Self knowledge is like lost innocece
Philosophy is a debilitation
estranges us by confromtimg us with what we allready know. There is an irony the difficulty of this course consists in the fact that it teaches what you allready know it works by talking what we know of familiar unquestioned settings, and making it strange. Philosophy estranges us from the familiar not by supplying new information but by inviting and provoking a new way of seeing but and here is the risk.once the familar turns strange its never quite the same again
Self knowledge is like lost innocece how ever unsettling you find it, it can never be unthought or unknown what makes this enterprise difficult but also ribitting is that morel and politacal philofasy is a story and you will lead but what you do know is that the story is about you phosophy is a distancing even debilitating activity and you see this going back to socrates there a dialogue the gorgias in witch of socartes' frends calicles tries to talk him out philosophizing calicles tells socartes that phosophy is a pretty toy
If one indulges in it with moderation at the right time of life, but if one pursues it further it woud absolute ruin. Take my advice Calicles says abondon argument , learn the accomplishments of active life ,take for your models not for those people who spend there time on these petty quibbles but those who have a good livlihood and reputation and many other bessings.So Claticies is realy saying to socartes quit phloso[hzing get real go to business school and Claticies did have a point he had a point because philosophy distande us from conventions and established assumptions and from settled beliefs. Those are the risks. personal and political and in the face of these risks there is a charecteristic evasion the name of the evasion is skeptisism, its the idea well it goes somthing like this we did not resolve once and for all either the cases or the principals we were arguing when we began and if aristotle and locke and kant and mill havent solved the questions after all these years who are we to think that we here in sanders threatre over the courese of semester can resove them or maybe it is just a matter of each person having his or her princabale and there nohting more to be said about them
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY
see this going back to socrate learn the accomplishments
PART ONE: THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER
If you had to choose between (1) killing one person to save the lives of five others and (2) doing nothing even though you knew that five people would die right before your eyes if you did nothing—what would you do? What would be the right thing to do? Thats the hypothetical scenario Professor Michael Sandel uses to launch his course on moral reasoning. After the majority of students votes for killing the one person in order to save the lives of five others, Sandel presents three similar moral conundrums—each one artfully designed to make the decision more difficult. As students stand up to defend their conflicting choices, it becomes clear that the assumptions behind our moral reasoning are often contradictory, and the question of what is right and what is wrong is not always black and white.
PART TWO: THE CASE FOR CANNIBALISM
Sandel introduces the principles of utilitarian philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, with a famous nineteenth century legal case involving a shipwrecked crew of four. After nineteen days lost at sea, the captain decides to kill the weakest amongst them, the young cabin boy, so that the rest can feed on his blood and body to survive. The case sets up a classroom debate about the moral validity of utilitarianism—and its doctrine that the right thing to do is whatever produces "the greatest good for the greatest number."