Dumbsh*t Decisions

What kinds of stupid decisions are trivial enough to forgive? Can we have some rules please? See the Utah State philosophy blog at http://usuphilosophy.com/2007/05/22/forgiving-dumbsht-decisions/ for a rather interesting discussion..

News of the RPE Summer Meal, and a Summer competition to follow...
Dave

Starting Out as a Philosopher (and A-levels)

Many people (in the UK) find their first taste of studying philosophy to be the AS /A2 Religious Studies courses - most notably the Philosophy & Ethics A Level options....

I thought it would be an interesting post for this site to ask the readers of the blog (many of our students did these qualifications) to tell us about their experiences - and others, how did you encounter philosophy? To summarise - we would love to hear:

• Tips / Advice for AS/A2 Philosophy & Ethics students
  
• Anecdotes about your studies at A-Level (16-18yrs old - for readers abroad!)
  
• How did (for all blog readers) you first encounter philosophy as a subject - and what did you make of it?

• And a question for students: Why are you studying philosophy? How did it happen?
  
  

Dave

Islamic Philosophy

Those of you studying the Islam module, RPE104, on the Religion, Philosophy & Ethics course may be interested (as indeed all RPE students may well be) in the resources about Muslim philosophers and the influence of Islamic philosophy that are at http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/.

There is a lot of material, but it is worth having a good look around, and seeing what might apply to your in-class studies at present.

Dave

Yo...

Some of you will know what 'Open Source' software is - where the code is freely available, and people can amend it as they choose. But what about an Open Source religion? This is what Yoism claims to be:

"Uniting Atheist, Skeptic, Agnostic, Realist, Enlightenment,Humanist, Unitarian,
Transcendentalist, Pantheist, andDeist systems of belief to create the World's
First Open Source, Rational Religion, the advent of Yoismmarks a turning point in the history of Homo sapiens,the next stage in human development: Childhood's
End. "

Is it serious? Is it a joke? A serious joke? Maybe up your own mind at http://www.yoism.org/

Dave

UC Berkeley Podcasts

Got access to iTunes? Go to http://itunes.berkeley.edu/ - go to their iTunes thing and look at the Arts and Humanities section for some really fantastic podcasts. Enjoy... Dave

Does Philosophy of Religion exist?

Google “Philosophy of Religion” and see what pops up…
(or just click here)

Look at key textbooks with the title (or click here)

What you will note is the Theistic focus of the topics - the nature of God, arguments for/against God, the Problem of Evil, etc.

Is this discipline which has grown up most notably in Anglo-American philosophy, not better titled 'The Philosophy of Theism'?

Philosophy Talk Radio

Philosophy Talk - a radio show co-hosted in the USA and Australia - has an archive of its chirpy but intriguing discussions online.

I have just enjoyed the one at http://philosophytalk.org/pastShows/MoralDilemmas.htm - which should be of interest to all Religion, Philosphy & Ethics students (as well as those revising for AS / A2 Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics) exams)

Dave

they also have their own blog at:

http://theblog.philosophytalk.org/

Zencast...

Students on the RPE202 Buddhism module may find the podcasts at http://amberstar.libsyn.com/ of interest..

Or maybe some Zen Radio at http://www.wzen.org/

Enjoy...
Dave

New Course Map

Hi - long time, no posts...

Well, the sun has been out, and it has been the holidays.
Anyway, back to it as we are, I thought I would update students (and other interested parties) with regard to changes to the Field (Course) map for next year...

New modules:
RPE108 Greek Philosophy
OTC116, Rome Field Trip (now counts as an RPE module)
RPE209 Philosophy of Mind
RPE208 Religions of India (double module, replacing the Hinduism and Buddhism modules)
RPE307 Close Philosophical Reading

Changes:
RPE301 Love, Sex and Death and RPE304 Ethics and Reason are both to become 'double' modules...

There are other minor changes, linked to changes in the shape of the academic year, but these are the main ones...

Cheers, Dave
[Field Chair, Religion, Philosophy & Ethics]

Buddhism, Philosophy as therapy - some thoughts..

Some thoughts over Easter: I know many students are away for the break – perhaps you may have more time than normal to think? so some thoughts....

Many of you are doing the Buddhism modules (RPE202), and there also seems to be a ‘craze’ for seeing philosophy as, in some sense, therapeutic (see http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/5914/) . I was thinking of these two things in tandem this afternoon, and it struck me that we have been discussing themes pertinent here in class.

These have come out of our discussion as to whether Buddhism (esp in its early phase) counts as a religion. Well – I welcome comments on that topic – but also: can philosophy count as therapy?

