Specific Unit 1 Expectations (2013 Ontario Curriculum Grades 11 and 12 Social Sciences and Humanities, p.338-340)

A1.  Exploring: explore topics related to philosophy, and formulate questions to guide their research; 

A2.  Investigating: create research plans, and locate and select information relevant to their chosen topics, using appropriate philosophical research and inquiry methods; 

A3.  Processing Information: assess, record, analyse, and synthesize information gathered through research and inquiry; 

A4.  Communicating and Reflecting: communicate the results of their research and inquiry clearly and effectively, and reflect on and evaluate their research, inquiry, and communication skills.

B1.  Nature of Philosophy: demonstrate an understanding of the main areas of philosophy, periods of philosophical development, and the differences between philosophy and other areas of inquiry; 

B2.  Philosophical Reasoning: demonstrate an understanding of philosophical reasoning and critical thinking skills, including skills required to identify and avoid common fallacies of reasoning, and demonstrate the ability to apply these skills in various contexts. 

Week 2: 

CLASSWORK:

1. Lecture: Logic Syllogisms

2. Lecture: The Pre-Socratics

3. Seminar: Philosophical Issues

4. Seminar: Is Human Nature Irrational

HOMEWORK:

1. Reading: Russell, The Problem with Philosophy, p.69-71

2. Reading: Velasquez, The First Philosophers, p.39-41

REVIEW QUESTION:

1. Contrast the theories of Heraclitus and Parmenides. Which do you agree with and why?

Philosophical Issues

Virtually every activity and every profession raises philosophical issues. Science, psychology, the practice of law and medicine, and even taxation all involve questions that more or less directly force us to address philosophical issues. Mark Woodhouse invites us to consider the following examples: 

1. A neurophysiologist, while establishing correlations between certain brain functions and the feeling of pain, begins to wonder whether the “mind” is distinct from the brain. 

2. A nuclear physicist, having determined that matter is mostly empty space containing colorless energy transformations, begins to wonder to what extent the solid, extended, colored world we perceive corresponds to what actually exists and which world is more “real.” 

3. A behavioral psychologist, having increasing success in predicting human behavior, questions whether any human actions can be called “free.” 

4.Supreme Court justices, when framing a law to distinguish obscene and non-obscene art forms, are drawn into questions about the nature and function of art. 

5. An IRS director, in determining which (religious) organizations should be exempted from tax, is forced to define what counts as a “religion” or “religious group.” 

And, as Woodhouse also suggests, philosophical questions are continually raised in our everyday life and conversations. Consider, for example, the following statements, which all involve philosophical issues: Sociology is not a science. Drugs reveal new levels of reality. History never repeats itself. Every religion has the same core of truth. We should all be left free to do our own thing, as long as we don’t hurt anyone else. All truth depends on your point of view. The most important thing you can do is find out who you are. This could all be a dream. 

QUESTIONS:

1. Mind vs. Brain: When a scientist maps a specific brain state directly to a subjective feeling (like pain), does that prove the mind is just physical hardware, or is there an element of human consciousness that can never be reduced to brain chemistry?

2. Perception vs. Reality: If physics shows that solid objects are actually composed mostly of empty space and energy, should we trust our sensory experience or scientific equations to tell us what is "real"?

3. Free Will in Practice: If human behavior can be reliably predicted or conditioned by psychological factors, to what extent can we hold individuals morally or legally responsible for their actions?

4. Defining Concepts for Law & Policy: When institutions like the Supreme Court or IRS are forced to define abstract concepts like "art" or "religion" for legal purposes, are they discovering an objective definition or simply creating one to suit societal needs?

5. The Boundaries of Freedom: The common principle that "we should be free to do whatever we want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone" sounds straightforward, but how do we philosophically define what counts as "harm" (e.g., emotional harm, indirect economic harm, or harm to self)?

6. Relativism vs. Objective Truth: If someone claims that "all truth depends on your point of view," does that statement apply to itself? If it does, can absolute truth exist in any domain, including science and ethics?

______________________________________________

Source: Mark D. Woodhouse, A Preface to Philosophy (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1984), 1–2, 26–27. Used by permission. 

Is Human Nature Irrational?

