Act 3 was pretty interesting to read overall. I found many parts/conversations to be hilarious/interesting, so I'm briefly going to list and explain them.
This part wasn't "interesting" but was actually just weird. (Scene 2) This is when Touchstone and Corin were talking and Touchstone was being the witty guy that he is. I thought it was extremely weird yet funny when Touchstone says how Corin's committing a crime by forcing the ewes and rams to "copulate" with one another. Hahaha. I was like "what the..?!!" That was so random to me. Really.
I found this quote to be really interesting as well. It's line 104 in scene 2. It's when Touchstone says, "Truly, the tree yields bad fruit." I don't know why but I found it to be funny because Rosalind goes "fool I found them on the tree!" But to be honest, right after (starting at line 105).. I have no idea what the heck is being said. What's this talk about a medler and ripeness and death? Is she threatening to kill him before it's his time to die?
The most interesting part in Act 3 was when Rosalind and Celia were going back and forth towards the end of scene 2. Rosalind was insulting the quality of the poems and the next thing she knows, it's Orlando who wrote them. The way Celia was responding back to Rosalind's "love lines" was just hilarious to read. She's clearly jealous and finds it absurd that Rosalind is able to love someone so quickly. When Celia makes a comment like calling Orlando a "wounded knight" laying under the tree, Rosalind answers by saying, "it well becomes the ground." It's just crazy how Celia keeps trying to put Orlando down yet Rosalind is turning such insults into compliments. This reminds me of when we were discussing how Celia might be jealous of Orlando and someone suggested (I forgot who, sorry) that Rosalind might be talking on and on about Orlando just to kind of give Celia the hint that she isn't interested in her. I also found it funny when Orlando and Jaques were going back and forth with insults. I guess I just enjoy conversations where the characters are making witty and harsh comments towards one another.
I have a question about lines 276-278 at the very end of scene 2. What is exactly being said here???
Uhm let's see..what else. Oh yes.. I think it was quite funny when Touchstone made a witty comment about marriage (lines 72-75) in scene 3. I'm sure everyone notices these kind of jokes still going around in the society today. I guess it never gets old.
And one last part in (scene 5)... that I found to be very interesting was when Rosalind (as Ganymede) came out of no where and started making BRUTAL comments towards Phoebe. I couldn't believe what I was reading. She kept insulting her looks and telling her not to fall in love with "him." There's this common notion that in relationships, "good" girls/guys always go for the "assholes" Pardon my language. But it's so true!! We kind of see it in this scene. Silvius likes Phoebe, who clearly hates his guts. When Ganymede insults Phoebe and scorns her, she's offended yet she starts asking Silvius about him. She tells Silvius it's not because she likes him but I mean what the heck is up with her when she says, "Dead shepherd, now I find thy saw of might:
“Who ever loved that loved not at first sight?” - Is that supposed to mean something because she didn't follow up on that thought as Silvius interrupted her.
Okay, I've typed too much. BYE!
Random Rambling Rants
- Laayla
- Houston, Texas, United States
- I'm Laayla. I ramble. I rant. I question. I complain... and sometimes I happen to enlighten.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Utilitarian & Kantian Analysis
Laayla Muhammad
Ethics – Philo 241
Utilitarian & Kantian Analysis
The morally right action to take in everyday life experiences can be determined using various methods such as Utilitarian and Kantian analysis. Each of these methods help one arrive at a predicament in how to act accordingly to given situations. In this case, Tip and Top, both detectives, are dealing with a situation where they are thinking of acting a certain way but aren’t sure if it will provide the most utility at the end. They wish to get Zip, a dangerous criminal off the street; because they are convinced he is guilty. The only problem is that if they follow the legal rules they are to follow and provide Zip with a lawyer, they will not get a conviction out of him and therefore, will lose the case. Zip will be back on the street and will be selling drugs to children once again. Coercing a confession seems like a right decision, but also a wrong thing to do. Using Utilitarian and Kantian analysis, Tip and Top can arrive at a solution that produces the most utility.
The utilitarian analysis consists of one considering all the options one has and also acknowledging the consequences for all the choices. Each consequence helps determine the utility and the probability, which helps the person make the right decision at the end. Tip and Top’s options in this situation consists of summoning a lawyer and not coercing a confession, or not summoning a lawyer and coercing a confession. If Tip and Top decide to summon a lawyer, the consequences of that action will be either that Zip is back on the streets or that Zip is still found guilty. Not summoning up a lawyer will result in either locking up Zip in prison or getting caught if Zip does end up making a report about such harassment. Every consequence produces a certain amount of utility, but the main component lies in the probability of those consequences ever taking place. When summoning a lawyer, the utility of Zip being back on the streets is low while the probability of that happening is near certainty. In contrast, if Zip is still found guilty, the utility would be higher than high because they did the “right thing” and were able to get what they wanted, yet the probability of this consequence is lower than low. When not summoning a lawyer for Zip, the consequence of locking up Zip and the drug ring has high amount of utility and probability while Zip reporting them to another authority produces a low utility and has low probability. Therefore, according to the Utilitarianism analysis, the right thing to do would be to not summon up a lawyer and most likely, Zip will be locked up and the drug ring will finally end.
