Fourteenth lesson; or "Just a test... and a tragedy"

ToK test - grab your chocolate and wands.

All in all, it was just a test. Nothing special.

Still, this Wednesday a tragedy happened. Remember Malta? They lost a natural monument, the Azure Window, during a storm.

Then...

...and now.

Moment of silence for it, please. You will always be in our hearts.
See you next week. With a towel 😉

Thirteenth lesson; or "Machiavelli rising (thank God it's not Friday the 13th)"

Guess who's in a bad mood? Our ToK teacher. Since some "brainiacs" tried to dodge homework, Neo style.

Still, I got my weekly dose of Machiavelli in form of utilitarianism and deontology. In short, These two are opposite: utilitarianism claims that the end justifies the means (#TeamMachiavelli) while deontology claims that it doesn't (#TeamPuritans). Most common example for this problem is the "trolley problem", where one must choose whether they kill one person directly, or let several others die by doing nothing.

Trolley problem

But I will use a different example: the doctor.
Imagine a doctor, a surgeon. He has five patients, random people, who all greatly need various organ transplantations. Suddenly, a young traveler comes to the doctor for a routine checkup, and the doctor notices that the traveler's organs match perfectly with the ones needed for the transplantations. If the travaler were to... disappear, none would suspect the doctor. Should the doctor take his organs and transplant them into his five patients? Now, some means are unethical on their own, not observing the end; but the greater good, in my opinion, wins over petty debates over who was the traveler and who were the patients. Just thinking like that is, for me, too subjective for an ethical argument. In total disconnection from the people, five lives are worth more than one; and saying that, say, a CEO's life is worth more than an IRS inspector's, teacher's, writer's, taxi driver's and hairdresser's is just one opinion and cannot be used to support deontology. Of course, not all ethical bounds may be crossed this way, but some may. However, defining "greater good" is tricky, and a new area upon itself.

Obviously, I'm #TeamMachiavelli to the (greater good) end. Spread these hashtags all over, and don't forget a towel 😉

Twelfth lesson; or "How ethical is it... vol.2"

Don't kill me immediately, this one is short, although not sweet.
We just studied key thinkers: folks who are considered basic for their area of knowledge. For ethics, those are Bertrand Russel, a Sioux name Black Elk and Jeremy Bentham.

Also, fun fact: did you know most IB students do not study ethics, because it is too complex?

I see no need for more words, so "Praise the Sun!", and bon voyage. With a towel, of course 😉

Eleventh lesson; or "How ethical is it... vol.1"

Yay, ethics.

Now, ethics are not a bad thing at all; imagine being sold into slavery. But a line has to be drawn somewhere. Of course, forcing someone into marriage is awful... in Western culture. And would it be ethical to forbid arranged marriages in cultures such as the ones in sub-Saharan Africa or southern Asia? Those arranged marriages didn't happen on someone's whim; rather, we are talking about centuries of tradition these people follow. Say you think it is awful anyways and that tradition isn't an excuse. Then neither are ethics necessary, since most basic rules of them were established centuries ago.

Founders of ethics debate premarital sex (cca. 1500 BC, colored)

What is the difference between ethics and tradition then? Who can judge whether something is ethical? The most representative system of this would be if a member of a culture judged whether actions of a culture were ethical. Still, then the said sub-Saharan people would (obviously) judge their arranged marriages as an ethical thing. And then we would have the US play the playground policeman again (not that we need more of them, or anyone, doing that).

The elephant in the room? Ethics philosophers have differing stances on what is ethical and what is not, mostly because they lived in ancient times and a large number of them worked for religions. Thus, if we follow master Socrates blindly, then all criminals are just ignorant; he argues that people do good when they know what that good is, and that a person which knows what is right will never do wrong - so, all criminals are just ignorant. Woohoo, Socrates has saved the world, let's turn the prisons into classrooms and libraries. Still, religious ethics claim that premarital sex is unethical, and that opiates of any kind are also unethical. Who decided which ethics are to be followed? It's like one person telling you to cut off your leg with a guillotine, while another person is telling you to just shoot yourself in the knees, while you just want to keep your walking abilities.

Gehrman chose both

Just don't become anarchists, please. Anarchists are one of the few things worse than ethical and moral preachers, right down there with militant believers/atheists and moldy cheeses (not the good kind).
Still here with me? Good. See you next time for more ethics (note the "vol.1" part of the title...)
Au revoir. N'oubliez pas une serviette *french winky face' 😉

Tenth lesson; or "Milestones of work"

We have reached the tenth lesson! A milestone in this trip across the Galaxy, but also a milestone in my ToK education, since last class was all about our ToK presentations.

Remember the "Mission Impossible" lesson? I feel sorry for the first group which had to present their work, since they had it hardest. But both groups that presented chose helpful topics and had just minor mistakes, so all in all it was survivable.Even when talking about a topic of one's choice, it is hard and can become a nightmare when this many rules are included.

It went like this...

Not much to say. First class was about the Maltese video, and then two presentations.Low excitement last week, apparently.
Auf wiedersehen, faithful readers. And where are your towels? 😉

Ninth lesson; or "Malta Knights and friendship"

Guess where we are going today? Malta!

Well, unfortunately, not really. Last class, we were filming a small video for students from Malta. The purpose of it was to have us answer questions about Malta in general and a town named Zabbar, from which the said Maltese students are. Of course, we were forbidden to search anything about Malta beforehand, so this little quiz was all the more interesting. Several questions were easy (like "Where is Malta located?"), others were tough ("What is Zabbar?" or "How do the Maltese say 'My name is...'?") and some were just plain weird ("Do people from Zabbar enjoy winter sports?"). Naturally, we started acting like smart-asses:
-What do people from Malta eat?
-Food... Usually.

-How do the Maltese say 'My name is...'?
-Well, English is one of the official languages, I think, so I guess they say 'My name is...'.

This is a small, innocent activity, but it can definitely create some connection between our two schools, perhaps even a partnership in the future. The Maltese will send us the video they filmed about our location, so expect and update when that happens.

UPDATE
So we got the Maltese video!
Apparently, they are primary-school kids, but they still made about as many mistakes about us, as we did about them. I honestly appreciate the effort they undertook to speak English for this activity. We'll see whether this will become a partnership or something similar.

After our 42nd destination in this galaxy, Malta, we continue on course 211-49. You know what you cannot forget 😉