Many social psychologists who have studied the choices and behaviors of people have concluded that humans do not behave rationally. For example, Max Bazerman, in his book Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, cites numerous studies that show that humans rely on irrational beliefs and rules of thumb when making important decisions. For instance, people rely on a nonexistent “law of averages” that they believe influences the risks they take. People believe they can control purely chance events. People regularly underestimate the risk of dying in familiar but highly risky activities such as driving, smoking, or eating fried foods, and overestimate the risks of unlikely but memorable events such as dying in a plane crash or being attacked by a grizzly bear in a national park. Robert Cialdini notes in his book, Influence, that he found people’s choices can be manipulated by appealing to six non-rational norms or rules that we generally follow: 

Reciprocity: I should do this for you because you did something for me. 

Commitment and Consistency: I should do this because it is consistent with something I already committed myself to doing. 

Liking: I should do this because I know and like you. 

Authority. I should do this because an authority says I should.

Scarcity. I should do this because there’s only a few chances left and I won’t get a chance later. 

QUESTIONS 

1. Misassessed Risk: Why do humans tend to underestimate everyday risks (like driving or unhealthy eating) while overestimating rare, dramatic dangers (like bear attacks or plane crashes), and how does media coverage shape this bias?

2. Illusion of Control: How does the belief in a "law of averages" or the illusion that we can control purely chance events impact major real-world decisions, such as financial investing or public health choices?

3. Rationality vs. Evolution: If human decision-making relies so heavily on non-rational rules of thumb and irrational beliefs, can these heuristics ever be considered adaptive or beneficial, or are they purely flaws in our thinking?

4. Ethics of Manipulation: Given Cialdini's findings that people are easily swayed by non-rational norms like Scarcity or Authority, where is the ethical line between helpful persuasion and predatory manipulation in advertising and public policy?

5. The Consistency Trap: The norm of Commitment and Consistency suggests that people will honor past commitments even when new evidence shows it is irrational to do so. How does this non-rational rule contribute to political polarization or staying in toxic situations?

6. Social Obligations vs. Logic: Principles like Reciprocity and Liking rely on human social connection rather than objective logic. Is it possible—or even desirable—to train ourselves to make major decisions purely rationally without being influenced by personal relationships?

____________________________

Bazerman, Max, and Don A. Moore. Judgment in Managerial Decision Making. 8th ed. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.

Week 4: 

CLASSWORK:

1. Lecture: Socrates & the Sophists 

2. Lecture: Plato & Aristotle

3. Seminar: Breaking the Law for the Sake of Justice

4. Seminar: Groupthink 

5. Seminar: Society and the Bomb

6. Seminar: Sanctuary and the Law

7. Viewing: Genius of the Ancient World -  Socrates 

HOMEWORK:

1. Reading: Velasquez, (selections from) Philosophy, ed. 11

REVIEW QUESTION:

1. Compare and contrast Plato's and Aristotle's theories of knowledge. Which do you agree with and why?

Breaking the Law for the Sake of Justice

On March 2, 2009, more than 2,500 demonstrators illegally forced their way onto the property of a Washington, D.C., coal-burning power plant and shut it down by blockading its entrances. Only two weeks earlier scientists had reported that global warming was melting the ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic faster than expected, thereby raising sea levels and initiating changes in ocean currents that would have “a dramatic impact on the global climate system.” The demonstrators were protesting the use of coal by power plants, which generates 40 percent of the greenhouse gases heating the planet. In a letter to the public they wrote, “There are moments in a nation’s—and a planet’s—history when it may be necessary for some to break the law in order to bear witness to an evil, bring it to wider attention, and push for its correction. We think such a time has arrived.” 

These were not the first Americans to deliberately break the law to protest something they felt was morally wrong. During the 1960s, thousands of black people illegally sat in “white-only” sections of restaurants, theaters, buses, and other segregated businesses to protest unjust segregation laws, and thousands of blacks and whites engaged in civil disobedience to protest state laws that kept blacks from exercising their constitutional rights to vote and to attend the same public schools as whites. During the 1970s, tens of thousands of people broke the law to protest the U.S. war in Vietnam, occupying government property, refusing to pay taxes that would support the war, and trespassing on the private property of companies that made military weapons. In the 1990s, thousands broke the law to protest the Gulf War, and in 2003, thousands more did so to protest the war in Iraq. When arrested, protesters have inevitably said that their actions are a matter of conscience and that they are obligated to obey their conscience rather than the law. 