Buddhism seems to count as therapeutic: –it includes the philosophy and a particular targeted practice (though we might, of course, dispute the accuracy pf the former and the efficacy of the latter).

Indeed Buddhism is if anything more sceptical of a certain philosophical ‘view holding’ (though after the very early phase scholasticism becomes a key part of Buddhist tradition), as we see in the Sisupacala Sutta, (trans from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.008.than.html, SN 5.8):

At Savatthi. Then, early in the morning, Sisupacala the nun put on her robes and, taking her bowl & outer robe, went into Savatthi for alms. When she had gone for alms in Savatthi and had returned from her alms round, after her meal she went to the Grove of the Blind to spend the day. Having gone deep into the Grove of the Blind, she sat down at the foot of a tree for the day's abiding.

Then Mara the Evil One, wanting to arouse fear, horripilation, & terror in her, wanting to make her fall from solitude, approached her & said, "Whose philosophy do you approve of, nun?"

"I don't approve of anyone's
philosophy, my friend."

[Mara:]
For whose sake
have you shaved your head?
You look like a contemplative
but don't approve
of a philosophy,
so why are you wandering here
confused?

[Sister Sisupacala:]
Outside philosophers place
their confidence in views.
I don't approve
of their teaching.
They're not adept in the
Dhamma.

But there is
the Awakened One,
born in the Sakyan clan,
a person without peer:
all-conquering,
Mara's subduer,
everywhere undefeated,
everywhere freed,
independent;
endowed with an
Eye all-seeing, reaching the end
of all kamma —
with the ending of
acquisitions, released.

He, that Blessed
One, is my teacher.
It's in his Dhamma
that I delight.

Then Mara the Evil One — sad & dejected at realizing,
"Sisupacala the nun knows me" — vanished right there.

Is the Nun here rejecting all views? We often get the view in Buddhism that the practice consists of the three elements found in the 8-fold path: wisdom (insight, maybe), morality (or virtue) and meditation practice.

Can Western philosophical traditions be considered as in any sense therapeutic without this kind of holistic approach?

Further, can Buddhism really be said to reject ‘views’ – and still propagate a position on as
many issues as it seems to?

Dave

New comment on The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas

For more new comments on The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas see http://r-p-e.blogspot.com/2007/03/ethics-in-ones-who-walk-away-from.html and scroll down - including a response by Ursula LeGuin herself, sent to Martha Allen Sherwood, in the context of discussions about the story...
Cheers - Dave

The runaway trolley and brain damage

For a video-podcast of me outlining the basics of the trolley problem see: http://philosvids.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/the-trolley-car-dilemma/ 

Some of you will have discussed in class the classic moral problem sometimes known as the runaway trolley case - where a trolley car is running out of control down a hill - and is about to kill 5 people, but you happen to be stood by a switch - with a lever: pull the lever and it switches trackes and the 5 people are safe.... but (there's always a 'but' in these examples) there is one person on the other track - do you pull the lever 'killing' 1 and 'saving' 5?

Now - you will recognise in this issues of Utilitarianism, and there are numerous variants that demonstrate some of the problems associated with assessing situations on the basis of utility... what if you knew some of the people - or if the 1 was a doctor, and the 5 were criminals on work-release - etc... Other variants include an example where there is no switch but you can push a man (in some version a fat man) in front [you are unable to put yourself in its path] and hereby save the 5 - is this different?

In surveys people are often reluctant to act when it involves an act which seems so directly like 'killing' - but I came across this interesting article in the New York Times which quotes a survey that seems to link answers to this variant version to areas of the brain - via a survey involving people with damage to certain parts of their brain. It is at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/health/21cnd-brain.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

If we accept this - what does the link between brain areas and moral choice say about the nature of moral choice itself?
Dave

Buddhism podcast 4

Yes, here is the latest Buddhism (RPE202) podcast. This is on 'views' - and is limited by my being a bit full of cold - but hopefully still makes some kind of sense..

It follows up on the some of the discussions we have had in class regarding the way in which it might be not just the content of religious beliefs and ideas that matter in Buddhist thought, but also the manner in which the views are held...

Download from http://www.archive.org/details/DrDavidWebsterBuddhismpodcast4-views/

Cheers,

Dave

Horse Racing and Ethical Concerns

Well, as Cheltenham Festival (the racing one) comes to an end after the Gold Cup, I have spoke to a number of students who have had moral concerns about the status of horse racing - mostly jump racing...

Well- - I thought it was an intriguing topic for the blog..

