feel, was unclear and was phrased oddly, though I am uncertain as to if that was on purpose. Please be more clear in the future if that was not your intention. I also noticed that my writing thought process was different then usual under the circumstances of today. Anyways, I understand why you gave us an essay to complete but I feel that the lines should be less blurry next time.
Today it seems we began a new chapter in our ethical learning, going past a civil society and expanding on the concept. We must now assume that a civil society is needed. In order to ever even come close to a civil society, we must establish a social norm. I feel that it is possible to argue that there already is a social norm. Not for the entire world, but every region has an idea of what they consider to be ethical and what they consider tolerable. Other complications to this idea of a social norm is diversity. There are different religions and cultures that influence a person's actions and beliefs. It is impossible to procure a social norm feasible to the entire human population. Another complication is who would establish this social norm? Where do we draw a line as to what is tolerable and what is ethical? What if the norm we make is wrong and causes more destruction? The only way to establish a social norm is to have the ability to influence people's perspective, if not control it completely. This has obviously been attempted multiple times by exceptionally corrupted governments. (Russia) So my question is: How can a social norm be created that benefits the masses and is ethical?
In the article “Why Be Moral?”, Plato encourages injustice because of all of the benefits it gives oneself. However, this is a problem to society because the unjust are often the ones in a position of power and influence, and will abuse it to do more unjust acts. Meanwhile, a just man is not exposed to having power and is not in a position. This suggests that the unjust are often rewarded, which is a problem since it can encourage people to be unjust. And another problem is that since one’s self interests are often not the same as society, the unjust acts they do bring a society down. The last problem with society is the school’s grading system and the students’ disinterest to learn. Students come to school with the intention to get high grades and please others standards, not their own. Not having your own standards is ignorant. One should not follow others, but rather themselves to reach their goals. Therefore, they end up learning nothing if not following themselves. This is society’s problem because if no one learns, the society is uneducated.
This is not a message. This is more work for Mr. Berglund. This has wasted his time.
Since one's self interests are not always the same as society's, they must travel back to the why and find a bridge.to connect them. When this is done, it leads to a civil society. The catalyst for the discussion of a civil society is when a catastrophic event occurs and the idea and pursuance of one calms the people. Even though a civil society can never be achieved, the hope for one can save society by making the situation seem better. A civil society consists of a social norm: an idea everyone can agree on. The people in one also have to be tolerant of each other since no one can not live in a society. Finally a civil society must be able to have an honest conversation with itself in order to fix the problems they are faced with. They must start truthfully with the "why", and then go to the "how" and "what".
We also discussed the essay format in detail during class. The first paragraph should introduce civil society and individual culture (everyone in society only wants to follow their self interests). It should also have a thesis. The readings must be brought into the essay. Emotion, cognitive thinking, and honest conversation are also points that should be brought in.
Eat the apple Doc
In class today, we wrote our first essay. The essay was on intellectuals pursuing a civil society. I was very anxious about the essay, and when the time came, it was difficult to begin However soon after the pen touched the paper, my thoughts would not be stopped and I was *unstoppable*. The essay prompt took some thinking to decipher, and honestly, I do not think I did a very good job as I circled around the question instead of directly answering it. In the middle of test, The Founding Fathers blessed me with their ashes and I was more confident about my essay because Mr. Berglund was taking it so lightly.
I mentioned many terms, but did not offer much new insight, which I deeply regret. I am glad I am through with my first essay! And I will not repeat the same mistakes again in my next.
What did I ever do to you Nicolas Cage. I am just Snow White's dwarf companion.
In class today, we discussed and deciphered the essay prompt. Our essay was supposed to be argumentative, and reply to the question: When intellectuals strive towards a civil society, should it only be when society is in a mess? Mr. Berglund shared his perspective and argument on this question. He believed that we should *always* strive towards one, even when we are not in a catastrophic situation. This makes sense, because then we are more likely to achieve getting as close as possible to one. Also, apparently politicians do not know the "why", and start directly from the "what" and build backwards. This is corrupted because then politicians do not know the honest view, and perhaps cannot have an honest conversation. A potential project was also brought up in class, and ideas are being thought up. It was explained that doing projects for other classes are easy, but for ethics it is quite difficult. How could one connect ethics to a project?
Today in class we discussed the reading from Friday, in which someone who is just gets punished for it and someone unjust who creates the illusion of being just, can get away with evil. We also figured out that even if we get punished for doing the just we need to try, and keep trying to reach that civil society. Plato turned out to not have a solution, just the problem. Next we went over the class instructions, which were...interesting. And now we're doing the UNKNOWN/KNOWN.
We began class by talking about the unknown/known and that we needed to write more.Next we began discussing the things we need to cover, or should put in our essay.Things such as showing understanding of the question, identifying the problem, having a thesis for CS1, and define CS1/individual culture. After that we went over a short PowerPoint with quotes that we could include in our essay. Things such as "Intellectuals see civil society as the solution to society current predicament', basically meaning when there's chaos, leaders will make it look like they are trying to reach a civil society to make everyone happy.Lastly another quote is 'Its like a wine, it can stimulate, but can get you drunk. Meaning a civil society is good, although trying too hard to get it will cause us never to reach it.
Today we took our first essay, i feel like i covered everything i needed too over the prompt. We did not cover much in class, so this shouldn't take up much space. although over all i feel like i did the best i could with the knowledge I've gained so far in this class.
Today we went over the prompt of our essay to understand what it was asking, and basically it was:Do we only strive for a civil society when we need to, or always? We also began discussing how if we don't strive for a CS1 then we will have moral disengagement. Also, we need to some sort of "social norm",but the question is how. A need for tolerance, and the hardest one is having an Honest Conversation. Finally we briefly discussed a "Zero Sum Game" where if we have a win-win result its the best and a win-lose is not an Honest Conversation.
Today we discussed if we needed to develop a social norm(or ethics).We began with thinking that a social norm is created from the why of an individual and of society.Then we started asking if it could be replaced by a law and order society. We touched a little on Thomas Hobbes who i learned to have thought that safety was most important, for if people thought they were safe then they would not worry.
Today we finished discussing the Plato problem and I learned that it is more beneficial to be unjust and not get caught than it is to do the right thing. I also learned that we as a society cannot have a civil society if we allow being unjust to be more rewarded than being just. I would like to know why reward unjust behavior that wasn't caught and not doing the right thing.
Today we discussed how we should format our essay and what we should include in it. We will need 5 paragraphs and most of us are expected to have 3-4 pages. We also cleared up some confusion that some may have about a civil society and what it contains and how we achieve it.
Today we wrote an essay for the entire class period and I don't actually remember what I wrote. It was simple for many people to take the prompt in all sorts of different directions.
Today I wasn't in class but I learned that we can't just have ethics to have a civil society, we need something else. We also need to realise that every decision that we make has consequences.
We went over the syllabus. We discussed the essay and it's necessary requirements and what can make it a good essay. There is never a wrong answer.
We discussed the essay again and what can make the essay great. Then went over a PowerPoint on civil society. The problem is a civil society can never be achieved. What should people do? Should they strive for something they can never achieve or stop trying and leave it alone? It's all up to the individual which whom will decide the outcome
We did our essay today. I believe the problem that was presented couldn't be achieved but we can strive for civil society. Striving for something is better than giving up completely on it.
I believe the problem is we rely to much on society to solve our problems. We don't consider the possibility of a civil society due to the fact that society doesn't want it unless its absolutey necessary once the problem occurs. They wait for the problem to start instead of stopping it from the get go. If we achieve a civil society wouldn't it just be a dictatorship? If we acted the same and had to be "perfect" this would defeat the fact of the value of an individuals self interest and would destroy it.
With Plato’s article on why we should be moral he states two problems. He says that no one can tell a person that is doing something wrong from a person that is doing right and that people are able to benefit from doing that which is wrong if they don’t get caught. Plato also goes on to say that people that are doing the right thing end up being the ones that are punished. In class we asked “if this is the way society is, then why should we be moral”. This questioning of morality is one of the reasons why we will never be able to create a civil society. However, what I don’t understand is how are people that are doing the right thing be the ones that end up getting punished. Is it because like in the cheating example that even if you studied hard and payed attention in class you still got a bad grade in the class whereas the person who cheated got an A? The person who did the right thing ended up getting in trouble with their parents and failed the class?
In class today we had explained two topics, the essay and its formatting and civil society. Since we won't be having an outline for the essay, we discussed possible ways of writing the essay. We explained how we must explain what the question is asking for and what you're going to prove in your thesis. Then, the following three paragraphs should have something to do with the problem of the individual and the culture, how society takes a part in this, and the relation of the individual to the group. (Circles*) To add more clarity to this, we asked what the "What" is, which is, we establish the standards but we don’t establish why we need those standards. Afterwards, we went into more depth in what a civil society is to man. We were told that intellectuals don’t try to achieve a civil society, but use it as a salvation when a problem strikes. These intellectuals know that moral disengagement is a self conscious issue, but they're not striving to create a civil society. What I didn't understand of today was how social norms are generated by the Why. What would be an example of this happening?
In class today we wrote our very first argumentative essay on the topic of if intellectuals really use the idea of a civil society to solve present problems. To me, basically everything I wrote was a complete blur, but it was a very different experience for me. I have never sat in a classroom before and actually wrote for 40 minutes non stop. I answered this essay question by saying that intellectuals are aware that a civil society is unachievable so they have already given up on it, but when society is on the edge of falling apart, these intellectuals bring the idea of a civil society into the picture to give us false hope. My question for today is if intellectuals only use a civil society as a salvation, do they believe that a civil society is unachievable or do they have hope as well?
In the beginning of class we had talked about the essay question "Is the quest for a civil society more than the salvation by intellectuals to society's current predicament"? We had come to a conclusion that no, the conversation should always go on even when there is no problem that’s occurring. In order to give more clarity to this essay question, we established that an intellectual was someone who is willing to struggle and question the process. For our next unit, in our conversations, we must assume that we need a civil society and also a social norm(community standard) that will help govern us to keep approaching a civil society. However in order to do this, people must develop a degree of respect for others and consider the unintended consequences of ones actions. (Ex. When Berglund makes fun of a student). To achieve a civil society we must be willing to have an honest conversation where people will try to accept other alternatives other than their own judgement. In a civil society there must be more than just ethics involved because we have the "ought and is" problem, but we need to also avoid moral disengagement and align the whys of the individual and group. What I still need more clarity on is how apathy is the moral disengagement of a law and order society.
In class today, we were still on the discussion of assuming that we need a civil society, but in order to achieve this, we must at least establish an ethical standard. Another thing we must have in order to achieve this civil society is an honest conversation where everyone benefits from the solution. If we come up with a solution with a zero sum game (winner and loser), then we won't be having an honest conversation because someone will get a personal gain. The problem that was brought up today was can a law and order society be moral and if the moral disengagement of people increases, does law and order increase as well? Modern philosopher Thomas Hobbes believed that the center of all society was not trying to achieve the "Why", but having it replaced with safety. Individuals were willing to give up their freedom and trade it for safety because they believed that man by nature was bad. They believed that having no government would lead to people acting unjust as seen in Plato's article. If the government guarantees safety to man, then people will be obedient and act just. However, a problem that came up was, will government legislate us to death" by passing a law for every single wrongdoing? Such as in the example in class about a policy that says there should be no phones on campus. But, what we established in class was no, we should not pass a law for every single wrongdoing, but we should create a community standard which allows you to do things like use your phone, when absolutely necessary.