The Kantian Analysis helps one execute the right decision through the categorical imperative procedure, known as the CI procedure. It consists of certain steps that one needs to take in order to get to arrive at a solution. Tip and Top will need to create a maxim and fill out the form, “I am to do x in circumstances y in order to promote z.” In this case, they are to refuse the request to summon a lawyer and coerce a confession in circumstances that it will enable them to get a dangerous criminal off the street and break up a drug ring, in order to promote the goal of decreasing violence and drug abuse in society. Next step involves generalizing the maxim so that everyone is to do x in circumstances y in order to promote z. In this case, everyone is to refuse the request to summon a lawyer and coerce a confession in circumstances that it will enable them to get a dangerous criminal off the street and break up a drug ring, in order to promote the goal of decreasing violence and drug abuse in society. Third step states that the maxim should be transformed into a law of nature so everyone always does x in circumstances y in order to promote Z. Therefore, everyone should refuse the request to summon a lawyer and coerce a confession in circumstances that it will enable them to get a dangerous criminal off the street and break up a drug ring, in order to promote the goal of decreasing violence and drug abuse in society. The next step involves figuring out the perturbed social world in where one asks himself the question, “what would the world be like with the new law of nature?” In this step, the new law is common knowledge. In this case, if everyone knew that detectives would not summon a lawyer and instead would coerce a confession in circumstances that it will enable them to get a dangerous criminal off the street and break up a drug ring, in order to promote decreasing of violence and drug abuse, they would not even have lawyers to begin with and innocent people would be found guilty regardless of any evidence. One of the two main questions to ask afterwards is, “Could I rationally act on my maxim in the PSW?” This is where Tip and Top would consider that in the PSW, refusing to summon up a lawyer and coercing a confession in circumstances where it will enable them to get a criminal off the street and break up a drug ring will be effective in order to decrease violence and drug abuse in society. If effective, they should move on to the next consideration in which they should ask themselves, “Could I rationally choose to live in the PSW?” The answer to this would be “no” because Tip and Top would not choose to live in a world where they could be innocent and yet would be forced into confessing something they haven’t done without any legal help from their lawyer because if they did so, it would not be rational.
Ethics – Philo 241
Utilitarian & Kantian Analysis
The morally right action to take in everyday life experiences can be determined using various methods such as Utilitarian and Kantian analysis. Each of these methods help one arrive at a predicament in how to act accordingly to given situations. In this case, Tip and Top, both detectives, are dealing with a situation where they are thinking of acting a certain way but aren’t sure if it will provide the most utility at the end. They wish to get Zip, a dangerous criminal off the street; because they are convinced he is guilty. The only problem is that if they follow the legal rules they are to follow and provide Zip with a lawyer, they will not get a conviction out of him and therefore, will lose the case. Zip will be back on the street and will be selling drugs to children once again. Coercing a confession seems like a right decision, but also a wrong thing to do. Using Utilitarian and Kantian analysis, Tip and Top can arrive at a solution that produces the most utility.
The utilitarian analysis consists of one considering all the options one has and also acknowledging the consequences for all the choices. Each consequence helps determine the utility and the probability, which helps the person make the right decision at the end. Tip and Top’s options in this situation consists of summoning a lawyer and not coercing a confession, or not summoning a lawyer and coercing a confession. If Tip and Top decide to summon a lawyer, the consequences of that action will be either that Zip is back on the streets or that Zip is still found guilty. Not summoning up a lawyer will result in either locking up Zip in prison or getting caught if Zip does end up making a report about such harassment. Every consequence produces a certain amount of utility, but the main component lies in the probability of those consequences ever taking place. When summoning a lawyer, the utility of Zip being back on the streets is low while the probability of that happening is near certainty. In contrast, if Zip is still found guilty, the utility would be higher than high because they did the “right thing” and were able to get what they wanted, yet the probability of this consequence is lower than low. When not summoning a lawyer for Zip, the consequence of locking up Zip and the drug ring has high amount of utility and probability while Zip reporting them to another authority produces a low utility and has low probability. Therefore, according to the Utilitarianism analysis, the right thing to do would be to not summon up a lawyer and most likely, Zip will be locked up and the drug ring will finally end.
The Kantian Analysis helps one execute the right decision through the categorical imperative procedure, known as the CI procedure. It consists of certain steps that one needs to take in order to get to arrive at a solution. Tip and Top will need to create a maxim and fill out the form, “I am to do x in circumstances y in order to promote z.” In this case, they are to refuse the request to summon a lawyer and coerce a confession in circumstances that it will enable them to get a dangerous criminal off the street and break up a drug ring, in order to promote the goal of decreasing violence and drug abuse in society. Next step involves generalizing the maxim so that everyone is to do x in circumstances y in order to promote z. In this case, everyone is to refuse the request to summon a lawyer and coerce a confession in circumstances that it will enable them to get a dangerous criminal off the street and break up a drug ring, in order to promote the goal of decreasing violence and drug abuse in society. Third step states that the maxim should be transformed into a law of nature so everyone always does x in circumstances y in order to promote Z. Therefore, everyone should refuse the request to summon a lawyer and coerce a confession in circumstances that it will enable them to get a dangerous criminal off the street and break up a drug ring, in order to promote the goal of decreasing violence and drug abuse in society. The next step involves figuring out the perturbed social world in where one asks himself the question, “what would the world be like with the new law of nature?” In this step, the new law is common knowledge. In this case, if everyone knew that detectives would not summon a lawyer and instead would coerce a confession in circumstances that it will enable them to get a dangerous criminal off the street and break up a drug ring, in order to promote decreasing of violence and drug abuse, they would not even have lawyers to begin with and innocent people would be found guilty regardless of any evidence. One of the two main questions to ask afterwards is, “Could I rationally act on my maxim in the PSW?” This is where Tip and Top would consider that in the PSW, refusing to summon up a lawyer and coercing a confession in circumstances where it will enable them to get a criminal off the street and break up a drug ring will be effective in order to decrease violence and drug abuse in society. If effective, they should move on to the next consideration in which they should ask themselves, “Could I rationally choose to live in the PSW?” The answer to this would be “no” because Tip and Top would not choose to live in a world where they could be innocent and yet would be forced into confessing something they haven’t done without any legal help from their lawyer because if they did so, it would not be rational.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)