Informative and interesting lecture as per usual, Dr. Alvaro.

Brian Morales has watched this video

Indeed, a compelling video.

Hi, Dr. Alvaro this is Nessa Cheng from logical course. Just checking in.

Corey spitzer

A part of this lecture that stuck out to me was when Dr. Alvaro was talking about how people eat animals because it is a habit, and they just do it because they taste good which is why so many animals are made through artificial insemination. The only way to stop this is by not buying these products or by adding onto the issue. -Jelennie Hernandez

I found this lecture to be particularly interesting because it “de-centers” us as humans as being the ones on the applying and recurving end of virtue and morality when it comes to ethics. It forces to confront some real issues to address about what it really means to live with these values applied in your life and that applying them as their true meanings entail would certainly include applicability to animals and how we treat them. Therefore, veganism is essentially backed up ethically speaking due to the presumption that someone who is vegan is going out of their way to uphold these principles in more than just how they treat humans but also how they treat animals. -Leila Husien

This lecture talks about ethical veganism and the views on it. Some points Professor Alvaro talks about are personhood, marginal cases, animals rights, and environmental degradation. Professor Alvaro also points out the environmental aspects of the animals and how the food industry use different ways to harm and exploit the animals.

This is a very informative lecture regarding ethical veganism.some people think it’s okay to eat animals while it isn’t okay to kill a human being. Dr Alvaro pointed that how the food industry exploits animals which is cruel. Francisca Brave

This is a very informative lecture regarding veganism and how it correlates to morality. Many people think it’s morally okay to eat animals. While others view it as immoral because eating animals and loving animals cannot both be done together.

This was an interesting lecture about Ethical Veganism. One point Dr. Alvaro brought up was that ethical veganism isn't just about your diet but your point of view on how animals are exploited in the food industry.

I found this lecture very interesting. I enjoyed learning more about affirmative action as it is widely used in the US.

This video helped me understand both sides to the concepts of equity and affirmative actions and I really appreciate that! The distinction within affirmative action like Weak actions and strong were particularly intriguing for me.

This was a very crucial lecture, especially during a time like this after the election. Listening to the different perspectives that the two authors had on the topic and their reasons on their stance was interesting to grasp. See you next week Prof. - Devin Grevioux

I found this lecture to be very interesting, and it is very important that we look into the pros/cons of affirmative action, as it is something that affects everyone- no matter what you look like. Your take on this subject made me interested in learning more about this! - Macey W

The lecture was very informative with interesting points summed up by the readings from Beauchamp and Pojman. It's important to view this point from a critical lens, since just like last week's topic on abortion, affirmative action has been pushed into the forefront of recent politics with the overturn of affirmative action from the student for fair admissions v. Harvard case. From the beginning, Pojman made the key distinction between strong and weak affirmative action. While he made various arguments against affirmative action, given the history of the United States, in which the society, with the ongoing systemic racism, that was built by and built for white cisgender, heterosexual men, affirmative action, specifically weak affirmative action, should be should be maintain.

This lecture covered many interesting points however, understanding those points helped me realize the meaning of affirmative action in greater detail. - Amanda G

As a person of color myself, I disagree with Pojamn’s idea that role models “like us” aren’t necessarily needed. While I agree that the most qualified people should be in positions of influence and leadership, what often happens, particularly in a country with such a strong racial history, is that the potential of minorities is/has been largely suppressed by way of under-education, miseducation, and discrimination. On the other hand, even highly qualified persons of color have been pushed to the back in order to continue the oppression of minorities. While I believe the most qualified should be in a position to lead and serve the general public, I also believe that it is important to level the playing field because representation DOES matter. It is a known fact that minorities in this country haven’t been afforded the same opportunities as not only the majority, but more specifically white men. This means that in order to level the playing field, the people that have been afforded advantages for centuries must to some degree be disadvantaged; OR alternatively, the people who were disadvantaged must be placed in positions of advancement for a significant/sufficient amount of time in order level the grounds for opportunity and advancement. Therefore, Strong affirmative action shouldn’t be a long term/ permanent solution, however it certainly has important implications for equality as a shorter term solution. Example: A country that has oppressed women for 100 years, denying them opportunities for advancement, success, wealth, etc. could certainly take strides toward equality by tilting the scale in such a way that now allows women above men (for a time) to achieve the things they were denied for over 100 years. Perhaps it would take 50 years, or maybe an entire century considering that’s how long they’d been oppressed. After that, the rules of society could be readjusted to weak affirmative action, which would ensure (once true equality is established) that going forward the scale of equality remains balanced. It is impossible to transition from being oppressed for centuries to being equal without a period of time in which the oppressed are afforded opportunities above the oppressor. This is because centuries of oppression causes substantial political, and economic disadvantages which takes equally significant time, effort and resources to overcome. I agree that this then equates to reverse discrimination which unfortunately is a necessary step towards true equality. Sometimes “wrong” has to be done in order to correct the significant levels of wrong which preceded it. Zenia McLeod

you made this video very well and it helps me understand.