On the 6th of February, we mostly learned about the syllabus. Mr. Berglund made an anecdote that contributed to the conversation about some ancient book in the Utep library that lifted dust as you picked it up. I also recall how he said that some teachers sometimes make students sign a syllabus, which is illegal, but we don’t care. Students only care about the grade; we are willing to sacrifice learning for a grade. We also acquired how we should do the UNKNOWN/KNOWN responses, which is that we only need to take fifteen minutes on it and not half an hour. I say “acquired”, because apparently, we can’t learn, and if we do, it’s accidental.
On Wednesday, February 8, we wrote our first essay. I realized that this is a very hard thing to do because there are so many things you can say. You can incorporate anything you learned into your essay (if you had the time or a durable wrist), but of course it has to make sense. I’ve learned to prepare and organize my thoughts with a more generalized point of view because I wanted to mention something in my essay because I couldn’t think of a way how. The question kind of surprised me. I’ve also learned that it is as troubling as Mr. Berglund said it would be. This experience has set a standard; I now know what I should do and has helped me come with several things I could do to improve.
On Thursday, February 9, we discussed the principles and concept of an "Honest Conversation". In an honest conversation, you must be open to other ideals meanwhile openly expressing your own. There shouldn't be one winner and there shouldn't be a loser, as an honest conversation serves only to show consideration to another individual. An honest conversation is a situation where both sides experience gain. We shouldn't have conversations knowing we will benefit from them, because then the other side will remain without gain or maybe even experience loss.
On Wednesday, February 8, we wrote our first essay. I realized that this is a very hard thing to do because there are so many things you can say. You can incorporate anything you learned into your essay (if you had the time or a durable wrist), but of course it has to make sense. I’ve learned to prepare and organize my thoughts with a more generalized point of view because I wanted to mention something in my essay because I couldn’t think of a way how. The question kind of surprised me. I’ve also learned that it is as troubling as Mr. Berglund said it would be. This experience has set a standard; I now know what I should do and has helped me come with several things I could do to improve..
On February 7th, we were made to realize that the essay, which is a major part of our grade, that we’ll be writing on Wednesday (February 8) is actually very difficult to write. Mr. Berglund said that we might need to get ice packs afterwards for our wrists. We also reviewed the term Civil Society with a PowerPoint. We recalled how Civil Society is seen, by intellectuals, as the solution to society’s current predicament. The teacher pointed out some things you could put into your essay, involving Civil Society. For example, we could bring MacIntyre into it. MacIntyre believes reaching Civil Society is like “searching for lost treasure”. We ended class with a simile: “Civil Society is like wine, it can stimulate but it can also get you drunk”..
Today we provided clarity over Friday's discussion of "Why be Moral?" I learned more about the problem and solution and how they not only apply for the purposes of the article, but to real life as well. I learned how to tie this in to the theme of civil society.
1 The problem is two-fold. 1: We can never tell apart people who do the right thing from people who do the wrong thing. People know how to mask themselves to look like heroes on the outside. 2: Individuals actually benefit from doing the wrong thing; not being moral is better. If people are given the chance between right and wrong, they will always pick wrong. (the right thing almost never has any personal gain)
2 This is a huge problem; we can never achieve a civil society if we aren't moral. There is a need to fix this dilemma because without people being ethical, we can never improve.
3 There hasn’t exactly been a valid solution provided so far. Plato just makes the readers feel safer and reassured just because he merely recognizes the severity of the problem, and that it needs to be fixed. He doesn't know how to get to a solution, but he knows it has to be solved. Basically, he says there is hope for a civil society.
Question: Can a civil society coexist with gradual improvement, or is it synonymous with perfection?
Today, we discussed more about the civil society and how to connect it to the essay. The talking points for my essay are 1. the nature of the individual and our individualistic culture (I'll mention the problem of the individual: ought to is) 2. The nature of the group 3. The bridging of the individual and the community with the whys to create a civil society. We also took notes on these points:
1 People recognize the need to have a civil society where everyone is ethical, but we don’t try hard enough to get there, They underestimate the severity of the problem. We put it off as unimportant, and try to fix all these issues that branch from it with cosmetic solutions. In other words, they always start with the what instead of the why. These people even self-consciously do it! This leads us down the road of moral disengagement as we rationalize this problem.
2. You can also define Civil Society with social norms. The good social norms can be found in the why, but the bad social norms are rooted in the what. This can also be called a community standard.
3. Here is a summary I thought of: (concerning things we talked about outside civil society. I'll mainly be elaborating on the first point in my essay)
To bridge Individualism+ Individual culture, we need a civil society.
To reach civil society, we need an honest conversation.
To reach an honest conversation, we need to let go of emotional attachment.
Letting go of emotion is very hard.
Can humans be good and still not have a civil society? (but still have the want to achieve it)
Today, we had an essay on the concept of a civil society. The question was if people are just talking about achieving a civil society or if they are actually taking action (or at least that’s what I got from it). I wrote about how we just want to achieve it, but we don’t actually work for it.
1 This problem roots from the individual problem of the "ought and is". We cannot get people to do ethical things. The individual wants to do ethical things (this is the community standard), but they keep making decisions based on the what. (which is against their self interest and controlled by emotion.) They can only fix this, and therefore get closer to a civil society, by starting from the why. (improvement)
2 The individual problem is similar to the group problem. Rules and suggestions put in place by society for how we have to act (that are bad and rooted in the what) can influence us to normalize unethical things. And morally disengage by putting off the need for a civil society as unimportant.
3 Bridging the individual and the group is the key to the civil society. However, this is unachievable. I doubt we will ever get all humans to do nothing but be ethical; we are flawed. What makes the nature of humanity good is that we have the want to achieve a civil society. We don't need a civil society, all we need to be good is the want to achieve it.
Question: By any chance, did I interpret the question right?
Today we went over the definition of a zero sum game and connected it to a civil society. We also went over Thomas Hobbes and his idea that a safe society is equal to a civil society. Also, we posed the question of: Is it acceptable to use a law and order society as a substitute for a civil society?
1 If you're trying to have yourself win and someone else lose in an argument, that’s a zero sum game. In order to have an honest conversation, you cant have a zero sum game.
2 Is there a correlation between an increase in moral disengagement in our society and the increase of law and order? (increase of legislative society) We currently compensate for our lack of a Civil society by putting in place law and order in our society. But do we legislate things we shouldn’t?
3 Thomas Hobbes equated a safe society (in which you give up all your individualism), with a civil society. He thought the only solution is putting people under obligation to do the right thing by creating laws. He thinks that the why is to survive and be safe. But do we really just want to survive? I want freedom on top of my life. Other people try to solve this problem by having the government give people liberty (protected by the law) after they give up their individualism to them. So the question is: How much can we trust people to be flexible with our laws? How many laws do we really need to have?
Today in class, we learned what the essay question was actually asking. We Also connected it to our new unit that we will work on in the future. There are many things that we are assuming from now on in order to start with this unit: Why do we need ethics?
1 We defined what an intellectual is: it is a person who challenges the situation society is in. It is someone who gets dirty and dives into the problem (or at least tries to identify it) Intellectuals can be philosophers like Plato or McIntyre, or even high school students who think. People who are not intellectuals are just conformists who go with the flow.
2 The question of the essay was: Is the only reason we demand a civil society because we just occasionally have problems? Or is civil society really necessary? The question is different from the problem: How do we bridge the individual culture and the group to achieve a civil society?
3 From now on, we are assuming that we need a civil society (and therefore, an honest conversation). Through a civil society, we need to get rid of moral disengagement. We are assuming that we have to have a social norm, or a community standard. In this unit, we will try to determine exactly what this norm should be. Additionally, we have to develop a tolerance for others; we have to consider the unintended consequences of our actions.
1. We have to try our best to do good eventhough we don't get a 100
2. We have to ask questions and give answers there is no right or wrong
3.We as in alll students including me don't take notes to learn from them we take notes to get a 100 on the exams.
4. the one question that I have is that why do we not take school seriously
Today in ethics we learned how to write our essay we named out the point that will help us throughout the essay for tomorrow the " BIG DAY" we also learned about a civil society we got extra notes describing how we can get to a civil society or achieve one these notes can be used for tomorrow's essay we also talked about how we can't have a civil society because everyone has a different perception we also learned that there has to be a honest conversation.the question I have is that why can't we all agree on peace yes we might have different perspective's but we can at least agree on one thing all together
Today we had an essay of five paragraphs so what I learned is that essays in ethics are really hard. I think I expressed my thoughts in the essay except I didn't get to finish. What I really didn't get is the question I had to go over it a lot to finally get it but I explained that and indivuslism and a civil society.
Today in ethics we were talking over the essay if we understood the problem and then he moved on and said that we don’t need an honest conversation to have a civil society. We continued with our notes over a CS1 and about our emotions and desion making individually
Today i didn't really learn anything in ethics. I learned about our syllabus, class rules, and our new homework assignment that i will be working on for each day of the week. This homework assignment isn't exactly the hardest thing to understand so i don't have any confusion about it. The only things i can really say about today is that now i have a homework assignment in this class everyday now which adds to the many things i have to do in all my other classes, this being one of my points, in all my other classes they give me bussywork everyday that doesn't help me learn but just gives me more work to do at the end of the day. I probably take more notes in every class than i actually learn anything, i'm always so focused on copying down the notes before my teacher changes to the next slide that i don't listen to anything else that their saying, which really isn't much except for them reading what's on the powerpoint. Then after all this note taking i go home and try and rush through all of my homework so i can finish it all so i can get to bed early so i won't be tired for school or practice that next day, which usually never works out because i'm always tired. Today though i didn't get any homework except for this and for once in this class i wasn't confused about anything today, about the homework, the syllabus, or anything, but then again we didn't really learn all that much but about our class today.
Today i learned more about our essay tomorrow and what you expect on it. I learned more about a civil society and how to better understand it. I also learned of some ideas that i can use for my essay tomorow. Today i got no homework again and did the exact same thing as yesterday, i took more notes in my classes and copied words down from a powerpoint. My teachers all stood at the front of the class and read off the power points too. In ethics though i had an interest in our topic of a civil society and actually am less nervous for the the essay tomorow because now i have a better understanding of a civil society and have some more ideas about what i should incorporate into my essay. I also actually learned more to about a civil society. The only confusion i probably had today was about if i thought i would be able to write for 45 minutes straight and keep thinking of things to write.
Today i did an essay in class about a civil society and if trying to achieve one is better than what we have now. I think that did very well on this essay because i clearly stated my thesis and gave supporting arguments for my thesis. I included that a civil society is unacheivable because just like that author from how to derive an ought from an is said, if we were able to change an ought to an is then we would be able to achieve a civil society but we can't. Our problem is that already so morally disengaged that we don't want to work to achieve one, instead we keep on making decisions that are based on our emotions and that go towards our self interest that we don't even recognize that we have problem. There is not solution to this problem either though because it's impossible for us not base our decisions on our own self interest and even more impossible for us not to base our decisions on emotion. The only confusion that i would have to this topic would go be able to better understand what a civil society is. I would also want to have a better understanding about what the problem is.
