PHIL 1413 Lecture Notes - Lecture 17: Golden Rule, Categorical Imperative

129 views2 pages

cyanreindeer497

18 Nov 2018

School

Department

Course

Professor

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

1st law : to only one law because its form is. If the maxim in question can be accepted universally , it is moral. The golden rule : do onto others as you would want to be done to you . Problem with this is that you operate onto. Others based on your own moral morals beliefs . regardless of have. Different persons whether they are the best differing likes and dislikes a in only prefer . Possible way an that act you does. Can not adopt , not in a way contradict what the moral and wills what it prescribes . Itself respect enough to be given a special term : persons . They conditional worth . are of absolute worth . Act so that in that of you treat another humanity , whether always as an in end your and own person or never do a means only . It does not have is possible ? contradictions.

Related Questions

Imagine you are looking down from a great height onto a pool ofcross sectional area A. Throughout the water are suspended N blackballs of cross section sigma.

a) Find the expected fraction of the bottom of the pool you cansee, as a function of the number N of balls in the pool.

b) Now let the ball sizes be distributed as a power-law in sigmaover some wide range of sigma. Find the value of that power suchthat the small balls are just as important for blocking the pool asis the large balls.

Here's what I've got
For part a:
I assume the pool is round (can I make this assumption?)
Let N = total number of balls
Let R = radius of pool
Let A = cross-sectional area of pool = 4piR^2
Let r = radius of one ball
let a = cross-sectional area of one ball = 4pir^2

Then the total cross-sectional area occupied by all the balls is =Na = N(4pir^2)
Then the area of the pool that can be seen is =
[A - Na]/A = [(4piR^2) - N(4pir^2)]/(4piR^2) = 1 -[N(r^2)]/R^2
I believe this is correct for part a.

For part b I have no idea how to do a power-law so if you couldshow as many details as possible I would appreciate it.

Brief and detail

If relativism is true, can you ever judge something as being morally wrong? Consider some really horrible actions, genocide, murder, slavery, torture or add your own. If you feel a relativist could say that these things are actually wrong, what gives them this ability? If they can't, why not?

Agree or disagree

Similarly to what I said in the first discussion on what morality means to us, I think everyone has their own set of moral principles and obligations. So I do think that relativism is true, to a point however. I used Adolf Hitler and the Nazi empire as an example in the first discussion so I will use that here. Hitler knew in his brain that what he was doing was good for his nation and arguably the world. Now, as a modern day society we can agree that was wrong. For him, it was good. In his own mind, he is right. But it is relative to the person. Generally speaking we all have similar notions of what is right and what is wrong. Most people would say that going out of your way to help someone else is a morally good principle. Selflessness in society is seen a good thing by the vast majority of people. When I say that relativism is good to a point, I mean that there is a general basis in society that deems actions as good or bad. And since most of us would all agree that hitlers actions were bad, then we say that he had bad moral principles, even though to him, they were good. It’s a little confusing even for me to put into words. Basically, if you actions are generally viewed in society as good, then you have good moral principles even if they vary from person to person. No one will have the exact same moral standards, but generally they all are very similar in society. So relativism is true until the point where the majority of society would deem your actions and wrong. I hope this makes sense.

Agree or disagree

If relativism is true, I don't think judging something as morally wrong is possible. Because the definition of ethical relativism is the moral standard only being correctly relative to each person/society, this means that the moral standard is created by you and/or the society you identify with and therefore eliminate the existence of an absolute moral principle. Since the moral standard is different for every individual, we cannot say that someone is morally wrong. If relativism is applied, that is. If a relativist were to say that they could judge someone as morally wrong, then that would contradict the main component of being a relativist. That every moral argument of yours is correct, therefore everyone else's is also correct. Quite problematic but that is my understanding on the matter

ell25

You will be utiizing a basicoptic system.

The index of refraction of theplastic cylindrical lens depends on wavelength. Choose an anglewhich gives a good color separation and measure the index ofrefraction for blue and red light.

Question:How big is the difference in indices of refraction? How good is theapproximation that n is constant for thismaterial?

If this question doesnt make sense..then just answer ittheoretically speaking. That is how would we go about checkingwhether or not it conforms with the n as the constant for thematerial... Thanks!

Background info:

ThePhysics

The Law ofReflection

The law of reflection states that for a plane mirror, the angle ofincidence is equal to the angle of reflection, and that the tworays lie in a plane.

normal

. A light ray perpendicular to the surface has an angle ofincidence 0Â°.

The Law of Refraction âSnellâs Law

A ray of light passing from one substance (index ofrefraction

n_{1)into another (index of refraction n}

2) across a plane boundary will be refracted. The angle the raymakes in one medium will be related to the angle in the secondmedium by the equation below, and that all rays lie in aplane.

(2)

Total InternalReflection

A ray incident on a medium with lower index of refraction willbe

totally internally reflected if sin Î¸1> n2/n1.There will be no transmitted beam for this incident angle. Ameasurement of the critical angle for total internalreflection can be used to determine the index of refraction of the substance.If n

2 = 1 (air), then the critical angle is:

sin Î¸c = 1/

1. (3)

Polarization byReflection â Brewsterâs Angle

If the angle between the reflected and refracted rays is 90Â°,then

tan Î¸

B = n2/n

1. (4)

At this angle, only light with polarization out of the plane ofreflection and refraction will be reflected. The reflected lightwill be completely polarized.

Figure3.

Refractionof Light Rays

Figure2.

Incidentand Reflected Rays

(1)

Always measure the angles with respect to the surface

PHIL 1413 Lecture Notes - Lecture 17: Golden Rule, Categorical Imperative

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

PHIL 1413 Lecture Notes - Lecture 16: Categorical Imperative, Determinism

PHIL 1413 Lecture 18: Immanuel Kant: The Foundation of Good Will, part 5

PHIL 1413 Lecture Notes - Lecture 26: Legal Personality, Categorical Imperative, Writing Implement

Related Questions