Very interesting video professor thank you. - Brian Morales

I like the video. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is fascinating and makes complicated ideas understandable

I see how this lecture clearly shows both sides of this issue that is still very prominent in society today. I found it to be very surprising the amount of methods there are to preform an abortion. -Jelennie

Overall, Tooley argues that abortion should be available while Marquis argues that abortion shouldn't be available.

Given the current political climate with the recent election, the topic of abortion has been put forth by many and in the minds of a lot especially in the aftermath of the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Morality is clearly at the heart of this discussion and I believe it’s important to try to open up dialogue to discuss abortion. I also believe the right to privacy is very tied to this issue and must also be discussed with respect to ethical and moral views.-Leila Husien

This is a very interesting discussion and the main purpose of it is to understand that stances like this are universal in nature and the conditions accepted by them will be applied in other cases, Michael Tooley’s argument fails to prove why Abortion is moral The argument provided by Don Marquis ‘’why Abortion is immoral’’ holds more than the one provided by Michael Tooley. He argues that ‘potentiality’ is important and every being with future like ours, which has value to it, should be given the right to life as if it is not taken away from them, they will become a person’ as per Tooley’s definition in future. Francisca Brave

I appreciate this topic being discussed. I think understanding the morality behind abortions is a very important concept to comprehend because every women has there own reasons and should be able to make that choice for themselves.

I enjoyed the video. The conclusion discusses freedom of will and intelligence = God

Great breakdown of the Kalam Cosmological Argument! Fascinating to think about the idea that the universe has a cause and how that compares to theories about multiple universes. Really thought-provoking

This was a very comprehensive lecture, thank you professor! -Kylie langhorne

Hi, Is it always TTF the statement can it be different?

The morality of abortion is an important topic because it shapes our values around life and rights. Discussing it helps society understand different perspectives and make informed decisions on laws and personal choices around this complex issue.

This is such a crucial topic, especially with everything going on politically. I found the comparison between Tooley and Marquis really eye-opening. Tooley’s idea of personhood tied to desires makes sense in some ways, but I also see Marquis’ point about the value of a potential future. Still, after hearing both arguments, I find myself more aligned with Tooleys views, mainly because I believe in prioritizing a woman’s autonomy over a fetus's potential future. This lecture really made me think more deeply about my stance, though. Thanks for the insightful discussion Dr. Alvaro! - Meerim Adiletova

This is definitely a very important discussion to have. I find the philosophy behind abortion very interesting and also very important in today's political climate. Thank you and see you next week ! - Alyssa Spiezio

This is an incredibly topical discussion given the results of the election last week. I think more than ever it’s important to keep having open debate and conversations about moral dilemmas such as abortion. As uncomfortable as it may make some individuals to have this discussion, we live in a reality where it’s crucial to stay educated and well informed to guide our own moral standards. Thank you for another intriguing and thought provoking lecture and have a great week. - Ayden Cortes

Hi professor! Thank you and have a good day! This is an important topic to discuss in today's time. It is very hard to say what is the "right" thing to do. With some many different theories and ways of thinking about morals. Everyone thinks differently and I guess my question is, do we allow one person's thoughts to dictate what everyone should do?

This is a very tense subject, especially after the outcome of last week’s election, but I think it is a very important conversation to have still. I think that the thought of “desire” is so loaded, because you might not know you want something or know the opposite, and the outcome may fully change the situation and desires. I also think that no matter the argument, the conversation around abortion (and so many other things) will just go in circles forever and never be resolved (which is also kind of how i feel about every argument in this class). -Koî Glasscock

Dr. Alvaro’s lecture got me thinking about how different philosophies approach morality. I really liked Kant’s idea of respecting people as ends in themselves-seeing their worth beyond any “price” or exchange value. Aristotle’s take on flourishing through virtue felt more personal, like a guide to becoming a better person, while utilitarianism seems more focused on maximizing happiness for everyone. Each view adds a unique layer to what it means to live ethically, balancing our personal growth with the impact we have on others.