QUESTIONS: 

1. Law vs. Conscience: When citizens feel that a legal practice (like burning coal or military action) poses a severe moral or environmental threat, are they morally obligated to obey the law, or does individual conscience take precedence over state authority?

2. Proportionality of Action: Does the urgency of existential threats like climate change justify illegal actions—such as shutting down a power plant—in a way that differs from civil disobedience directed at human rights or war?

3. The Role of Scientific Warning: The 2009 protesters acted shortly after reports showed accelerating ice sheet loss. To what extent should scientific consensus empower citizens or governments to bypass traditional, legal avenues of policy change?

4. Comparing Historical Movements: How does environmental civil disobedience compare morally and strategically to historic movements like the 1960s Civil Rights Movement or anti-war protests of the 1970s? Are there key differences in their goals or justification?

5. Efficacy of Breaking the Law: The protesters stated that breaking the law was necessary to "bear witness to an evil, bring it to wider attention, and push for its correction." Does illegal protest effectively shift public opinion and policy, or does it risk alienating the general public?

6. Limits of Civil Disobedience: If individual conscience is accepted as a valid reason to break the law, how can society distinguish between legitimate civil disobedience and unlawful actions driven by harmful or extremist beliefs?

_____________________________________________

Source: Open letter by Bill McKibben and Wendell Berry, released December 12, 2008, and posted at www.yesmagazine.org/article. asp ID=3347. 

Groupthink

The psychologist Irving Janis coined the term groupthink to refer to the tendency of cohesive groups to get increasingly out of touch with reality. Janis studied how numerous political leaders and their close advisors made decisions that were spectacularly out of touch with reality, including (1) the Japanese decision to attack the United States at Pearl Harbor, (2) President Truman’s decision to escalate the Korean War, (3) President Kennedy’s deci- sion to invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, (4) President Johnson’s decision to escalate the Vietnam War, and (5) President Nixon’s decision to launch a cover-up of the Watergate break-in. Janis found that “the social pressures that develop in cohesive groups,” particularly the desire “to preserve friendly intra-group relations,” lead such groups to develop an “us-versus-them” mentality that gradually distorts their ability to evaluate their situation realistically. Symptoms of such groupthink include an “illusion of the group’s invulnerability”; a “belief in the inherent morality of the group” and its activities; “collective rationalization” that discounts any outside information that might conflict with the group’s assumptions; “stereotypes” of outsiders and critics as weak, stupid, or evil; “direct pressure on dissenters” within the group; “self-censorship” that leads each member to discount his or her own doubts about the group’s beliefs and assumptions; the “illusion of unanimity” within the group; and the emergence of “self-appointed mind-guards” who protect the group from any contrary outside information that might shatter their comfortable assumptions. 

QUESTIONS 

1. Friendship vs. Critical Thinking: Janis highlights that the desire "to preserve friendly intra-group relations" often triggers groupthink. How can team leaders foster high trust and cohesion without sacrificing the critical dissent necessary for good decision-making?

2. Self-Censorship & "Mind-Guards": Why do individual group members engage in self-censorship when facing a strong consensus, and how do "self-appointed mind-guards" actively isolate leadership from inconvenient truths?

3. The "Us-Versus-Them" Mentality: How does viewing critics and outsiders through simplistic stereotypes ("weak, stupid, or evil") shield a cohesive group from realistic self-assessment during a crisis?

4. Historical Failures: Looking at Janis’s historical examples (such as the Bay of Pigs invasion or the Watergate cover-up), which specific symptom of groupthink—like the "illusion of invulnerability" or "belief in the inherent morality of the group"—appears to have been the most damaging, and why?

5. Modern Relevancy: While Janis studied political and military leadership, where do we see groupthink occurring today (e.g., corporate boardrooms, tech startups, political echo chambers, or social media groups)?

