University philosophy courses: a bucketful of ethical sh*t

Full disclosure: I am a highly biased party that has no bearing on your individual positions. This is my rant, since I am about to fail 2 term papers.

I hate philosophy. I hate ethics. I hate the goddamn trolley problem, with all its false dilemmas and no real answers, and strutting along the moral high ground, when there are TWO EASY SOLUTIONS.

Oh no! a mysterious trolley is hurdling down a nonexistent track towards people I don't know. Solution number one: I AM NOT A TROLLEY CONDUCTOR. Solution number two: I SAVE THE PEOPLE I CARE ABOUT MORE.

But seriously, this might just be me, since I have autistic friends who study/love philosophy and plan on continuing on the philosophical path of higher education, could prattle on about Socrates or Kant or Hume or whoever forever and ever. But I SIMPLY. DON'T. GET IT. Why do philosophers use so many air-headed words to say so very little. Most of my books are just empty space taken up by aristocratic armchairs who liked pontificating over the simplest quandaries. I write what I think is the most obvious response to the essay prompts, and receive a subpar grade, unlike all of my other classes, where I receive high marks. When questioned, the teacher simply replies, "You didn't pull from the material." And when I reply that I, in fact, pulled directly from the material and his very own lectures, he sighs and tells me my arguments "had no base."

Um HELLO. I'm quoting YOU. Apparently there is a guide for people on which ethical rules are just assumed and which ones are brand new revelations, but I have more of a background in East Asian philosophy, which makes a hell of a lot more sense to me. So, I truly respect the field, I do, but I struggle so very, very much with understanding what the hell this man wants from me, why I should care, and HOW TO SURVIVE PHILOSOPHY AS AN AUTIST.

HELP. IT'S SO INCREDIBLY POINTLESS. I am tempted to drive my trolley right over the cliffs of remedial education.

Love and confusion and JESUS CHRIST HOWWWW,

Max

Parents

ArchaeC 2 months ago

My sympathies on your grapple with the trolley problem.

I am unclear if you are simply needing a good rant about not ‘getting’ it, or if you are seeking help on how to write something that will satisfy your tutor or examiner. If it is the second, perhaps you could arrange an appointment with your tutor to go over some of the difficulties.

maxlinger60 said:
the teacher simply replies, "You didn't pull from the material." And when I reply that I, in fact, pulled directly from the material and his very own lectures, he sighs and tells me my arguments "had no base."

Your tutor or examiner is likely looking for you to critically examine and elaborate on why you make your choices in the moral dilemma of action v. inaction. You will get marks if you can illustrate your analysis of your moral and ethical thinking by using a framework of philosophical terminology and processes to argue for your own conclusion.

maxlinger60 said:
Apparently there is a guide for people on which ethical rules are just assumed and which ones are brand new revelations

This would suggest you haven’t seen and understood the guide. If you are wanting to continue on the philosophical path, it would be beneficial to study or to find an alternative source to help you grasp and challenge your personal bias and moral and ethical decision making.

maxlinger60 said:
Solution number one: I AM NOT A TROLLEY CONDUCTOR. Solution number two: I SAVE THE PEOPLE I CARE ABOUT MORE

Because the trolley problem has no satisfactory conclusion, you are forced to make a decision which shows personal bias. Some might be biased in favour of the utilitarian approach of saving more lives. What if you are against killing? You could argue through a deontological approach. Ultimately, the point of the problem is that you are forced to think of personal bias and the value of human life through the framework of philosophical reasoning. This has application for moral and ethical decision making within political, scientific, healthcare, technology and other spheres.

You already know this, so perhaps the bigger questions for you are why are you doing the philosophy course and what can you do about your situation to make things better? What is the point of philosophy for you? A rant is certainly a good start.

All the very best going forward.

Reply

ArchaeC 2 months ago

My sympathies on your grapple with the trolley problem.

I am unclear if you are simply needing a good rant about not ‘getting’ it, or if you are seeking help on how to write something that will satisfy your tutor or examiner. If it is the second, perhaps you could arrange an appointment with your tutor to go over some of the difficulties.

maxlinger60 said:
the teacher simply replies, "You didn't pull from the material." And when I reply that I, in fact, pulled directly from the material and his very own lectures, he sighs and tells me my arguments "had no base."

Your tutor or examiner is likely looking for you to critically examine and elaborate on why you make your choices in the moral dilemma of action v. inaction. You will get marks if you can illustrate your analysis of your moral and ethical thinking by using a framework of philosophical terminology and processes to argue for your own conclusion.

maxlinger60 said:
Apparently there is a guide for people on which ethical rules are just assumed and which ones are brand new revelations

This would suggest you haven’t seen and understood the guide. If you are wanting to continue on the philosophical path, it would be beneficial to study or to find an alternative source to help you grasp and challenge your personal bias and moral and ethical decision making.

maxlinger60 said:
Solution number one: I AM NOT A TROLLEY CONDUCTOR. Solution number two: I SAVE THE PEOPLE I CARE ABOUT MORE

Because the trolley problem has no satisfactory conclusion, you are forced to make a decision which shows personal bias. Some might be biased in favour of the utilitarian approach of saving more lives. What if you are against killing? You could argue through a deontological approach. Ultimately, the point of the problem is that you are forced to think of personal bias and the value of human life through the framework of philosophical reasoning. This has application for moral and ethical decision making within political, scientific, healthcare, technology and other spheres.

You already know this, so perhaps the bigger questions for you are why are you doing the philosophy course and what can you do about your situation to make things better? What is the point of philosophy for you? A rant is certainly a good start.

All the very best going forward.

Children

No Data