History: Think About This…

Imagine waking up one morning to discover that you have lost your memory. After a few minutes of blind panic, you begin to examine the room you find yourself in. You discover a scribbled note which says “Meet George, Piccadilly Circus, 9:30.” You glance at the clock. It is 8:00 a.m. Since you don’t want to tell anyone about your predicament, you give yourself an hour and a half to work out who you are from the contents of what is clearly your bedroom and make it to Piccadilly Circus to meet George – Whoever he is…

Assume that: memory loss is severe, but you can still read, speak, etc.. You can’t speak with anyone. Consider your bedroom at the current moment.

1. If you find yourself in the presented situation, who what extent do you think you would be able to reconstruct your identity by examining the objects in your room?
2. What problems would you experience in trying to do this, and how similar are they to those facing a historian?

—————————————————————————————————————–

Objects in my room: large desktop computer, cellphone, travel souvenirs, piles of IB books (history, physics, math, BSS), personal reading books, television, drawers of tech (cables, computer parts, batteries), airsoft gun, clothes, shoes, painting, wallet with documents and money, school assignments (such as History IA, BSS IA, Extended Essay).

1. While I do believe that to a certain extent a part of my identity could be reconstructed, it would largely depend on the way I select the objects in my room to support a thesis. As pieces of evidence often mean little without their context, it would depend on how I used these pieces. Certain items, especially those regarding the classes that I take or assignments themselves can direct me to my personal academic interests while traveling souvenirs can indicate other personal interests. Furthermore, documents with dates and names could give me concrete information about my age, name, and nationality.
2. Problems that I may experience are considering how valid these object I own are in representing my identity; how faithfully do they reflect me. Another issue I would face would be the fact that events and emotions can’t be completely represented by physical objects. In this sense, the motives and history behind the objects, the reason why they are in my room, are unavailable for analysis.

 

Reason and Religion

Anslem’s Anthological Argument

The argument  can accurately be summarized in standard form:

1. God is the greatest being we can imagine;
2. The idea if God exists in the mind;
3. It is greater to exist in reality than to exist in the mind;
4. If God exists only in the mind, then we can conceive a greater being – that which exists in reality;
5. We cannot conceive of a being greater than God; therefore God must exist in reality.

Do you think Anselm’s proof is convincing? If not, why?

Anselm’s proof is not convincing because of its dependence on assumptions and its use of undefinable absolutes. Anselm assumes that god is the greatest being we can imagine, but this is simply based on his personal knowledge, and is not a valid assumption for all people. These assumptions place the argument in the context of his own imagination. Therefore, the proofs are not convincing.

To what extent are our religious beliefs based on reason and to what extent are they based on emotion? 

If we consider Anselm’s argument, religious beliefs are justified both by reason and emotion. Anselm’s proof is structured in a logical format of deduction based on claims, in this sense it is based on a religious reasoning. On the other hand, Anselm’s proof is based on emotion. The belief in that we cannot imagine a being greater than god carries lots of emotional basis. Therefore, religious belief according to Anselm is both based on emotion and reason.

 

Though much of the religious experience is based on emotion, much of it can also depend on reason. Emotion is also related to memory, as most of the religious people will follow it based on their family’s faith, or begin to follow a religion based on a traumatic experience. Most religious people will say that they found God because of an objective experience. This relates to reason as they have justification for this belief, even if it is not properly justified by “scientific” reason. On the other hand, religious beliefs can also be based largely on emotion. Emotional experiences can largely justify religious beliefs. An example could be with rituals and communal experiences largely based on widespread emotional participation.

Do you think that reason alone could lead to a spiritual conviction? 

I do not believe that reason alone can lead to a spiritual conviction. Much of spiritual conviction depends on personal interpretations of the natural world, gained by experience and interpretation of natural events. Though science and reason can often explain these, they are often neglected or simply ignored in face of personal knowledge.

 

 

Pascals Wager

Pascal’s wager is an argument that asserts that one should believe in God, even if God’s existence cannot be proved or disproved through reason.

Blaise Pascal’s original wager was as a fairly short paragraph in Pensées amongst several other notes that could be considered “wagers”. Its argument is rooted in game theory and that the best course of action is to believe in God regardless of any lack of evidence, because that option gives the biggest potential gains.

	God exists	God does not exist
Believe in God	Infinite gain in heaven	Insignificant loss
Disbelieve in God	Infinite loss in hell	Insignificant gain

1. If you believe in God and God does exist, you will be rewarded with eternal life in heaven: thus an infinite gain.
2. If you do not believe in God and God does exist, you will be condemned to remain in hell forever: thus an infinite loss.
3. If you believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded: thus an insignificant loss.
4. If you do not believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded, but you have lived your own life: thus an insignificant gain.