Today i learned more about a civil society and how we need one. Talking back to the essay i wrote yesterday the prompt that i was given was answered today in the teachers perspective and from what he said i now think that i did cover a lot of the main points of needing a civil society but no being able to achieve it in my essay. Even though we can't achieve a civil society we still need to work towards one because if stop trying to get one then we'll become morally disengaged and they'll be no hope of even coming close to achieving one. I think that any questions that i had yesterday about having a better understanding of a civil society were answered today with the teacher answering the prompt.
Today i learned more about a cs2. I learned about if we need to develop a social norm as a society to be able to reach a cs2. I also learned of the idea if a social norm can be replaced by a law and order society. I also learned that in order to have a law and order society though we all have to have the same whys. We also need to all develop a degreee of tolerance of other people and we also all need to have an honest conversation to be able to develop this social norm. I don't completely understand the idea of having a law and order society replace a social norm because i don't really know what a social norm would be either.
I feel like today we talked about and continued the discussion on Plato and how his issue is a very real one. Man is not a just being. Man will do whatever it takes to stay on top and have as much personal gain as possible no matter what he has to do. Another discussion was on how education has taught us to have the answers spoonfed to us and how we don't think anymore due to this. I agree with this statement because it is a very real issue. Most teachers would rather give us the answer rather than have his really get dirty and think for ourselves.
I know now that a civil society is one that is known by many names and can take many forms, one of these is a social norm. A social norm can be good or it can be bad. It can be good if it fundamentally starts from a why and not a what. A bad social norm starts from the what which leads to moral disengagement. I have yet to understand why humans strive for a perfect civil society even though humans are by nature evil. It is a vexing question that i'm not sure can be answered.
I felt that i did pretty well on the essay today, I thought if i had a little bit more time i could have fit more in there, but overall i thought it was pretty solid. I felt that while writing i gained some clarity that i hadn't noticed before. I almost felt as though my question had been answered, through my ranting on my essay. I still think that humanity is very, very strange and there are many aspects of the human mind like ethical thinking that i may never understand why it is so.
I think that I have gained some clarity, I perceived today's conversation to be about the honest conversation. The reason I say I gained some clarity as is in talking and thinking about the concept of an honest conversation I found that another piece of the puzzle has been put into place in my mind. Even though humans are perceived to be evil there is still hope for them to be good due to the fact and evidence that they actually strive to create honest conversations. We assume that we need a civil society and in order to do that there needs to be in a way more honest conversations which leads me to believe that in order to even perceive this idea humans need to be in a sense good in a way that benefits themselves and society.
Today in class we went over the syllabus and discussed it. What we did had no point but it lead us to this assignment which is very important. It helps the students understand every aspect of what we discuss in class. In the beginning of class we discussed the assignment for Friday, but it was about being moral and why be moral?
In class today we talked about how to do the essay and went over a powerpoint of a civil society. We learned that in a civil society we need to justify the issue our self and the definition of a civil society. Even though there is not on specific definition there are sertain points a cs1 needs to have. We also learned that a cs1 is easy to discuss but no one can ever accomplish one. My question is how do people see a cs1 as a problem?
Today in class we wrote an essay about a civil society and individualism. In the essay we wrote about everything we've learned in class and related it to a civil society. The essay took the whole period and I could not finish it. I think I did well on the essay since a was able to talk about and mention all that I could think of.
Today in class we talked about our essay from Wednesday and Mr. Burgland elaborated more on the prompt. We also went over a cs1 we established that a cs1 is serious because if not why would everyone worry? We also talked about how we need a cs1 but it is unachievable so we went over 3 parts of it: 1.a cs1 needs a social norm, my question is what is the norm going to be? 2. we need to develop a degree of tolerance 3. We need to have an HC which is also impossible. We talked about how in an HC there is should never be a winner or a loser because it is a zero sum game. I think todays in todays class we learned something valuable because I left questioning and curious.
Today in class we discussed a cs1, our main focus was. Do we have to develop a social norm (cs2)? I would say a cs2 is to avoid moral disengagement, but others may say a cs2 can make a cs1. Could a sc2 be replaced by a law and order society? This question led us to talk about wether man by nature is good or bad. In my perspective man is bad because no one would ever feel "safe" enough to believe otherwise and the government enforces laws to change your perception and force what you think. I am wondering how we could protect our society is we can't accomplish a cs1. Then we brought up Thomas Hobbes, he believed a cs1 is to provide for safety, but society makes our decision. Can safety really ensure a cs1? I don't think it can, but some may think it can. A cs1 isn't simple enough to be accomplished by safety, it need laws because in a cs1 every has the same value and laws or rules will enforce that. In class today we learned valuable information and got to elaborate more about a cs1 and learn about a cs2. Today the solution had a good result because I learned and understood a lot.
We spent the class time going over the class syllabus and talking about how the essay was pushed back until wednesday. Mr. Berglund emphasized that it will not be pushed back any further.
Hi Daniel good alias lol
Today in class we reviewed the format and the contents of the essay we are taking tomorrow. In doing so, Mr. Berglund managed to scare the entire class into a stress filled depression in fear that they would somehow manage to spontaneously combust tomorrow while they were writing the essay, because they were writing the essay.
He scolded us because only 31 people posted on the Unkown/Known blog, then began to review all the information for the essay tomorrow.
1st Paragraph should establish that you understand the question (problem)
The thesis should be about a CS1 and wether or not we need it, as well as defining it, as well as the individual culture, and how the two are related.
Eventually i should develop a solution and implement a reading into the essay.
Later, Mr. Berglund did something we swore he would never do, something he hated; he gave a powerpoint presentation (on civil societies)
in said powerpoint, he argues that intellectuals see civil society as a salvation from societies current predicament and that we only see civil society when a current predicament makes it seem like our current society going to the pooper. these intellectuals being to take a step back and revisit the idea of a civil society in order to calm the masses because of a problem.
Today we wrote an essay on a green sheet of paper. This green sheet of paper is the paper we wrote our notes on, we scribbled for five minutes after the bell rang in hopes that our scribbles would save us from death. I wrote my will on my green paper (just kidding i outlined my first paragraph). I feel like I did *ok* for my first essay, although I didn't get very far into it. I did get 2 and a half pages in, though i used those two and a half pages in defining the individual and somewhat getting off track and sort of providing a solution to the problem.
1. Plato addresses the problem but does not provide a solution, making him seem relatable.
2. Man can be good or bad, good at birth and bad after nurture or given power.
3. One can act "good" in front of people to save their reputations.
How they relate to the problem: The civil society can never be achieved, as it was shown when Plato was only able to provide suggestions on how to fix the problem but was not able to give a definite solution. Men tend to take advantage of their position, and can go to extents of killing the king and seducing the king to reach their ultimate goal. A man may do wrong and lie to any extent but be viewed as good opposed to doing right, but bearing consequences. For example, a person might force someone to kill a group of people, but then kill the helper so that the secret dies with him, and people will continue to believe the person is good as he makes up the story of "avenging them".
1. Civil society is a logical need, something that makes us want it because it sound good.
2. Civil society is possibly the standard self interest of everyone in a society, the result of the "why" of the individual and society circle meeting.
3. Utopias are different in everyone's perspective, and they are for the most part, very unbelievable.
The essay prompt was well explained the day before so it helped a lot while writing it. Ideas i had thought i never remembered or understood had actually started to stir and i was able to use them on the test. I had bad time management and could have spent more time writing than thinking. Too much anxiety caused a writers block, which should be avoided next time. Next time, i aim to write a lot more than i was able to this time.
1. We need a civil society even if we cannot achieve it. It is the goal we need to aim for to avoid moral disengagement, a law and order society, and wrong judgement.
2. The first step in creating a civil society is to have a social norm or set a community standard that everyone accepts.
3. We also need to develop a conversation and a degree of tolerance for everyone. An honest conversation is needed, where ideas are open and everyone is willing to accept, and a change of judgement may occur. The conversation should be organized as a win win one.
1. We need to develop a social norm or ethics on our quest towards a Civil Society 2. We can say we should avoid moral disengagement. We could also argue that a law and order society would stop moral disengagement but it only leads to dictatorship.
2. We can force people by manipulating them with outside forces to create a social norm and that sometimes does happen.
3. To create a social norm, we should realize that both "why"s are similar.
Today we reviewed the article from last week’s blow your mind Friday and the syllabus. We discussed the problem in the article which was “Why Be Moral?”.
• This was that being moral is unnecessary because people don’t acknowledge your morality so why do it in the first place.
• Another aspect of the problem was that people in society today only are moral because of fear of punishment by the law or any consequences that may come up in the unmoral decision.
• The third statement we talked about in class regarding the problem was an example the example was supporting the first point I stated. The example was if I were to send someone to kill all of you and then I killed the person I sent to kill everyone then I would be praised because I killed everyone’s killer. I would be exonerated for doing an immoral act.
Question: If society had no rules or limitations would some people still make moral decisions without knowing it?
Today we discussed the essay for tomorrow and in preparation for the essay we discussed a civil society. We discussed its definition along with some things about it. This goes back to the question “Should we try to achieve a civil society or should we just give up?” Three points discussed in class about a civil society include the following:
• Definition of a Civil Society means many things:
1. Social norm (perhaps that mean striving to achieve the same why). This means that
2. Standards for tolerance a.k.a. our ability to tolerate the people around us
3. It can also be an honest conversation. This meaning that most people believe that a civil society can be achieved through being able to have honest conversations. Perhaps if all of our conversations were honest perhaps there would be a civil society.
• Another point in class we discussed regarding a civil society was how most intellectuals resort to the idea of a civil society as a salvation to society’s current predicament When problems arise people go back to the idea of a civil society not necessarily to actually pursue it but to use it to calm people down.
• It is a self conscious exercise. This means that civil society can sometimes just be a reflex of sorts not an actual need. To examples from previous reading of this include:
o Plato: you’re trying to make yourself a just person
o Macintyre: It is like the search for a lost treasure
Today in class we wrote our first essay. I think that I really should have organized my ideas better when putting them to paper. I do think my idea was good but I don't thinks I got enough time to actually finish elaborating on my idea. I really do think that I would have done better if I would have worked faster and more efficiently the first 20 minutes of class. I really do think that if my idea was elaborated more I would have had a more understandable essay overall.
Today in class we talked about the essay not the writing but the actual thought process behind the essay. "Is the quest for a civil society more than the salvation of intellectuals for society's current predicament?" We discussed that civil society stands for more than just the idea intellectuals use to solve a current predicament. People don't resort to the idea of a civil society unless their world is in a current problem. Do we only bring up a civil society when there is no hope at all? This is the assumption that can be derived from the question. But I personally argue that a civil society isn't just an idea put forward to solve a current problem. Mr. Berglund also discussed this point of view and provided a lot of insight. He said that if we constantly have to have a conversation about a civil society then it will not only be used to solve our current problems. He also argued the other side of the issue that if there is no problems then why discuss a civil society at all.