Dr. Alvaro’s lecture on ethics really got me thinking about the way different philosophies approach morality. I was especially drawn to Kant’s idea that some things, like human dignity, have intrinsic worth and aren’t just about exchange or “price.” His perspective on respecting people as ends in themselves felt refreshing, emphasizing the importance of treating individuals with genuine respect. Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia also stood out to me, focusing on the idea of flourishing through virtues that make us better people. This feels very personal and introspective, especially compared to utilitarianism, which seems more like an ethical guide focused on maximizing hapiness for everyone. Dr. Alvaro did a great job explaining how these different approaches offer unique ways to look at what it means to live morally, balancing our individual growth with the impact we have on society. Eva Bragards

Kant's philosophy resonated with me. I agree that morality should appeal to universality. The example of the golden rule is an excellent example of how "Treat others how you would like to be treated" in the case of a masochist doesn't necessarily always apply, and thus cannot be used universally. This is why I agree with Kant's approach which does entail some degree of treating others how we would like to be treated, but goes on further to entail other requirements, such that considers our impact; and ensures that how we would like to be treated would be beneficial not only to ourselves, but, on a larger scale, all of humanity. Zenia McLeod

I think it's really interesting how Aristotle and utilitarianism seem to differ in their focus. While Aristotle is all about pursuing what's inherently virtuous within us to achieve well-being, utilitarianism shifts that lens towards maximizing the good for everyone. It makes me think about how different these approaches feel in real life like, Aristotle’s idea of eudaimonia seems more introspective, centered on personal growth and finding meaning in how we live our lives, while utilitarianism feels more like an ethical calculator, trying to figure out what action would produce the most happiness for the most people. -Elisa Blackman

This is alawi

If we are taking Hedonism from the vantage point of Plotinus then yes that ultimate good is tangible.

I found this lecture interesting as it connects the hedonism to the human nature. It also gave a great introduction on the nature and how emotion affects and determines what we do. I also find it interesting on how in hedonism a paradox presents itself to say that happiness would rationally be pursued but pursuing it sometimes isn't rational. It would generally be not the only thing that could make an individual happy.

The video explains how Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle created the normative ethical theory, which is the virtue of ethics. Aristotle’s view of the ethical theory is that in everything we do we do it because we have a goal. A goal is to produce something good therefore there must be something that is supremely good and can be instrumentally or intrinsically good. He also believed that the final goal of humanity is happiness but happiness doesn’t give justice but flourishing does. Flourishing which is the highest goal of human existence is a function of human beings. The second moral theory is utilitarianism we ought to maximize aggregate well-being for all affected individuals. The third moral theory is deontology when determining right from wrong we need to use the universalizability principle. - Amanda G

This lecture was interesting and helped understand hedonism and how it connects to us. It also helped understand its various forms.

Hedonism is an approach to understanding well-being that I find to be particularly relevant given social and consumer culture today. Hedonism makes the argument that happiness and pleasure are the ultimate goals in life. According to this view (hedonism), well-being is determined by the balance of pleasure over pain. When looking at this definition with some added context of what social expectations and consumer culture are like in the modern era, it can be real relatively easy to pick up on the frequently held critique of today’s culture wherein it is characterizes it as one that merely seeks pleasure and comfort which goes in line with the definition of hedonism. -Leila Husien

Ethical hedonism is a philosophical concept that posits that seeking pleasure and avoiding pain are the chief objectives of human existence. From this perspective, actions are deemed morally right if they maximize pleasure or minimize pain for the largest number of individuals. Proponents of ethical hedonism assert that pleasure holds inherent value and should direct our ethical choices.

I found the topic of Universalistic Hedonism to be very interesting as Jeremy Bentham said that humans are driven by pleasure because we are all the same. His student went against this saying that there are different types of pleasure involved in this which is physical and psychological pleasure. Which I agreed with to some extent because it is true that I would feel better after doing something hard working or accomplishing a goal, over eating ice cream. -Jelennie Hernandez

Good Evening Dr.Alvaro, I am a Natalie in your logical thinking class (PHIL 2102). I Find it interesting that there is The 3 Venn diagram Technique. I had only thought a Venn diagram represented two sets. In order to diagram all m are p and only keep your eyes on the circle m&p. Proceed with shading the M because all M are p and is written starting off with M. and No s are p is shaded in area 2. This was a great lesson and thank you will ask you questions next class.

This is Francisca brave In my opinion hedonism is choosing to pursue instrumental values, seeking physical object that makes us happy or make our lives more enjoyable. These values could be wealth, cars, multiple houses , chocolate etc Not only these things make us happy, but they also increase our well being and mental health. These values do not bring us any physical pleasures however, they individually give us a sense of pleasure. These intrinsic values rather add to your happiness,rather than decrease our happiness. My question is if hedonism explains that everyone’s quality of life holds a different standard, why is it difficult for everyone to come up with ways on how to improve each others’lives ?