The Animal Aid website at http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/CAMPAIGNS/horse/ALL/// says:

Most people regard horse racing as a harmless sport in which the animals are
willing participants who thoroughly enjoy the thrill. The truth is that, behind
the scenes, lies a story of immense suffering. Approximately 15,000
foals are born into the closely-related British and Irish racing industries
each year, yet only a third go on to become racers. Those horses who do not
make the grade may be slaughtered for meat or repeatedly change hands in a
downward spiral of neglect. Of those horses who do go on to race, around 375
are raced to death every year.
Beneath its glamorous façade, commercial horse racing is a ruthless industry motivated by financial gain and prestige. Cruelty? You can bet on it!

And a campaign to ban the use of the whip says (see: http://www.livingethically.co.uk/Pages/HomeArticles/2007campaign-banthewhip.htm )

Why should the whip be banned?
ITS USE IS TO PROMOTE UNNATURAL SPEED - The overiding reason for using a whip upon a racehorse is to get it to perfom at its absolute optimum - to encourge it to try harder or run faster than it would under natural conditions. This is of little benefit to the horse itself. Surely, to demand a horse runs at an artifically engineered speed through using a whip is done merely to satisfy human expectations and desires to see how fast horses will go in competition with each other.
A RACE IS STILL A RACE IF A WHIP IS USED OR NOT - The point of horse racing must be that they race against each other over a predetermined course and distance and the horse that passes the finishing post first wins. Whether a whip is used or not in this process is immaterial - without whips, a race could still be run and winners declared.
FOR SAFETY REASONS - Some horses veer or at least run away from a whip,
especially if inexperienced - this means that if for example a jockey is using
his whip in his right hand, the horse will move to the left. This can potentially cause accidents. Also, by running at an unatural speed - flat out - horses can make mistakes, especially when jumping.
WHAT WAS ACCEPTABLE THEN SHOULDN'T BE NOW - We do not use physical persuasions upon humans to control their behvaiour any longer, eg corporal punishment - why should horses be physically persuaded by the use of the whip to give unreasonably beyond their all? In different times, using a whip upon an animal was viewed as acceptable as it could be used on a human being, but this should no longer be the case.

Is this convincing? Clearly the are issues about the instrumental use of animals, but for those who eat meat, wear leather and have pets - can we really criticse here without being hypocrites? What defence is offered by the industry? The Horseracing Regulatory Authority has guidance on the whip:

The HRA will not tolerate abuse of the horse and consider its welfare, and the safety of the rider, to be paramount. The whip should be used for safety, correction and encouragement only and they therefore advise all riders to consider the following good ways of using the whip which are not exhaustive:

Showing the horse the whip and giving it time to respond before hitting it.
Using the whip in the backhand position for a reminder.
Having used the whip, giving the horse a chance to respond before using it again.
Keeping both hands on the reins when using the whip down the shoulder in the backhand position.
Using the whip in rhythm with the horse’s stride and close to its side.
Swinging the whip to keep a horse running straight.

The HRA has asked Stewards of Meetings to consider holding an enquiry into any case where a rider has used his whip in such a way as to cause them concern and publish the following examples of uses of the whip which may be regarded as improper riding:
Hitting horses:to the extent of causing
injury;
with the whip arm above shoulder height;
rapidly without regard to their stride, i.e. twice or more in one stride;
with excessive force;
without giving the horse time to respond.

In this view - the whip is of benefit to the horse - it helps it race well and stay safe... But what of the wider moral argument? Many feel that horse-owners love and care deeply for their animals, the business provides employment and pleasure to thousands and further to this - many feel that the horses derive pleasure from racing themselves (and that racing is natural to them)- and that the critics are sentimental hypocrites...

Well - enough from me - what do you think on this topic..

Dave

Open debate on religious fundamentalism

The theme of religious fundamentalism will be discussed at a panel event at the University of Gloucestershire (FCH campus) on Thursday 15 March at 7.30pm.
Organised by the University of Gloucestershire chaplaincy, the panel will include Mr Ahmed Bham from Gloucester Muslim Welfare Association and Professor Melissa Raphael, Dr Dee Carter and Dr David Webster from the University’s Department of Humanities.

University chaplain and organiser, Rev Pete Sainsbury said, “What is fundamentalism? How did it play out in religious and public life in the twentieth century and what does it mean now? These are some of the questions we will be discussing and we would like anyone who is interested in this debate to come and join us.”
“There are varieties of fundamentalism and we’ll be discussing the usefulness of the term in understanding religious, as well as secular belief,” added Dr David Webster, course leader in religion, philosophy and ethics.
The panel will invite questions and opinions from the floor. Light refreshments will be served after the event. Everyone is welcome.
For further information, contact Rev Pete Sainsbury on 01242 714593, or email psainsbury@glos.ac.uk