Today in class we continued discussing the subject of a civil society and how to achieve it. We discussed that to achieve a civil society we must have a social norm may mean that the why between people and society is the same or it could also mean some sort of ethical standard. And we also talked about the fact that if to achieve this we need to have a law and order society. This if being to heavily invested in laws then we will lose the individual and have a complete law and order society. We also discussed the safety aspect of a civil society meaning that if the laws being enforced make the people feel safe then they will follow them. This serves as enough persuasion for the people. We also had a very long discussion about the nature of man. The killing example was used so if you were to kill someone because they are bad. But then it's bad to kill people because it's immoral. But if it makes people feel safer then kill them. But how would anyone feel safer if you're going around killing people. I personally agree that man by nature is bad. In my mind every time I think of this issue I revert back to an example given in class which was that if man perhaps were by nature good then why do you lock your door or your car. I believe that everyone's subconscious knows man is bad no matter how much they say to themselves man is good.
If a civil society were to be achieved by social norms which are established by some sort of government and enforced by laws what prevents it from becoming a utopia if their laws being enforced promise security? (As in a crazy utopia such as one that has crazy rules or is unjust)
Today in class we glanced over the syllabus. The syllabus was basically a criterion of things we should and should not do. Also, it introduced a new way to keep track of our progress during the year. Every day we will write a 15-minute blog post of what we learned in class and reply to it as the weeks go on. This way we will form a chain of the progress that we make. We also reviewed the article we had to read for last week’s Blow Your Mind Friday. The problem in this article (Why Be Moral?) is that people fail to see the importance of being moral. Oftentimes, people that are immoral have many benefits. You can cheat and lie, but in doing this you will most likely succeed. This however is not moral. On the other hand, the people that ARE moral usually do not succeed and may be punished for their actions. When put up against the cheaters, it is virtually impossible for someone that does not cheat to succeed. This does not ethically make sense, but it is the reality of the society we have today. The author, Plato, does not give a solution to this problem. My question is, “Is there a way to solve this problem? How?”
Today we spent most of our day reviewing and discussing for our essay tomorrow. We went over the readings, but we mostly focused on the topic of civil society. The question was “Why do we need a civil society?” or “How do we come about a civil society?” One of the quotes given to us suggested that we only consider civil society when our current society is “going down the drain” and we need to help calm people down. Another argued that a civil society is the self-conscious exercise. This means that we are trying to make peace. We are trying to make ourselves “just”. We revisited the MacIntyre article to help give a different perspective on the idea. If we are using MacIntyre’s theory, then we are looking for a long lost perfect moral standard, which, if we found, would lead to civil society. We look for this original moral or “lost treasure” because it seems logical. Why wouldn’t one want a civil society? Then there are the people that want the civil society simply because it sounds nice. Civil society does not have a definitive meaning or definition. Many may try to explain it as a social norm: trying to achieve the “why.” Others may interpret it as a standard for tolerance. Others will simply accept it as an honest conversation.
Today wrote our first essay. We had to answer if we thought that our quest for a civil society was merely an attempt to fix a “broken” society. I think I did okay. I really struggled to get my point across, but I am confident I did. I wrote the whole time but I did not finish. I had s¬¬o much to say! Time flew by and by the end of the period, my hand hurt. I guess that’s a good thing? Hopefully, as time goes on and we write more essays, I will be better at organizing my thoughts and really knowing what to look for during class to help better my writing.
Today we went over the essay prompt. We started off by restating the question and proceeded to explain the two different sides of the question that could be argued. We then established that we ALWAYS need a civil society. Even though it can never really be achieved, we must keep pushing towards it or else we will fall into moral disengagement. If we follow moral disengagement, then eventually whenever something is wrong, we will simply complain about it and not even attempt to solve the problem. To avoid this, we must take three necessary steps. First, we need to develop a social norm/community standard. We also need to develop a degree of tolerance. Lastly, we need an honest conversation. This is the hardest part. My question is what is that social norm we need in order to avoid moral disengagement?
Friday we talked about if we had to develop a social norm (CS2) or “ethics”. Some say that the whole point of trying to develop a CS2 is to create a civil society. Other people would argue that it is to avoid moral disengagement. The best way to develop a social norm is to make sure that the individual’s why is the same as the society’s why. We also debated whether our social norm could be replaced by a law and order society. The question is, if we could legislate the nature of man to be better. The point of our society is to be as good as possible. There are two ways to go about improving society. It depends on your perspective on whether you think man is good or bad. If you believe that man is good, then you will have a small amount of CS2s. If however, you believe that the nature of man is bad, then you will go to all lengths to make sure to protect the ‘good’ people from the bad. We also talked about whether laws themselves could ensure a civil society. If someone we’re completely morally disengaged it is very likely that they will depend on to legislate because just fix society. I don’t think we really answered the question in class so I’m curious. Can laws really ensure a civil society? Does a law and order society work? Why or why not?
Today, in my ethics class period I learned about mr. Burgund's class rules, I also learned what commercials Mr. Burgund liked from the super bowl... all jokes aside today I learned how important it is to struggle to accomplish things, not just in this classroom but in life too. In his classroom, stuggling will get you at 90 which teaches you how to work hard, and how to learn.. also I learned how important it is to come excited to school! Come ready to learn! So I hope from here on until the rest of the year I wake up excieted to go to school and learn something new.
02/07/2017- Today we learned that we are supposed to write this everyday without exemptions and how we are supposed to write this. We also talked about the essay we will be writing on Wednesday and how you expect us to write it, how long it should be and how important our thesis statement is. In addition, we learned that atheists believe our leaders created religion to calm citizens down in times of need, and that intellectuals see civil society as the salvation to societies current predicament. Furthermore, we learned the 'rules' of civil society which are the standards of tolerance, appropriate discourse (honest conversation). This relates to the problem by showing us the importance of a civil society.
02/08/2017- Today in ethics class i learned only one thing! i learned that writing essays in ethics in a pain! my hand has never hurt this much. However, as i think more about the question the more that i think i should've put in the essay... i think it would've been really beneficial to the essay if i should've put something about individualism.
i look foward to going to class tomorrow and learning more about society.
02/09/2017- Today I learned more about civil society, we reviewed more on civil society and how its unachievable. However today we talked about needing a social norm but we cant have one because the community standard is the discussing. We also learned how you need a degree of tolerance to be able to live peacefully in society. Also we learned how all people need to be taken into consideration and that everyone has incredible potential to change the world. Furthermore, we talked about how we have to have an honest conversation but it is nearly impossible to have an honest conversation because we always alter our thoughts to seem more intelligent. Almost no one will ever have an honest conversation with you. You always rasonilize.
i look foward to learning more tomorrow.
02/10/2017- today in class we discussed weather or not we need to develop a social norm, after many arguments discussing what type of social norm we need or if we need a social norm at all, the ending argument is that yes, we do need to develop a social norm. What i learned from all of that is that we definetly need to fix how we solve issues in society. Also, we discussed why we need to develop a social norm which is because we are in desperate need of a truly civil society. So what type of social norm do we need, since society labels everything as good or bad that means we need a social norm that is always ethical. Also, i learned about a man named Thomas Hobbes who stated that to have a civil society is to have safety (make the people safe and they will be prosperous). Furthermore i also learned that if tou go to a total law and order society then that means that we would be complety moraly disengaged which would be a truly horrible thing. Lastly i learned that you need to have a certain level of tolerance however the government doesnt need to have any tolerance because if were in a law and order society then the government can just introduce fear into its people and the people will follow all of the rules the government has placed.
i look foward to going to school on monday and learning more about society.
Today, in class we discussed the previous Blow Your Mind Friday discussion. In the article, Plato implies that the unjust gets the benefit if they don’t get caught and if we make others perceive us as just, we will get the benefit. If we are just, we will be unnoticed and/or punished. We briefly went over in class that Plato does not solve the problem in the article. The truth is that we DON’T have to be moral, and that seems really scary to me. Plato does not give us the solution, but instead gives us the idea that we have to solve the problem. Also, in the morning before school, I along with one of my piers further discussed this topic with Mr. Burglund.
In class, we also went over the class syllabus, the new Unknown Known Blog, and our first essay, which is now moved to Wednesday
Today in class, we discussed the essay we will be writing tomorrow and we went over any questions anyone had on it. We also took detailed notes and discussed a Civil Society, which will assist us in our first essay. We talked about how we only consider a Civil Society when we are in a predicament. We do not do it in pursuit for a Civil Society, but we do it to make ourselves content. We just want to alleviate and justify the problems. Also, we discussed the two views on a civil society- whether we need it or we don’t. A Civil Society certainly sounds good, but one could argue that it is like a wine, for it can stimulate you, but it can also get you drunk. McIntyre referred to it as a “search for a lost treasure”. So do we need a Civil Society? I believe yes, we do need a civil society because it promotes morality. However, do I think it is achievable? No, I do not.
Today (Wednesday) in class, we wrote our very first essay. The prompt was “Is a Civil Society more a salvation to society’s current predicaments?” As soon as we walked up the ramp, we were handed the prompt and a scratch sheet of paper, which we could immediately begin writing on as soon as we entered the classroom. The first thing that I stated in my essay was what a civil society is seen as and at the end of my first paragraph, I gave my thesis. I then discussed in depth the individual, how it is linked to society, the nature of man and the decision making process. I also utilized an example from one of the readings to defend my points and I then stated an argument opposing my points. We had the whole class period to write the essay.
Today (Thursday) in class we briefly went over the essay we wrote yesterday. Mr. Berglund discussed with us how we could have gone for or against the argument that the prompt stated. He said that he will take the essays home over the weekend and that essays are like wine, in the sense that if one waits to grade them, they will mature. They get better with age. Today, we began our lesson with the fact that we are going to make the assumption that we need a civil society, even though we can’t achieve it. If we don’t think that we need it, we will fall into moral disengagement (because it is easier), and then we’re done for. Our quest is to achieve a civil society and we do this with 3 elements. The first element is that we need to develop a community standard/social norms. We need to answer the question, “What social norm is needed?” The second element is that we need to develop a degree of tolerance and we need to take others into consideration. The third element is that we have to have an honest conversation, which is almost impossible and can’t be a “zero sum game”. We have to try to get there with a “win win situation”.
Today (Friday) in class, we began by discussing the honest conversation a little bit more. In order to have an honest conversation, we need to develop a "win win" situation, for when someone wins, someone else loses. Then, we began the topic of our next quest- how do we develop a social norm (ethics or community standard)? We need to develop similar “whys” in order to avoid moral disengagement and to create a civil society. We then went over the question, can social norms be replaced by a Law and Order Society? Can we REALLY solve the problems we need to with laws? Is there any correlation between moral disengagement and moral laws? Can we develop laws and legislate them to achieve a civil society? Many people believe that laws can assure a civil society. If we have a Law and Order Society, we are taking individuals out of the situation. Then, we are totally morally disengaged and we believe that the only way to solve it is by making laws. You save the individual by establishing a Republic, where the people make the laws, which will then lead to political disengagement. We also discussed the thoughts of Thomas Hobbes. According to Hobbes, safety is the most important element in a civil society.
Today I learned:
-if you are a just person, you get punished
-we cannot know who is a just or unjust person
-if we could get away with doing the wrong things without any consequences we would most probably do it
- when don't try your best in your education, you will not receive the best responses
-you are the only one who can decide whether you are going to give it your best in your education
-I was confused on how we can solve the problem of figuring out which people are just or unjust
-If a homeless person asks for money, but you don't think he/she'll use it correctly, and don't give any, does society think of you as a just person for not giving the person money you think they'll use to harm themselves, or as an unjust person for not giving money to a homeless person?