 

Do you think Pascal’s is convincing? If not why not?

I do not believe Pascal’s wager is convincing. I do not believe this because it is also based heavily on assumptions. One of these is that disbelief in god equates solely in infinite loss. The wager only considers posthumous consequences and not the practical consequences of believing in god. The wager places posthumous consequences as more important than living actions.

To what extent are our religious beliefs based on reason and to what extent are they based on emotion? 

Religious beliefs according to Pascal’s Wager are largely dependent on reason. Though they refute common logic, they build their own sense of reason to justify the existence of God. Pascals Wager has little emotion involved for its entire premise to formulate a reason based argument for belief in god.

Do you think that reason alone could lead to a spiritual conviction? 

In this context, I do believe so. Arguments like Pascals Wager, when little to no criticism is had can often lead many people to reaffirm their belief or even start to believe.

 

 

To what extent are religions supported by ways of knowing other than faith

A TOK discussion has prompted us to discuss a knowledge question about the role of Ways of Knowing in Religion. The question reads, To what extent are religions supported by ways of knowing other than faith. This question, for my interpretation, requires a specification of the concept of religion. To this extent, I will explore the concept of religion as a set of dogmas and values, who’s following is administered by a respective institution. Support to religion, under this interpretation, would be seen as support to the institution and the maintenance of its following.

To me, religions are supported by ways of knowing other than faith, such as reason. This is often times political reason, for the preservation of a system. For example, Sharia and Islamic law in countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. In these countries, legal systems are based on traditional, early interpretations of Islam. Not only does this create a dependence on religion by the state, it created a situation where progression and advance are strictly tied to the religious institution. In Iran, the maintenance of Clerics in power and enforcing laws that favor the adherence to religion States pressure the people to join the church, since it has so much power. Enforcing religious codes of conduct pushes people into the religion for political motives. To this extent, religion is supported by reason, more specifically political reason.

Though there are these cases, religion is also supported by ways of knowing such as emotion, to a point where it eliminates reason bases justification. The Max Planck Institute for Human Development highlights the important context of religious rituals “aimed at the production of particular emotional experiences, with certain types of feeling standing as evidence of proper belief or connections to the divine.” In this sense religious belief is often attached to and justified by intense emotional experience. This emotional attachment often surpasses any level of reason based attachment. In Many cases, even the change in religious belief consisted of or was proven by an emotional  

Overall, I agree with reservations to both claims, leaning more towards the second claim. While it is true that religion and the church receive support from political implementations of the religion, they often lead to disbelief. By forcing people to adhere to religions, they are only held to that religion by these political factors. On the other hand, when emotion is tied to the religious experience, it is more likely that this person will have a long lasting attraction to it. Not only this, but many times the emotional group belonging is what will justify not only the permanence in the church, but the actual belief in the religious dogmas. Because of this, I partly agree with the first argument and more largely agree with the second. While both present a valid justification for supporting religion outside of faith, the emotional experience will have larger influence over actuall belief, while the political adherence will depend largely on the convenience of the cultural context.

Words:500

ToK IA Presentation Planning

 

Number of participants per group: Up to 3
Time limit for presentation: Approx. 10 minutes per person
Planning document: Each participant to fill in a planning document (TK/PPD) TKPPD_e
Subject of presentation: Chosen by the group members
Style of presentation: Can be almost anything (lecture, interview, PPt presentation, etc.) but must be live, and should not just be an essay read out to the class
Interaction with audience: Encouraged, and should allow time at end for questions and answers

 

How to begin:

Beginning with a real-life situation

When starting the presentation, one should begin by presenting the real-life situations. One can use this real-life situation to present an existing knowledge question.
This could be worded as ‘Which way of knowing is the most important in arriving at an ethical position?’

 

Perspectives and significance

It’s essential to include a consideration of different perspectives, and stress the significance of a real-life situation and knowledge questions.

Examples of different perspectives include the following:

1. Gender
2. Race
3. Geographical location
4. Religion/philosophical position
5. Historical era
6. Language
7. Cultural tradition
8. Socio-economic position
9. Educational experiences

 

Using evidence and examples

When considering the evidence used, it is important to consider concrete examples, with citable sources. Examples like hypothetical situations and anecdotes should not be used.

