July 31st, 2005
|reinhabitants||10:32 pm - Week 4: Agree & Disagree|
To earn 10 points of credit for Intro to Moral Issues, please respond to the question below. Your response needs to be 150 - 200 words. Make sure to include your name in your subject line.
Name one thing that Caputo discusses in _Against Ethics_ that you agree with, and explain why. Also, name one thing that Caputo discusses that you disagree with, and explain why. Note: You may agree and disagree with different aspects of the same point.
To earn another 10 points of credit, please respond to any comment your classmates posted to this topic. Your response needs to be 75 - 100 words. Make sure to include your name in your subject line.
Due Thursday, 8/4
|Date:||August 4th, 2005 06:24 pm (UTC)|| |
I agree with Caputo when he says that “life in general, and the life of obligation in particular, is a rather more difficult, risky business than ethics would allow.” I think that obligation is a “tricky word” that allows anyone to get screwed. The obligation of many things occurs such as borrowing money and don’t pay it back, or obligation to show up for a date at 6:30p.m., but you never showed up, or obligation to take a steroid test, but you decided to skip it.
I disagree with Caputo when he says that “Disasters do not produce a result. That is what is meant by disaster.” It is just like saying there is no cause and effect. According to Caputo, if an airplane hits a building and causes it to collapse, there is “a loss which is without why, groundless.” He based his opinion on “obligation is a matter of being bound (ligare) to a disaster.” If a Tsunami killed over 100,000 people from it destruction, it produces no results. I think that his thoughts on disasters didn’t make any sense.
|Date:||August 5th, 2005 03:03 am (UTC)|| |
Brizzach Lupher --- Re: Shannon Walker
Yeah....doesn't make much sense to me either. Caputo's opinion on 'disaster doesn't produce a result' sounds like this to me:
1) he doesn't know what he's talking about (he's making an attempt though)
2) he doesn't know what he's talking about (As likened to the Great sea of stupidity as he says)
3) Sounds as if he's trying to deconstruct literally something he admits he doesn't know by babbling about it and responding with things he doesn't know a bit about. This could be likened to Philosophy HAHAHAHAHA :P
Yeah I totally agree with you about this though. It doesn't make much sense to me either. Just something to give an excuse to open his mouth about I guess... ::shrugs::