Today I learned:
-We only talk about ethics or a way to have a social society if something goes wrong or there is a problem
-we find social norms in the why; only the good norms start from the why to the what; the bad ones start from the what
-a civil society means many different things for many people
-we don't like being told what to do, but we still are told because we are morally disengaged
-I was confused how a civil society is like a lost treasure, if it was never found in the first place
-How does looking for a lost treasure relate to finding a way towards a civil society?
Today we did an essay. I felt that it was difficult to explain everything in a way that could be very clear. I tried to write as much as I could, but I don't think it was enough. I didn't think that this essay could have a good ending, because it was something that could not be addressed completely. I felt that I wrote enough to clarify mostly everything. I hope that what I wrote was enough to give enough clarity on the prompt.
Today I learned:
- We need to be able to have a tolerance or respect for others
-An honest conversation if bringing your baggage and be open to other alternatives to the situation
-We need to try to avoid moral disengagement
-We have to get the goal of both the individual and the society to be the same
-Apathy is the same as moral disengagement but in the law and order society
- I was confused on how we could get apathy from a law and order society?
-What could cause apathy in a law and order society?
Today I learned:
- You cannot have an honest conversation when you have a zero sum game which is when you don't come with a win-win attitude
-Thomas Hobbes believed the center of all society was not the why we have, buy safety, he equated a safe society with a civil society
-Thomas Hobbes believed man would turn their individualism and freedom to the government for the exchange of safety because he believed man by nature was evil.
-I was confused on whether or not Thomas Hobbes believed that the way to achieve a civil society is by exchanging our freedom for safety.
-Why did Thomas Hobbes believe man by nature was bad?
Known- I can now understand what the last reading was about and that doing wrong will be if it yourself as an individual more than doing the right thing. And that it is "better" to do unjust, for example cheating on a test will get you a better grade than if you study because you won't know everything but if you cheat you would get a free hundred for "free"
Unknown- I want to know why man even take the chances and do unjust things instead of doing the just thing and helping the society.
Today we learned about CS1 and how important it is to have one. I learned about how stupid society is and fully understood when Mr. Bergland gave me the example of the computers that EPISD give us because they are so slow and rarely help especially not for Learning. And that the how is never put into any problem.
Today I wrote an essay and it was very difficult for me, at first I could not understand what the question was asking at all but after a while I kind of understood. It was very frustrating because the forst 20 minutes went by like they were 5 and I was very concerned but I managed to somehow pull it off. I think my essay was very well and detailed to every point my hand could possibly write in those 40 minutes.
On Thursday we talked about how important it is to have an honest conversation. To have an honest conversation everyone needs to be open for new ideas and let out their idea to be ready for a group solution not one that you are trying to persuade to others. We also talked about having a civil society and that without honest conversations we can never have one.
In class, we learned about what day the essay would be on, and how to do the unknown / known. We also learned that some people are afraid to go to China because of Trump, and that the travel company will give a full refund if it is unsafe to go.
In class today, we learned about weather there is a need for a CS1. We learned that a CS1 is unachievable, but we strive for it. I want to know why people truly think we need a civil society
In class, we did the essay. I think that I did pretty well on the essay. I think that i supported my thesis enough to get a reasonable grade. I do not know if all the points that i used were the best supporting details, but all in all the essay went well.
Today, we learned that even though a CS1 is not needed there will always be people string to achieve one. For the people trying to achieve a civil society, they do not realize that there are many different perceptions on what a civill society is. One thing that one would consider civil, would be completely different to another person. We also learned that instead of Win/Win situations it is almost always a Win/Lose, where you always have to give something to get something
In class we learned that you can't tell just from unjust especially since the unjust will never get caught. which was supported by Plato with the idea of the ring that makes people disappear and let's the guy murder the king, seduce the queen, and ultimately become king. Something else thats a good example would be someone hiring an assassin and never getting caught.Also that the unjust are always ahead of the just as they take measures (the ring)such as cheating to get where they want to be which is why we can't have a civil society. The civil society as a result isn't achievable because the unjust are far more encouraged. This relates to the problem of a civil society and obtaining it because these are all things that cause us to never fully reach that sort of utopia that everyone seems to wish for.
The only reason why leaders will actually try to aim for a civil society is because it's seen by them as a source of salvation when things go wrong. So basically leaders only go back to the idea of a civil society(and aim for it) to put people at ease. Without realizing it we are constantly aiming for it as if it's a lost treasure but to people who actually don't believe in the possibility of a civil society ever being able to exist, nothing was ever lost in the first place. Also a civil society just sounds good to people and that's the only reason why people try to achieve it. For example when someone is only aiming for a civil society, it's only for the sake of looking good (self interest of reputation etc). Which can affect the problem of why we can't really ever achieve a civil society(utopia).
Today we wrote an essay and I think it was slightly difficult to answer. but since we actually have gone over it in class, I was able to figure out which one it was I thought was the answer to the problem. For example when I used the just and unjust along with how we as individuals are actually selfish when it comes to our self interest. Also how it can work against us if we use emotion I was able to see the answer to the question being asked.
Today we mostly talked about honest conversation and how they should never have a winner or loser because then the conversation would be the exact opposite of an HC. Also how sometimes from our honest conversations, what good you meant to be done may actually turn out very bad. Ex with the reserve in NM. The honest conversation can always change your or the other persons judgement to become more similar or different. The initial reason an honest conversation was brought up is because of the four steps to achieve a civil society which is what the problem we are facing is trying to ask us. Which is why it relates.
Today in ethics we discussed whether we have to develop a CS^2 or social Norm. And the Reasons why we need to develop a social norm. which would be because for one it develops a Civil Society and avoids Moral Disengagement. (The CS^1 avoids MD from occurring). Later we talked about Thomas Hobbes and one of his thoughts: when you provide safety to people, they will prosper. Which is the most important element in his theory. Which Relates to the question of wether we need to develop a CS^2 after we have developed a CS^1
In class we went off of Thomas Hobbes idea that an individual is willing to give up their freedom and individualism for a CS1. The CS1 establishes guidelines, policy and suggestions. And from this establishment we put more emphasis on the individual (after we've gotten to the idea of a republic-> the thing it's established). After this we went on to The word Perhaps and how when creating laws you can perhaps assume that when we create laws we are only trying to tolerate others. Taking these other people into account solves one thing in a CS1. Assuming we have an honest conversation as well, then we can probably find the intent of doing right (ethics) in the Laws created. Which relates to the problem we talked about because how you make a law that can regulate common sense depends on these things. (Guild lines etc.,)
Today in class we talked further on the topic of the Nature of Law. Off of the nature of the law are two main points. The first being the Spirit of the Law, which embraces the why and actually addresses the problem from our original intent. And the second being the Letter of the Law, which is the word for word interpretation and doesn't protect the individual(CS1 as well). But what we realized was that the Spirit of the Law never actually gets to the Letter of the law. So the Spirit of the Law will not and can never govern the law due to our emotions of not being able to reach The Letter of the Law. This reaches to our problem (connects to it) because it's explaining why the nature of law is the way it is as well as why we will never reach the Letter of the Law if we begin at the Spirit of the Law.
In Monday's class, we discussed the importance learning, reading your syllabus and quoting the last leader of the Soviet Union and others. Before that however, you clarified and enlightened us with Platos problem- not being able to tell the unjust people from the just, the fact that people benefit from doing what is unjust if not getting caught and actually advance in society, and accepting that this problem cannot be solved to achieve a CS1. Plato does not provide a valid solution except for the hope and desire to need a higher level of justice. in the end , we were told that we will now have an assignment everyday to keep us active and refreshed in these Ethical problems.
In Tuesday's class, we mostly discussed about the essay and the lesson given through the Power Point. You gave us insight into the essay, about the arguments you recommended we write about-Individual, groups(society), and the relationship between them. In the essay, we have to explain what the question is asking, identify the problem and then prove our argument which is the thesis.
As the first argument, individualism, we need to explain the problem with it and how our society is an individualistic culture, and the outside forces that influence the individual. The problem is turning this individualistic culture into a CS2, and it lies in the decision making of the individual, if we do take individualism to achieve this ethical standard we can develop a civil society .
Society or groups are used to define CS1. Societys problem being the fact that people are unjust and that the relationship between the individual and the society through the why to create a civil society will never be achieved, but we cannot settle for MD.
You suggested we write about Plato, the ought is problem and the article Disquieting Suggestion. You gave a Power Point on CS1, reminding us that civil society is the salvation to our current problems in society, but CS1 means many different things to different people. Additionally, that social norms is found in the why that creates CS2. its rroted in the why but is taken to the what which is an emotional appeal.
And finally, you stressed to us the importance of this civil society conversation is so grand, people should be having it more often, not only when something bad happens. One day or another society will have to reckon with this. That was Tuesday
What I learned from class is the problem presented by Plato. You can't tell a just person from an unjust person. You have to have a society in which you're able to tell those that are doing right from those that are doing wrong. The other problem is that you benefit if you're unjust because you can advance higher in society if you do that which is wrong than right if you don't get caught. People that are truly just are actually punished by society. This is why most people in our society are motivated to not be moral and do whatever it takes to make them successful, benefiting themselves and not thinking about others. A person who cheats on a test (maybe in general life) than a person who doesn't cheat. This is because the person who cheats has the success guaranteed and saves time while the other person who doesn't cheat will actually work hard in the road but the success is not guaranteed because maybe that person didn't work enough. This relates to the fact that civil society will never be achieved as we are not aware of the people around us.
On Tuesday we discussed about the essay we wrote on Wednesday. Afterwards, we took notes on a PowerPoint and learned more about a problem we as individuals have. Intellectuals see civil society as salvation to society's current predicament. The only time we are concerned about civil society the most is when things go wrong. In addition to that, leaders only go back to the idea of having a civil society to put people at ease. We neglect the idea so many times that it is considered lost treasure and we are constantly aiming for it. Meanwhile for the people that don't believe that we need a civil society, they never had any sort of treasure regarding about striving for a civil society.
On Wednesday we wrote an essay. To be honest I feel like I missed out on mentioning things I meant to mention but I had moments during writing in which my mind just went blank. I would loose my spot where I was elaborating about and I struggled getting back to it. The prompt was confusing to me and I feel like I should've done a better job stating my thesis with more important points. I related a bunch of the knowledge I got from the articles we have read.
