Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1 views

    PHIL final exam- Hafsa Siddiqi

    Uploaded by

    Hafsa Siddiqi

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PHIL final exam- Hafsa Siddiqi

    Uploaded by

    Hafsa Siddiqi
    1 views5 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    1 views5 pages

    PHIL final exam- Hafsa Siddiqi

    Uploaded by

    Hafsa Siddiqi

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 5

    1

    Hafsa Siddiqi 101301384

    Carleton University

    PHIL 1000B: Introductory Philosophy

    Professor Iva Apostalova

    April, 25, 2024


    2

    Question 1:

    If I had the chance to lie to save a life, I would not do it. The reason for this is,

    according to Immanuel Kant, lying would not be approved because it goes against

    the categorical imperative that he has laid down. The first formula of the categorical

    imperative mentions how you should “ act only on that maxim through which you can

    at the same time that it should become a universal law” (Apostolova, lecture notes,

    lecture on Kant). Applying this to a scenario for which we have to lie, he would argue

    that it can't be universalized. A society devoid of trust would result from everyone

    lying whenever it was convenient to do so, leading to chaos and untrustworthy

    behavior. Therefore, Kantian ethics would not allow lying to be ethically acceptable in

    this circumstance. If I were to lie and people found out, then they would consider me

    as just a liar and that I could lie about anything and try to make it believable, which

    breaks the trust. Therefore, I would not take the opportunity to lie to save a life

    because it goes against Kant’s statement of categorical imperative and the action

    would be morally wrong as he would say. It would violate the trust in the community

    and create problems for the society.

    Question 2:

    Friedrich Nietzsche's two moralities that he has created are the master

    morality and the slave morality. He created these sets of moralities for the fact that

    not everyone will fall into one solid category. According to Nietzsche, the master

    morality tales from those who are in positions of power with a mindset of strength,

    perseverance, etc, or other words “active morality; affirms the self; affirms life”

    (Apostolova, lecture notes, lecture on Nietzsche). The traits of “good” and “bad” rely

    on the qualities of good such as pride and bravery but bad, goes with showing

    weakness and being mediocre. A master finds his morality and will change how the
    3

    world is, to suit it as well. Slave morality is when a slave is put in a world that he

    cannot shape so instead he learns to shape himself to learn how to fit in within the

    society or in other words `` reactive morality; it is created in opposition to something

    else( negates the other); negates life” (Apostolova, lecture notes, lecture on

    Nietzsche). Slave morality is considered the lower class, defined as weak but

    humble. Philosopher Immanuel Kant would go against what Nietzhve thinks because

    of how different their theories are. We know that Kant's mindset was based on the

    categorical imperative which means that a person should act as if their principle can

    be universally applied. Kant's theory on having self-respect as a person takes over

    the remarks made on the master and slave dynamic. Kantian does not think that the

    worth of an individual is made from their social status or how much power one has,

    it's made by rational autonomy. Therefore, although Nietzsche's differentiation might

    be valid in specific historical settings, he doesn't look at the realistic side of moral

    theories and their guiding principles and Kant would not accept his theory of morality.

    Question 3:

    Descartes's “I think, therefore I am” means that we know that we exist

    because we can think. Sartre agreed with this statement but he wanted to add more

    to the statement. As the text quotes “ God makes man according to a procedure and

    a conception, exactly as the artisan manufactures a paper knife, following a definition

    and a formula” (Mairet, Existentialism Is a Humanism, paragraph. 8) There is no

    pre-existing essence or idea of human nature apart from God. Sartre claims that for

    humans, existence comes before essence. This implies that people identify

    themselves via their decisions and activities after they have existed in the world for

    some time. Humans are not limited by a pre-existing essence or nature, in contrast
    4

    to objects made by artisans or by God. He wanted people to know that it’s important

    for us to understand the truth of the experiences and thoughts we go through. As

    quoted “Sartre puts the emphasis on ‘exist’ or ‘is’, and not on ‘think’ as Descartes

    did” (Apostolova, lecture notes, lecture on Sartre), he wanted to state that what

    connects us all is that we exist and that there is a reason that we exist. He believes

    that people need to understand that truth comes from what we feel and what we

    think rather than any other outside sources. He wanted to change Descartes' idea to

    emphasize that we can change and shape our reality since we have that own

    individual power. If Descartes had heard the modification of his idea, he probably

    wouldn't agree with it. The reason for that is that Descartes believed that people

    would use reason to discover the truths about the world and the truths that exist of

    what we think or feel. The two philosophers both agree that thinking will prove that

    we exist from the cogito argument, but they have different perspectives and ideas on

    where the truth comes from.

    Question 4:

    When Simone Beauvoir states that a woman is “the other '', she means that

    women aren't as often seen as men are, quoted “Thus, man has taken the place of

    the subject/self while woman has become the Other'' ( Apostolova, lecture notes,

    lecture on Beauvoir). In other words, women seem to be less important or less

    significant. In numerous countries, men are seen as the first to go as women are

    secondary which makes them feel less powerful. This leads to inequality and unfair

    treatment towards women because they seem separated from men. She states that

    women are called “the sex” because women “appear essentially to the male as a

    sexual being” (Beauvoir, The Second Sex (1949), paragraph.6). To fix this issue,
    5

    Beauvoir wants women to stand up for themselves and instead of letting society tell

    them what they should be, they should learn to define themselves and demand the

    same treatment that men get. She mentions the feminist from the seventeenth

    century, Polain de La Barre and she talks about how when men write about women,

    then all that is said is something biased and self-serving. They make women look

    bad for them to feel better about themselves. Her solution to this is called the

    “existentialist ethic”. When she states that “Every subject plays his part as such

    specifically through exploits or projects that serve as a mode of transcendence”

    ((Beauvoir, The Second Sex (1949), paragraph.30) it means these female individuals

    will find their purpose and identity by actually engaging in activities that help them

    grow as a person and help their current state. Living in the present and not planning

    the future isn't going to work. If all they did was worry about what state they are in

    right now they won't get anywhere and will continue to feel overpowered.

    You might also like