6. Preventative Measures: What structural rules, culture shifts, or roles (such as appointing a designated "Devil's Advocate") could groups implement to effectively disrupt groupthink before disastrous decisions are made?

___________________________________________________________________________

Source: I. L. Janis, Victims of Groupthink (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972). 

Society and the Bomb

The decision to drop the nuclear bomb that killed tens of thousands of the civilian inhabitants of the city of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, was made while the United States was at war with Japan. Henry L. Stimson, the American Secretary of War at the time, later explained that he advised President Truman to drop the bomb on the basis of utilitarian reasoning: 

I felt that to extract a genuine surrender from the [Japanese] Emperor and his military advisers, they must be administered a tremendous shock which would carry convincing proof of our power to destroy the Empire. Such an effective shock would save many times the number of lives, both American and Japanese, that it would cost. . . . Our enemy, Japan, . . . had the strength to cost us a million more [lives]. . . . Additional large losses might be expected among our allies and . . . enemy casualties would be much larger than our own . . . . My chief purpose was to end the war in victory with the least possible cost in lives. . . . The face of war is the face of death; death 

is an inevitable part of every order that a wartime leader gives. The decision to use the atomic bomb was a decision that brought death to over a hundred thousand Japanese. . . . But this deliberate, premeditated destruction was our least abhorrent choice. 

Objecting to this kind of utilitarian justification for killing the inhabitants of cities with nuclear weapons, philosopher-theologian John C. Ford wrote the following: 

[Is] it permissible, in order to win a just war, to wipe out such an area with death or grave in- jury, resulting indiscriminately, to the majority of its ten million inhabitants? In my opinion the answer must be in the negative. . . . [It] is never permitted to kill directly noncombatants in wartime. Why? Because they are innocent. That is, they are innocent of the violent and destructive action of war, or of any close participation in the violent and destructive action of war. 

QUESTIONS:

1. Utilitarian Calculations vs. Moral Rules: Henry Stimson argues that dropping the atomic bomb was the "least abhorrent choice" because it saved more lives overall than a ground invasion would have. Is a leader ethically justified in calculating human lives purely as numbers, or are certain actions wrong regardless of the outcome?

2. The Status of Noncombatants: John C. Ford asserts that it is never permissible to directly kill noncombatants because they are "innocent of the violent and destructive action of war." Does a civilian population bear moral responsibility for the actions of their nation's government during wartime, or must they always remain off-limits to direct attack?

3. The Concept of a "Least Abhorrent" Choice: Stimson frames the decision not as choosing a "good" action, but as choosing the least destructive option available in a crisis. When all available choices result in mass death, how should leaders determine which option is morally superior?

4. Shock Value vs. Indiscriminate Destruction: Stimson states that the goal of the bomb was to administer a "tremendous shock" to force a genuine surrender. Does using extreme, mass destruction to shock an enemy leadership into submission cross an ethical line, or is it a legitimate military strategy if it ends a war quickly?

5. Evaluating Future Probabilities vs. Present Harm: The decision to drop the bomb relied on predictions of future casualties (a estimated million or more lives saved). How confident must leaders be in hypothetical future outcomes before using them to justify immediate, guaranteed destruction?

6. Modern Warfare & Mass Casualties: Given that modern technology allows for devastating weaponry that can affect vast areas, is it still possible to fight a "just war" under Ford's standard that noncombatants must never be directly targeted or destroyed?

____________________________________________

Source: Henry L. Stimson, “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb,” Harpers (February 1947), 101–102, 106–107; John C. Ford, “The Hydrogen Bombing of Cities,” Theology Digest (Winter 1957). 

Sanctuary and the Law

In January 1985, sixteen people, including two Roman Catholic priests, a Presbyterian minister, and three nuns, were charged with illegally smuggling and sheltering Central American refugees in the United States. The refugees were people fleeing from torture and virtually certain death in their own war-torn countries. The sixteen people charged with illegally helping the refugees argued that giving sanctuary to the refugees was a matter of conscience and that they were obligated to obey their conscience rather than the law. Several newspapers carried the story.