On Thursday we discussed about the essay we wrote on Wednesday and analyzed the question the prompt gave us; "Is the quest for a civil society more than salvation by intellectuals to society's current predicament?" The question is asking, is because we occasionally have problems the only reason we demand a civil society. Mr. Berglund's answer to the prompt was that we don’t need to talk about civil society just when there's a problem. That we need a conversation about the civil society to go on continuously. So are we only having a civil society when intellectuals feel that society has gone too far that they have to come and bring it back in, after having it being neglected. The problem in the essay was, how do you bring together this individual culture that we exist in and turn it into a civil society. Because we are in the case where individuals don't even care about a civil society because they are moral disengaged. I also learned that an intellectual person is someone that is willing to struggle by questioning the process, the perception and their perspectives. Lastly, we had a discussion about how our next section/unit was going to be about. And that is, that we're going to assume that we need a civil society and that we have to work to get it because we can't just wait for a disaster to occur and then discuss it. With the assumption of needing a civil society, we are going to assume that we need to develop a social norm. We have to develop a norm that's going to govern us, at least that will continue approaching us to a civil society if not directly to it. We need to be able to develop a degree of tolerance or respect for others that surround us. The 'others' meaning the people surrounding the individual. You as an individual has to realize that there is someone that's going to be affected. And they're going to be affected because you can consciously be aware of tolerance. You can look at the decision you're about to make and you can say you're concerned. However, you have to also consider more importantly the unintended consequences and have to realize that any action you do has the potential to have an unintended consequence. For example, if you jokingly insult a friend of yours, there could be an unintended consequence that you won't realize about. You will assume that your friend thinks you're joking with him/her, but it is possible that you might be misreading that assumption and be developing a lot of anger coming from your friend and someday you might get beaten up by your upset friend (or less violently, stop being your friend because of your jokes about him/her). And that's the definition of an unintended consequence. The next thing we need is to have an honest conversation. An honest conversation is coming in and identifying your baggage and be willing to accept other alternatives. For example, in the summer assignments we did, we had to read the article once and give a response; the idea of reading it once was to get our opinion out. Because the first time you read it, you get your emotions on it, but when you read it the second time you start taking it apart and consider other options or unintended consequences and give a judgement. If our opinion at the beginning (first time reading) was the same as our judgement at the end (reading it the second and third time), then that means we didn't have an honest conversation. I also learned that we can't assume we need ethics because there's other ways we can achieve a civil society. We have to rule out several options before we rule out that we also need ethics. Overall, we need to try to avoid and get rid of moral disengagement. We need people to become morally engaged. We need to align both WHYs from the individual and society together. In other words, society's goal needs to be the same as the individual's
Today in class we discussed the problem "Why be Moral" . The problem is that being unjust is rewarded while being moral is punished, so there is no gain in performing the right action or making the right decision. We proved this point by using a Niccolo Machiavelli example in which a man hires a hit man to kill his enemies and after the dirty deed has been done the man kills the hit man and in the process looks like the hero and is rewarded. We also discussed how Plato provides a bit of hope by saying this problem can be solved. His solution is to create a society in which the just are rewarded. From this discussion I wandered that since being unjust was beneficial, then would it mean it was improving the individual; then if everyone was unjust would everyone benefit, and if so would that lead to societal improvent.
We compared Plato to the philosopher David Hume and realized that Plato usually provides a solution after stating a philosophical problem. His solution to the "Why be Moral" problem is to create a society in which the just are rewarded. However Hume just states the "ought is" problem with no clear solution.
We talked about the importance of education and the need for students to understand the difference between grades and learning. We also discussed how schools and overall society has attempted to kill of creativity and doubt in order to obtain progress and order.
In class we discussed how to write an essay. We analyzed the question. The question being "Is a civil society needed or not needed". From this we determined that will need to explain what the question is being asked and we also need to explain how we are going to prove it . We discussed three possible arguments that could be used. The first argument was the individual itself, and with this is can be argued that a civil society is needed because without it the individual will commit unethical actions then attempt to rationalize them, and in the end lead to moral disengagement. The necessity of a civil society can also be supported by the idea that if every individual only focuses on the "what" of ethical decision making then there will never be true improvement without personal gain.
We also discussed how the group or society can be used as an argument. A civil society can be argued to be needed by proving it through society. The current society establishes rules and guidelines without knowing the reason why they established them. This goes on to prove he need for a civil society because only when a civil society is in place will all the problem be truly understood and therefore correctly solved. The answer to these problems will be known because the lines that distinguish good and evil will be clear and universal in a civil society. Having a civil society will end the ought is problem described by David Hume. This problem will be solved because the is will finally become the ought. This will be possibly because of the societal improvement combined with the clarity of right and wrong.
Another argument we deemed acceptable was the relationship of society to the individual. It can be argued that this relationship proves the need for a civil society. This can be supported by Plato's idea that our current society rewards the unjust. Plato speaks of a perfect society in which doing good is beneficial and rewarded by society. The society he speaks of is a civil society in which the essence for ethical decisions making is true and pure for both the individual and the society. This results in individual improvement with no personal gain, this therefore suggest that the society itself would be successful. A civil society solves the problem of "Why be Moral" because it gives us a reason for being moral
Apart from this we also discussed the definition of a civil society, and the possibility that a civil society could be the rationalization of moral disengagement. By this we meant that we rationalize that we are all morally disengaged. WE determined a civil society to be the salvation to society's current predicament. We also discussed how social norms are rooted to the "why ". Meaning the social norms that answer the "what" are bad or wrong.
Today in ethics we wrote an essay on the necessity for a civil society
I argued that we do need a civil society
My three main arguments were:
The nature of the individual itself
The society in which the individual lives
And the relationship between the individual and society
I used these arguments to prove the need for a civil society
From the individual I mentioned mans evil nature, and said that as individuals we are in a constant cycle of trying to rationalize our unethical decisions. I included how a civil society would solve this because everyone would have the same definition of right and wrong
For the society the individual lives in I mentions how our society rewards the unjust i proved this by using an example and included how Plato believed in the need for a society that rewards the just. I concluded by dying that if the basic building block of a structure
Is flawed than the whole structure will be close to collapsing. So if the individual is corrupt and evil than our society is in dire need for salvation
I did not have enough time to write about the relationship between the individual and society. However I was going to write how society sets goal for society, but those goal are not how we ought to live. I was also going to mention how they both focus on the what of the problem and end up leading to moral disengagement. I was going to end my paragraph by saying that the relationship between the individual and society is not a good one because it encourages personal gain instead or societal improvement.
In ethics we discuss the essay
We explained the question. The question was; is a civil society only a question to be brought up when problems occur. Mr. Berglund said it should not and said that it should be a daily conversation. That it should be tried to achieved every day no matter the problems occurring. After this we assumed we need a civil society. We also said that a social norm needed to be developed as well as a degree of tolerance for others. We discussed how any and every action we do has unintended consequences, this led me to believe that no choice is completely good. We defined an honest conversation as identifying your "baggage" and being able to accept other alternatives. We also asked the question of the need for ethics in a civil society. We decided we do and stayed that we need to bring different elements together including ethics to create a civil society. We proved we needed something more than just ethics because an ought does not necessarily mean it will be an is. We cannot assume that people will do the right thing when doing the wrong thing is beneficial. We also said we needed to try to get rid of moral disengagement and try to make the society's goal the same as the individuals.
On Monday we clarified the problem and solution of Friday's discussion on the article. We elaborated on the essay assignment and Mr. Berglund gave further explanation on the assignment. Towards the end of our class we went over the class syllabus. We concluded what to expect throughout this second semester in Mr. Berglund's class, including posting everyday on what we learned everyday which I had no idea we had to do until right now.
-The just are punished, especially those perceived as unjust
-Those who are unjust are rewarded, especially if thy appear just.
-Plato has a weak solution to a strong problem, he is also more optimistic than other philosphers
-The "rules of the class"
-If you are punished for being just, and rewarded for being unjust why would anyone be just. And if that is the case how can we ever be a civil society
Tue 2/7-today we learned that individuals don't like to be told what to do but are still told what to do because they are disengaged politically or morally
We only talk about civil societies when there is a problem, to pacify the masses. Talking about civil societies is also used to rationalize moral disengagement by playing with the idea of civil societies. Talk is about civil societies are the search for the lost treasure (back in my day we walked to school up hill both ways in three feet of snow, and I'll be damned to hell if a the earth didn't split open and we didn't fight off veloceraptors with our bare hands.)
Lastly i learned that CS1's are different for everyone and require social norms.
I didn't learn much other I can write alot in a short amount of time and that ethics is really, really hard. I also kinda figured out how the stuff we learned connects and how truly unattainable a civil society is.
Yesterday in class we went over the china trip and how we have until February 9 to sign up, we also talked about our essay and when it will be, we also talked about the quiz and that there was no I in the letters.
today in class we talked about what needed to be on our essay.
We also talked about a CS1 and we used a Power Point to take notes on it
today in class Mr. Berglund stated that we will need our readings tomorrow for our essay and that he will turn on the altar of liberty and that Thomas Jefferson would come out because he has nothing better to do.
I think that I missed some examples of individualism and a civil society on the essay.
Today in class we talked about our essay and how one person went up to Mr. Berglund saying that his hand didn't hurt. We also talked about how we thought we did on the essay. We reviewed an honest conversation and he asked if there were any more questions before we move on to the next section tomorrow.
Friday in class we learned about whether we have to develop a cs2 (social norm) and can it be replaced by a law and order society. We also talked about Thomas Hobbes and establishing a republic.
In class we discussed Plato and the reading by him that we did last week. We went over the fact that you can not distinguish an unjust person from a just one and that people deceive others and make it look as if they are just when they truly aren't, as we realized with the example about killing the assassin and looking like a hero. Although Plato doesn't provide a valid solution to the issue, he does suggest that we implement justice to make society better. Later in class we also discussed a civil society and how it can not be achieved if we encourage and reward people for being unjust.
We talked about how we can tie in the discussion we had on Friday, Plato’s why be Moral? to the essay. We also talked about the syllabus and about the new assignment we have every night, the unknown knowns. The new assignment is done with the purpose to see what we learn each day in class. This relates to the problem since by doing this every day, it will help us with the problem of not always paying attention in class.
We talked about how we can tie in the discussion we had on Friday, Plato’s why be Moral? to the essay. We also talked about the syllabus and about the new assignment we have every night, the unknown knowns. The new assignment is done with the purpose to see what we learn each day in class. This relates to the problem since by doing this every day, it will help us with the problem of not always paying attention in class.
Today in class we discussed about how we are supposed to be doing this assignment every single day in order to learn. We also discussed some points we could put in our essays in order to get a higher grade and towards the end of the class we started reviewing what we have learned about civil society. It relates to the problem since it shows us the importance of a civil society.
Today in class we did our first ethic essay that we had to write in 45 minutes. Overall i think the essay was hard, but not as hard as i thought it was going to be. By doing these kinds of essays, it helps us with the problem of becoming more of a critical thinker and working under pressure.
Today in class we discussed what we were supposed to have on the essay that we took yesterday and how it didn’t matter if we didn’t have what Mr. Berglund said, as long as we showed that we struggled. We also talked about how we need a civil society and go over the steps in having a civil society, which lead to the conversation of talking what an honest conversation really is. All of this relates to the problem since it is going to help us know why in reality we need to have an honest conversation in order to have a civil society.
Today, Tuesday, we learnt what a Civil society is all about. We learnt that without identifying a why there is no possible way to have a civil society. Thus, the lack of a why leads to Moral Disengagement, which is reached with emotional appeal and lack of cognitive process or rationalization. We use the idea of a CS as a scapegoat to hide our own societal problems. Although a CS is unachievable, we need it to keep things in order. When we think about this too much our emotions throw us into Moral disengagement. In the why is also found social norms. A social norm sets rules and a standard that everyone musy follow. a bad social norm does not start in a why, but rather a how. Anyway, a CS must exist in our minds to maintain "order" in a society.