 

 

 

 

 

Cite this page as: Dunn, Michael. Examples of TOK presentations (8th May 2013). theoryofknowledge.net. http://www.theoryofknowledge.net/tok-presentation/examples-of-presentation-titles/ Last accessed: 23rd January 2018

Moral Dilemma Activity and Essay

Real Life Situation

During our TOK class, we had a discussion about ethical dilemmas and the role of different ethical perspectives on the outcome of these dilemmas. We debated a hypothetical situation wherein a shipwreck, we had to select 6 out of 10 people to be guaranteed a spot on a lifeboat. All 10 individuals fell into well-defined archetypes such as a pregnant woman, a lifeguard, a nurse, teenage twins, and the ship captain, making the decision whether to select them or not based on imagination and the stereotypical notions of these roles. In the first round of discussions, we were asked to make our decisions based on our own ethical justifications, while in the second round we were given one of four different ethical perspectives (Deontology, Consequentialism, Care-Based and Virtue) to guide our decision process. Overall, this activity brought to the class the role of the ethical perspective in the value-judgment of outcomes of an ethical dilemma or event.

Image Source

Reflection Essay

After this activity, we were presented with the following question In what ways do ethical theories expand or limit my knowledge of what is right and wrong?

In my belief, ethical theories expand my knowledge of what is right and wrong by presenting different perspectives to right and wrong. By understanding that there are different ways of viewing any one situation so that there are variations in what is considered to be acceptable and unacceptable, the general perception of right and wrong is changed. In this sense, right and wrong go beyond an absolutist point of view, where there is only one possible understanding of ethics. Ethical theories allow for a deeper analysis of events to be ethically judged, one where context comes into play. An example of this deeper analysis of events could be that of Fran Travers, a consultant gynecologist who “carries out an average of 16 abortions a week” in Northern England. Fran Travers states that many have been rude to her, contesting her personal ethical view because of her job. She states that those who contest her “usually have strong ethical or religious opinions.” In this situation, a deontological perspective where any sort of termination of life was unacceptable would judge any sort of abortion immoral. However, if we consider an absolutist perspective where all that is legal is moral and vice-versa, carrying about abortions would not only be moral, but a socially necessary job.

This general view of the role of ethical theories gives a fundamentally relative nature to ethics itself, which can distort knowledge about right and wrong. How can concrete knowledge of what is right and wrong exist if right and wrong themselves are relative? A scholarly publication by Eugene Carson Blake theorizes that  “A code of ethics must be considered absolute to be useful to Western man, because in a hard moral decision he will not take the code seriously unless he believes it to be universally valid.” In this sense, ethical theories would not expand knowledge of right and wrong, but limit it by presenting different perspectives to a point where none would be “absolute”, guiding, or practically useful when making moral decisions. An example could be of the 2013 investigation of London’s Imperial College for animal testing. In this case, the Imperial College was criticized for its treatment of lab rats which were being used to test possible antidotes for human diseases. In this RLS, one could consider this treatment justified under a consequentialist perspective, where the consequences of lab testing could help humans, or unjustified under a deontological perspective of not mistreating animals. If the perspective of Blake is upheld, these multiplicities of valid ethical perspectives will limit the knowledge of what is right and wrong in this situation, not expand this knowledge, as the previously adopted perspective claims.

I agree to an extent with the initial perspective presented. I believe that there is knowledge contained in a multiplicity of perspectives and that exploring these can expand the understanding of what is right an wrong. Even though this is true, I believe that for a general code of ethics to be widely upheld, it must have a minimal absolute character. In both of the RLS presented, one could identify many different ethical perspectives, encompassing the ethical theories. To me, these views only add to what we understand as right and wrong, by showing that what one perspective might justify as right, the other can justify as wrong. Unlike the theory of Blake, I do not believe a multiplicity of ethical theories does away with knowledge in the field of ethics, even though it may influence the practical application of ethics in human societies.

Word Count: 586

Works Cited

Blake, Eugene Carson. “Should the Code of Ethics in Public Life Be Absolute or Relative?” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 363, 1966, pp. 4–11. JSTOR,

“Imperial College Criticised after Investigation Reveals Lab.” Evening Standard, 10 Dec. 2013, www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/video-imperial-college-criticised-after-investigation-reveals-lab-rats-were-killed-with-guillotines-8995150.html.

Janes, Cath. “Controversial Jobs: Justifying Your Work.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 8 May 2009, www.theguardian.com/money/2009/may/09/work-careers-controversial-jobs.

Knowledge Questions:

• To what extent must large societal moral codes be absolute to reach their goals of guiding ethical judgments?
• What is the role of imagination in value judgments of ethical situations?
• To what extent is intuition a valid way of judging ethical knowledge?

This I Believe

In a world where we spend great part of our time with masses of other people, time alone can often be seen as something unnecessary or even undesirable. We are led to believe happiness and emotional satisfaction can only be obtained by nights out with friends and large gatherings.

Contrary to what many seem to believe, solitude is not loneliness. Nor is it synonymous to sadness or depression or total independence from others or fear of social interactions.