Tucson, Arizona- In direct defiance of immigration statutes, the Rev. John Fife and his combat riots in the sanctuary movement help transport Central American refugees across the Mexican border into the United States. They find food and shelter for them, often in churches, and then transport their wards through relays to cities such as Chicago, Los Angeles, Cincinnati and Seattle.

Two hundred churches publicly have declared their status as sanctuaries, and the pastors, priests, rabbis and lay workers who have joined the movement speak freely about their work... "When you hear about the fear and the violence and the torture these people face at home, you have little choice but to help," said Jill Levis of Christ Church Presbyterian in Burlington, VT. "The Bible says that God takes sides and he tells us to take the side of the needy. We are acting out our faith," said Peggy Hutchison, who was charged in the same federal indictment as Fife and fourteen other sanctuary workers. "We believe very strongly in what we are doing." Fife said, "You have to help the refugees or else you lose your soul."

Ruth Anne Myers, district director in Arizona for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, insists that "the government's position is simply that ti is against the law to smuggle, harbor or transport aliens into the United States. The law doesn't say if good people are doing it, it's OK, or if the people doing it think the law is wrong, it's OK," Myers added. "It's like the bombing of abortion clinics. These are people who take the law into their own hands for religious reasons."

Sanctuary activists argue that it is too difficult for most Central Americans to prove to the satisfaction of the INS that they will be murdered or tortured if they return home. All of the Arizona activists facing trial have said they will not suspend their sanctuary activity as long as they are free. Twenty-five un-indicted co-conspirators, from places such as Seattle, Germantown, Pa., and Rochester, N.Y., have said they will continue their work and plan to refuse to testify against their indicted friends. Even fi al the charged activists are jailed, Fife said, the movement will not stop. "They can put Jim and I away for years, and sanctuary will go like gang busters," he said. "No one runs this movement. It runs by itself, on faith."

QUESTIONS:

1. Law vs. Religious Conscience: The sanctuary workers argued that helping refugees was a matter of religious obligation, with Rev. Fife stating, "You have to help the refugees or else you lose your soul." When a personal or religious moral code directly conflicts with federal law, which should take precedence for an individual, and why?

2. The Government's Standard: INS Director Ruth Anne Myers stated, "The law doesn’t say if good people are doing it, it’s OK..." Does the law have a duty to remain blind to an individual's motives, or should legal systems account for moral intentions when enforcing statutes?

3. The Limits of Vigilantism: Myers explicitly compared the sanctuary movement to people bombing abortion clinics, arguing both involve individuals taking the law into their own hands for religious reasons. Is this a valid moral and legal comparison, or are there fundamental differences between civil disobedience that saves lives and acts of violence?

4. Institutional Constraints vs. Human Need: Activists argued that bureaucratic hurdles made it nearly impossible for refugees to legally prove they faced death or torture. When legal channels for humanitarian relief fail or become overly restrictive, does civil disobedience become morally justified?

5. Complicity and Collective Action: Twenty-five un-indicted co-conspirators vowed to continue the movement and refuse to testify against those charged. What are the ethical implications of actively aiding civil disobedience as a bystander or supporter versus being the primary actor?

6. The Efficacy of Decentralized Movements: Rev. Fife noted that the sanctuary movement "runs by itself, on faith" and would continue even if key leaders were jailed. Why are faith-based or moral movements often resilient against government prosecution, and does jailing activists typically suppress civil disobedience or galvanize public support?

____________________________________________

Source:  "Answering to a Higher Obligation,"San JoseMercury News, January 1, 1985, p. .1

Week 6: 

CLASSWORK:

1. Viewing: The Matrix (1999)

2. Culminating Evaluation:  Unit 1 Test 

UNIT 1 TEST OUTLINE:

• Brightspace online test

• Available from the beginning of class to the end of class

• 1 attempt for each question, so be careful

Part A Knowledge & Understanding: 

• 25 multiple choice questions, 1 mark each

• May be, but not only, based on the following...

Part B Application & Communication: 

• Answer one of the Unit 1 review questions above, chosen by in 200-300 words, 10 marks

• The teacher will choose the review question

Part C Thinking & Inquiry:

• Answer following provided question, in 200-300 words, 10 marks

• How is the “matrix” like Plato’s Cave, and how is Neo like Plato’s released prisoner?