Known: Today in class we learned about Plato's problems, meaning the issues he was forced to think about in the article. The first problem is that he couldn't tell a 'just' person from an 'unjust' person; a good person from a bad person. The second and third problem was that some people can benefit from being unjust and suffer for being just. Therefore it's possible that you will be better off if your actions are unmoral.
Unknown: Why is it that Plato had such a hard time coming up with a solution for this? I probably shouldn't put this because no one has the answer yet but if not he, an actual philosopher, than who? Certainly not me.
Is it hard to have a solution because there has never been a truly good person, someone who with the option to do bad, would do good instead? I want to believe that good things come to those who wait but now I'm left to wonder, will I just be left waiting?
Known: in class we learned about zero sum game. A zero sum game is when you get into an honest conversation and fight to win an argument while loosing sight of finding a solution or avoiding an honest conversation entirely.
We also learned about how moral disengagement may have a correlation to an increase in governmental power.
unknown: We don't know if this increase is true or not and if it is we are left to wonder how far would the governments power go.
On February 7th, we were made to realize that the essay, which is a major part of our grade, that we’ll be writing on Wednesday (February 8) is actually very difficult to write. Mr. Berglund said that we might need to get ice packs afterwards for our wrists. We also reviewed the term Civil Society with a PowerPoint. We recalled how Civil Society is seen, by intellectuals, as the solution to society’s current predicament. The teacher pointed out some things you could put into your essay, involving Civil Society. For example, we could bring MacIntyre into it. MacIntyre believes reaching Civil Society is like “searching for lost treasure”. We ended class with a simile: “Civil Society is like wine, it can stimulate but it can also get you drunk”.
Today in class we discussed the important points we will need to know for our essay tomorrow, and more on the main subject, a civil society. We defined a civil society as multiple things, like an honest conversation, and how the idea of one was often used as a way to calm the masses during a problem or crisis
Today in class we wrote our first essay. I think I had a great example that well represented the idea of a civil society, but I think I could've related more to what we talked about in class, as I didn't have enough about the individual or any of the articles we had, and easily could've had much more to support my argument. I felt my essay was more of a rambling dialogue than an argumentative essay, and I didn't focus on the question as much as I should've. I could have done a much better job at being focused, but overall I think I did well.
In class today we talked about what the essay question meant, and I misinterpreted the question, as I didn't realize it said "more than an intellectuals method of calming the public." After this, we talked more about what was required to create a civil society, and how it could be possible, even though it isn't, and what we would need to do to make it possible.
On Friday we talked about what it might actually take to create a civilsociety, and listed multiple things, such as an Honest Conversation and a Social Norm, or a set of ethical standards. We also talked about alternatives to a civil society, and whether something like a Law and Order society could replace a Civil Society, and how a Law and Order society could either remove or enforce moral disengagement, and whether a LO is good, and how it is flawed
today i learned
- what our essay was going to be about, the format and how hard it was going to be
-i learned even marabout civil society
Today we wrote our first essay it was a very complicated and time consuming but I learned allot just by thinking and reflecting on my own thoughts that I wrote down on the essay
we had a vey long conversation about civil society and how now we will have to believe we need one
we also talked about tomorrow
we were informed we will not have a blow your mind friday!!!!
Yesterday we had a substitute ms we had to complete an assignment in the website
Today we talked about how we don't do good to be good we do good things for something in return and we want a reward "we want to be able to stroke our self" was what the all mighty Gary bergland said
We talked about how rules can be stupid sometimes
Why not kill people in a hospital but you can kill other people
He shared an example with us that we can't bring a blade with us but we can bring a utility knife smaller than 5 inches it makes no sense
You can't have any prejudice of previous things. judgment by others is unacceptable because what is ethical to you in your culture it may not be ethical for another person in another culture
In Friday the 24th of febuary, we had a short class but we still had time to indulge the knowledge of our wonderful teacher who talked about sports illustrated magazines but he gives a different perspective on them he told us how unfair it was for the women in that magazine and we also learned about how one cannot judge others
Most emotional desicions come from the what.
But are sold as a why.
Anything goes if you are a moral telativist
How cool is that?!
Everything is ethical....
Sorry is the most abused word in the English language even though it has no meaning
Today in the all mighty Gary bergland's class we learned allot of things
Absolutism is the big A.
It is something that is concrete and has no flexibility if it is wrong it is wrong without any exception.
Any community standard is absolute WRONG
Society tends to like absolutes...
Cs2 Leeds to absolutephobia
Today march 7th we had an extra long class with the all mighty Gary Bergland the class was 90 minutes long as if 45 weren't enough haha. But that only mean we had 90 wonderful minutes of wisdom and we were able to talk about many things like:
-society is what it is because everyone thinks they are good
-society thinks you are cute when you are not doing anything
-most churches are not theological anymore people just stand clap and sing
(And even though some of us are religious we must accept it)
-slave morality is the problem
-lave morality is the average individual that believes they are good (keyword is "believes")
-education is metafisicly insurection
Thank you mr. Bergland for this wonderful piece of knowledge you shared with us
On march 22nd we had the privilege of having our teacher talk to us about:
-you rationalize, you justify you serch for others and you ask them but you realize you were wrong but to fix it you will need allot of resources and you do not want to use them WE PROCRASTINATE
-the most valuable thing to humans is time
Today in class we discussed the formatting for our essay and tried to find better understanding of Civil Societies.
When we discuss individualism in class we are essentially trying to circle back to the realization that we are not the only individual that matters. However, people will never stop trying to be their own person this makes a culture of people who aspire to be individuals.
We discussed intellectuals, aka our only hope, the common assumption is that there is an intellectual somewhere working to improve man for the betterment of society.
I learned that intellectuals only exist when a problem arises. We often refuse to seek out the solutions to ethical problems via ethics fading and we only become concerned when it's too late.
What would happen if individualism disappeared would it be due to a law/ set ethical standard? Is that the only way to end individualism?
I want to know if there actually exist a person who is constantly doing good and bringing notice to the little things in order to better our society.
Today in class we wrote an essay on our hope for the intellectualas who would supposedly save societyand piece together an ethical standard to succeed.
Known: Today in ethics we began with the assumption that there needs to be a Civil Society. We learned that to develop a civil society we need to develop a norm or ethical standard. We need to be concerned and to tolerate those around us so that we might be able to have an honest conversation. We learned today that to build an ethical standard the "individual" is no longer important in the creation of a Civil Society as a civil society will root first from society as a whole. We finished with the belief that if we are to create a civil society we would also need to rid society of moral disengagement.
Unknown: If ethics is not all that is needed to begin a civil society, what else is there? How can we prevent moral disengagement and learn to tolerate those around us?
Today In this wonderful class full of knowledge we lost some time because of a fire drill which is not cool but what is cool is that mrs. Henderson said we did a good job :) but the time we were learning we talked about:
Religion goes to far when it is speaking for society.
The problem with religion is that they spread the faith by judging others
Religion helps us interpret other humans
Cs2 is not a absolute but this is not a problem religion fills basic human need
Thank you for your wonderful atention
It was a good day
On Tuesday Mr. Berglund spoke on the the arguments that we would base our essays on. We should argue if we need a civil society or not. I personally think that it would be an improvement but I know that we will never achieve that utopia. He also mentioned to base of another argument on the culture of individualism. The individual must know his/her self interest to make decisions. But emotion always interferes with our self interest and then we use our cognitive thinking to rationalize on our decision, and if we know it is wrong we ask others if what we did was right or wrong to get justification for what we did. We talked about the civil society culture and individualistic decisions and the circles. We always start from the what and go to the why and it should be backwards.
On Wednesday we wrote out first essay...which I thought was difficult to finish because I didn't have much information, but now I know what to expect on the essays and how much time we have for each essay. Other than that I thought that as long as we review our notes and reading assignment and gather all of our information and prepare for the essay
On Thursday we discussed the essay from Wednesday more thoroughly and clarified the meaning of the question "Is the quest for a civil society more to intellectuals a salvation to society's current predicament." Berglund told us to assume that we do need a civil society, therefore we need to have an honest conversation to solve the problem. Berglund later asked what would this social norm be? We ended class today in figuring out what the social norm and we will enter this conversation in more detail to figure out the social norm tomorrow.
On Friday we discussed CS1, Berglund told us to assume that we do need a CS1. In order for us to achieve a CS1 we need to have tolerance/respect for others and an HC. And in order to have an HC we need to avoid a zero sum game. Berglund introduced a Legislative Society which makes laws. He introduced Thomas Hobbes as well, which established a philosophy for Law and Order Society. Thomas Hobbes said that the center of all society was not the why but the safety. Hobbes said that men would turn over all freedoms and their individualism for the government and in return expect safety.
Tuesday- We learned that if we still continue having emotional appeal it causes for us to have moral disengagement and in that case there is no way we are able to accomplish a civil society that is why we always stay in what and never move to the why. We also learned how we just see individualism or a civil society just when we encounter or see a problem and we think by just addressing the issue we are solving it.
Wednesday- Today I learn how I'm not really good at writing essays.Writing this essay for me was complicated since in the beginning I thought I got it and started writing about how we can't really accomplish a civil society since all the decisions we make are based on emotion and we really don't think through our decisions. By us making decisions based on emotion we get moral disengagement and we failed to accomplish a civil society. Even though there is a solution to TRY to accomplish a civil society is that we can have a honest conversation and then after that I got really confused I feel like I struggle. I also repeated multiple things, I tried to incorporate the circles of what why and how but I think I didn't do a great job in explaining the circles but next time I will try to get get better.
Thursday- Today we reviewed of how we use the excuse of a civil society just when a problem appears but we have to learned that we shouldn't wait until the problems pops up and talk about a civil society and think that's our solution instead keep having that conversation every single day. We also discovered that individuals don't really care about creating a civil society since we have moral disengagement. We also learned that assuming we need a civil society we will need to try to develop a norm, a norm that will approach us to a civil society. We will also need to develop tolerance and respect to others because any action we do will have a unintended consequence that will affect others. Another part of a civil society is to have a honest conversation, and that honest conversation is being able to accept other options or alternatives. We also learned that there's other ways to achieve a civil society but ethics is a big part of achieving a civil society. I just had a question of how are we going to stop moral disengagement?
For most of class today we discussed the essay tomorrow and Mr. Berglund gave us an outline and clarity on things we had to incorporate into it. We also went more in depth about a civil society and I learned several things about that, such as how intellectuals view a civil society as the 'key' to society's current issues or how it is more of a self conscious exercise and how the exact definition of a civil society is broad and can encompass quite a few meanings. This relates to the problem because while it is nice to think a civil society is something we already have/easy to attain, the fact of the matter is that we will never be able to have a true civil society and that it is virtually impossible to achieve. The only question I have that kind of loosely ties into what we did was why do the whys between a society and an individual need to bridged?
Today in class we took the essay so we didn't really get a chance to discuss any topics, but I did gain some knowledge based on the experience. I learned that for future essays, I should make an effort to manage my time more wisely. I spent too long on some things and not enough on others and that is something that I should aim to get better at for any similar future assignments. I also learned that I should come a bit more prepared by maybe having a few ideas in mind or written down based around what we've learned in class so that the outline won't take as long and I can have more time to form my thoughts. And hopefully, by the time I get my grade back for the essay, I'll have learned what to continue doing and what to refrain from when it comes to writing in the future for this class.