Growing up as an only child, I have often spent much of my time alone. My Summer vacation were marked by me not talking to anyone other than my parents for up to two months, traveling around the world, roaming cities and museums. During much of my childhood I played alone, chasing birds or exploring school grounds, hiding from teachers; alone. This time was not only enjoyable for me, but it also taught me a lot about myself and what I stand for. It allowed me to think, to talk to myself, and let my imagination flow. It taught me, most of all, that one is never alone if he can find company in himself.

I believe in the power of solitude. The modern times of technology and social media have taught us to constantly show ourselves as popular and in large company, they have told us to look and compare to others, all while ignoring the importance of looking for one’s self. It has become easier than ever to avoid spending time with ourselves, simply by opening social media or a YouTube video. The acts of questioning and philosophising about greater questions of life fades into the background of our “social personas,” to the point where the fear of solitude can moreover be attributed to the fear of facing these essential questions.

Spending time with ourselves allows us to become more comfortable with these questions that so often scare us. It allows us to become more comfortable with the dark parts of ourselves, often pushed out of the way by company or by our self distraction. It allows us to listen to ourselves and reflect on the very point that we are alive, and for this simple fact should smile.

I believe in contemplating, in thinking, in the human condition, and that solitude empowers us to question and to reflect about our very existence, about our time alive and about death, investigations we so often run away from. Time with ourselves allows us to philosophize, and as is attributed to Montaigne, “To philosophize is to learn to die.”

 

Podcast: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fI0V38MFYEEmmL99mQ8FPxojGNpIgzks/view?usp=sharing

Virtue Ethics

• • Virtue ethics is a broad term for theories that emphasize the role of character and virtue in moral philosophy rather than either doing one’s duty or acting in order to bring about good consequences. A virtue ethicist is likely to give you this kind of moral advice: “Act as a virtuous person would act in your situation.”
  • Most virtue ethics theories take their inspiration from Aristotle who declared that a virtuous person is someone who has ideal character traits. These traits derive from natural internal tendencies, but need to be nurtured; however, once established, they will become stable. For example,  a virtuous person is someone who is kind across many situations over a lifetime because that is her character and not because she wants to maximize utility or gain favors or simply do her duty. Unlike deontological and consequentialist theories, theories of virtue ethics do not aim primarily to identify universal principles that can be applied in any moral situation. And virtue ethics theories deal with wider questions—“How should I live?” and “What is the good life?” and “What are proper family and social values?”

 

• For more information visit:
  • Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, www.iep.utm.edu/virtue/.

 

Consequentialism Theory

 

• Consequentialism is the view that morality is all about producing the right kinds of overall consequences. Here the phrase “overall consequences” of an action means everything the action brings about, including the action itself. For example, if you think that the whole point of morality is (a) to spread happiness and relieve suffering, or (b) to create as much freedom as possible in the world, or (c) to promote the survival of our species, then you accept consequentialism. Although those three views disagree about which kinds of consequences matter, they agree that consequences are all that matters. So, they agree that consequentialism is true. The utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham is a well-known example of consequentialism.

For more information visit:

• Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/conseque/.

Deontology Theory

• • Deontological ethics, in philosophy, ethical theories that place special emphasis on the relationship between duty and the morality of human actions. The term deontology is derived from the Greek deon, “duty,” and logos, “science.”
  • In deontological ethics, an action is considered morally good because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the product of the action is good. Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare. Descriptive of such ethics are such expressions as “Duty for duty’s sake,” “Virtue is its own reward,” and “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.”
    • It is wrong to kill innocent people
    • It is wrong to steal
    • It is wrong to tell lies
    • It is right to keep promises

 

• For more information visit:
  • The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. “Deontological Ethics.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 16 Mar. 2015, http://www.britannica.com/topic/deontological-ethics.

Moral Asbolutism

• • Moral absolutism asserts that there are certain universal moral principles by which all peoples’ actions may be judged.
  • For example, most people around the world probably accept the idea that we should treat others as we wish to be treated ourselves. But beyond that, people from different countries likely hold varying views about everything from the morality of abortion and capital punishment to nepotism and bribery.
  • Moral absolutism contrasts with moral relativism, which denies that there are absolute moral values.

 

• For more information visit:
  • “Moral Absolutism.” Ethics Unwrapped, ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/moral-absolutism.

Moral Relativism

• • Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.  It has often been associated with other claims about morality: notably, the thesis that different cultures often exhibit radically different moral values; the denial that there are universal moral values shared by every human society; and the insistence that we should refrain from passing moral judgments on beliefs and practices characteristic of cultures other than our own.

 

• For more information visit:
  • Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/.