Today in class, we began going over what is to come in the following weeks and we went over some of the ideas mentioned in the essay. I learned that the definition of an intellectual is closest to somebody who is willing to struggle and will question the three P's. I also learned that in any society, or at least one that is on the road to becoming a civil society, we must develop a degree of tolerance for others. Another important idea that Mr. Berglund mentioned was that any action we take will result in a consequence/reaction that may be negative or unanticipated. This relates to the problem because it could tie into how not everyone will conform to certain norms/ethical rules which will always prevent us from reaching the ideal civil society or dream of a better one.
Today in class, we further discussed the 'circle theory'. I learned that in order to attain a civil society, at the very least, we must have a community standard/ethics/norms. We also began to learn about the zero sum game idea and how you can not have an honest conversation with it because one party starts the discussion with a perceived advantage. At the end of the class, we went over a law and order society and the notion of legislation, which is simply making laws and enforcing them. We learned that although some things seem to be plain common sense, there are still rules put in place for it (the example used in class was the ever popular texting and driving issue). This relates heavily to our civil society problem and our struggle to attain it through various methods. I didn't happen to have any questions today because I thought everything we talked about/learned was very straightforward.
Today, we finished discussing Platos article "Why be moral". We discussed the problem Plato suggests in the article and we also discussed about how no solution was offered. In class we also went over how unlike the other Blow You Mind Friday's, this one was very relatable to ourselves. Man can be good or evil, but man will do anything it takes for personal gain. We also finished off the class discussing the syllabus in which a new assignment was announced. We are to write about what we learned that day to rethink about what we learned. The problem in many classes is we get homework that has no value to it, but only takes up time. To solve this issue, we are not supposed to spend much time on it, but we are supposed to think about it and make the time we are spending for this assignment valuable.
Today we went over what should be covered in our first ethics essay. Since there are many rumors going around that ethics is a class difficult to receive a good grade, many people are worried about receiving good grades. Trying to solve the grade issue, we discussed how learning is more important than any grade. We also briefly went over the 3 Blow Your Mind Friday's to refresh our memories and to help us again in writing our essay. We spent the last part of our class time discussing a civil society, and the importance of a civil society.
Today we wrote the first essay. It was one of the hardest essays I've had, but it wasn't as hard as what I expected. We went over everything we needed to know in class, so it wasn't hard to get ideas about what to write about. One struggle that came with the essay was time management. Ok our next essay, I think I could use the time given in a more efficient way. Because I've never had an essay like this before, it was hard to understand the prompt. Although this was difficult, I think it was an assignment designed to think in a way we normally wouldn't in any other classes.
Today we discussed our first essay. We went over the prompt and talked about what it meant and why it's a problem. Although I felt I didn't understand the prompt and wrote about something else, I understand where my thought process went off and I believe I will be able to do better next time. We also discussed the topic of honest conversation. We related honest conversation to the essay, since we need an honest conversation for a civil society.
Today in class we went over social norms. We talked about how we can get a social norm as a society, which would be for all individuals to have the same why. I didn't understand social norms as well as I understood previous topics we learned about. We also discussed the topic of is man good or evil. This part I was quite unsure of, but based on hearing the discussion, I think man is evil.
Today in class we wrote an essay. I didn't get to finish, and i feel like if i were to have more time i could have done better. this is our first essay so i know i cant be to hard on myself and i cant expect to get a perfect grade. i now know what i can do to use my time more efficiently. i wish i could have put more thought into my essay, i didn't get all my thoughts down on paper there were some more things i wish i would have though of in class but i didn't. i found ways to link previous readings and the idea of individualism into my paper which i am very happy with. i could have expanded more on each topic but i didnt. i feel more confident about our next essay whenever we get one
Today was Essay Day! Very stressful and exciting. I felt confident coming into it yet I also suspected something to trip me up. I had everything ready in my mind to write about and thought of new ideas and theories along the way. My essay was focused on civil society and how it's dreamt salvation from our morally disengaged society. But the question, is the quest for civil society by intellectuals more a salvation to society current predicaments?, did not catch me off guard because we did discuss it on the PowerPoint, however it made me think of a new things I hadn't before. I started with humanity's nature to be evil and the problem Plato has, I also brought in the disquieting suggestion. Explaining that our awareness of this morally disengaged society we are in is our way to progress to a CS1, but as we, intellectuals, know that this cannot be achieved we rely on the hope of it but also as you said that the problem is conversed about in a grander scale more often. I also wrote about how knowing this problem created a law and order society, demonstrating our knowledge for the need for a civil society and the need for people to be moral. And that our self interests has to align with society's to set a CS2 to inturn set a CS1. But man is evil and this won't be achieved, but the quest to have awareness for it is important. I thought it was a solid essay, as the first one.
Thursday, day after our first essay. You explained and clarified any questions we had about the essay regarding the question and the structure of our arguments. We talked about the essay and what the question ,Is the quest for a civil society more to intellectuals a salvation to society's current predicament, really meant. Which was that no it was not the salvation because we never would see it as a salvation or a discussion needed to be talked about until something bad has happened. You told us how the essay you wrote argued that the quest for a civil society does not become a savior because we need to keep the quest going, its salvation is continuous. That this problem needs to be discussed at a larger scale more often and that as a society we need to accept the fact that it will never be a CS1. However, to prove our need for it you spoke about the dangerous moral disengagement that could lead to apathy. Also you explained that the alignment of the individuals interest and why and society's can be our CS1 but that our society never reaches our why's. And additionally we discussed about our degree of tolerance to others and how every action we take will affect the people around us in whatever way they perceive it to be. I felt better about my essay after the lesson knowing that I wrote along the lines of today's discussion.
Friday's class was one of the best blow your mind Fridays we've had so far. We talked about having to have a social norm or CS2, tolerance for others, to head into an honest conversation without a zero sum game, which is the attitude or the idea of winning a conversation once you enter it, that you are correct and the other person is not. In order to have an HC we need to avoid this zero sum game. So when wanting to establish a CS1, when wanting to put the two whys together and not hitting that's when we get into the problem of being morally disengaged. And what society or what philosopher Thomas Hobbes suggested was creating a government where the why is safety or security in exchange we sacrifice a certain degree of individualism or freedom. And saying that when the MD keeps increasing the law and order society will too. But then the problem then becomes should L+O be our only social norm? Is it acceptable to man to put into place a government where safety is the why to forfeit some freedom? to achieve a civil society. Can this Law and Order society take us to CS1? We know that we have this because we know that man is evil and that ethics itself cannot achieve a CS1. This L+O society must legislate all that it thinks it needs to to avoid or prevent people from being MD. And legislators need to know how far to push the laws. I only have one question and it's it this is the closest thing we have come to achieving CS1?
Today we discussed the blow your mind Friday and went over the most important things to discuss. We also went over the syllabus and reviewed some instructions.
Today we discussed the things most important to be on the essay. We went over a PowerPoint of civil society and tool notes to help us on the essay. We reflected on what a civil society is and spoke about how it is a "lost treasure."
today we took the essay exam. I felt very confident about what I wrote and was able to plan out my thoughts well on the green sheet of paper. I was not able to finish my essay but I was very pleased with what I was able to turn in by mentioning many of the things talked about in previous classes.
Today Mr. Berglund went over the essay question and we talked about what some of the answers should be. We also started talking about why a civil society IS needed and we went a lot further into the topic about it.
2/6 we continued discussing plato and elaborated more on why be moral. i learned more discussing the reading then i learned actually reading beacuse the reading in my opionion was a little vage. it was focussed on the problem but had little interest on solving the problem.
2/7 Tuesday we adressed the arguments that we should include in our essays. Mr.berglund told us to state weather if we need a civil society. my opinion is it'd be nice to have a civil society because it would be a mellow, care free environment. he also argued to put an individual into the essay to better prove the point to get across. he reminded us that an individual must know their self desires in order to make a decision. But emotion is a problem that interacts with ones self interest and then we use our cognitive thinking to rationalize on our decision, and if we don't feel confident in the choice we have made then we an outside indivdual to make us feel better about our selfs. We talked about civil society culture and individualistic decisions. we also discussed on mans mistake on going from the what to the how and then back to the what skipping the why.
Today was ESSAY DAY! never felt more stressed out and nervous in all my school career. i feel sorta confident on what i had wrote, i elaborated on why we need a civil society, and how we maybe can achieve it, and what is a civil society. i tried my best on expressing on the topic but at the same time i didnt really fully understand the question
today we had discussed on yesterdays essay and elaborated more on what the question was asking if we didnt understand. we discussed what we shouldve written on the essay.
Today, we learnt that unintended consequences come more often than not. This means that with MD come the reactions of others that we may not even realize is going to happen. This is why we must avoid MD and have honest conversations.We need to have a civil society with a community standard. However we cannot just assume we need ethics to do this so we must read between the lines and fill in the gaps between society and the individual. We must learn reasons for our actions.
Today I learned:
-Because the individual is the most important part of the republic we can make assumptions
-The first assumption is that actions are going to be done with the interest of others
-The second assumption is that an honest conversation takes place in a republic because checks and balances
- The third assumption is that laws and actions are going to have ethical roots
- I was confused on why Thomas Hobbes only applied his theory of the safety circle to monarchy?
-Why didn't Hobbes apply his theory to other type of ruling or government?
Today in class we discussed the Hobbian society. We began by stating that for this type of society to be achieved a person must give up their individualism and freedom in order to acquire safety. According to Hobbes this type of society would also be a "Civil Society". This can be argued to be true as well, but before we must first look at the meaning of a civil society. A civil society occurs when the "why" of the people and the "why" of society are the same. So by definition the idea of a hobbian society would kind of work in my opinion because the "why" of the people would be to be safe and the why of society or the government would be to keep the people safe. However can law and order be enough to create a civil society? But before we answer this we first saw what Law and Order provided. We determined that it provided policies or laws, as well as guidelines and suggestions. Meaning that a law and order society should be able to be a civil society especially in a republic where the people themselves make the laws. However the new question that arises is can we always create a law to solve a problem. We used the example of the pig in the living room to support this. In my opinion this means that first of all a separate ethical guideline must be created, and then from there all the laws created must be rooted to that ethical standard.
I was not here Monday, Thursday, and Friday, I will try to get in the notes
We talk about the syllabus, then we started talking about how we are suppose to write the essay and get a better understanding of what is a civil society is and how to make the essay better. so we went over the problem like the why and how to achieve Civil Society. we also went over Plato and clarified the Plato problem- not being able to define the unjust people from the just, many people benefit from doing the unjust if not getting caught and advancing in society, and accepting that that problem cannot be solved to achieve a civil society.
We were talking about the essay and how are going to do it. Also that we need to know how to write the essay and how long will it take to do it. Then we started talking about a civil society and review a civil society, also why is a civil society is important. A civil society has a lot of standard of tolerance, social norms, and an honest conversation. Mostly an honest conversation is what society wants so they can reach a civil society.
Today we have to write an essay, the essay is about a civil society and in intellectuals and theory, when the current predicament is of and unfortunate nature. I started out with how many of our reading were good insight on our problems likes ought to an is or Pluto and how most of these readings have one thing in common it’s all about society, how turning an ought to an is, a meaning by turning the what to why, because we needed to get to the why.