See here for more details.
See here for more details.
A picture book about a pair of Philosopher parents’ dilemma to save or sacrifice their child, who has the ability to cure “Philoscolosis” – a disease that plagues people with existential crises. The story will cover Right or Wrong in term of Utilitarianism and Deontology, and Free Will.
A conversation between two friends at a restaurant brings out a reason for humans to consume factory-farmed meat (against Norcross’ Puppy Argument). In an unfortunate twist of events, the fate of the meat lover is sealed when he is put into the shoes of a factory-farmed animal…….. As we look at the video, think: would we treat factory-farmed animals the same if we were the one’s farmed instead?
Why do we allow governments to do things that we don’t usually allow individuals to do? Why do we allow them to collect taxes, send us to the army for 2 years, and restrict the teeny weeny bits of our lifestyles, such as whether or not we sell chewing gum? The following is a political protest by Ah Beng, a disenchanted citizen, who invites all of you to sing along to the familiar tune of ‘Home’.
Our group would like to encourage citizens of the world to donate. We have used Peter Singer’s drowning child argument to propose that if one believes that he or she believes that there is a moral responsibility to save a drowning child, by that same logical thread, one should donate to charities to help with problems such as starvation; etc.
This is a video on a student attempting to cheat on his examination – and getting caught by the professor. However, he argues that he should not be punished because free will doesn’t exist — and if he doesn’t have free will, he shouldn’t be held morally responsible for his actions (in a causally deterministic or a causally indeterministic world). The video explores the idea of free will and moral responsibility, with 2 different endings audience can select based on their stance. (Yes/No links included in the video description – in case video options don’t work. Best viewed on desktop)
The upbringing could be the same, while their attitudes could be different. The work they do could be the same, yet the consequence could be so different. The stark difference between the life of a government official and the life of a Loanshark runner is what we will be highlighting in this video. While their acts of coercion demanded the same return, yet one is often accepted by society, while the other is not. Why?
A student from GET1029 teleports during his mid-term exam to find the answer to the essay question “How do we know?” This video explores briefly and in a lighthearted manner the various perspectives to the question. They include knowing from intuition, tradition, science, reason, or via arbitrary means.
In the post-credit scene, the viewer is left to tinker with the idea that what we think we know in this world might not be what actually is. [Credit and post-credit scene not to be included for grading. Only 0:00-2:15 for grading.]
We will be filming a short video on the topic of factory farming where we will be introducing key ideas on the Utilitarian argument and Norcross’ puppy argument in the short play between a pig, a puppy and human.
A short video clip on the topic of “Factory-Farmed Meat”, covering the issue of the Rationality Objection and the possible replies to it by utilising a hypothetical example of us humans eating human meat. In this video, we attempt to demonstrate how there are no morally relevant differences or qualities that exist between humans and animals that would allow us to treat the two groups differently on whether we can consume them as food or not.
Our project aims to visually portray Peter Singer’s drowning child argument. By creating a scenario where three friends at a picnic know that there is a drowning person right before their eyes, but simply do not reach out to help him, we liken such an absurd behaviour to people who do not donate to charities to help the starving children. This advertisement video thus makes clear of Peter Singer’s argument that if one has the moral duty to save the drowning person, one certainly has equal moral duty to donate to the starving children.
Our video explores Peter Singer’s Drowning Child Argument, where despite being on their way to a date, a heroic and benevolent man jumps into the pool to save a drowning school girl. After he saves her, he is approached by a man asking for donations to the children in Africa. The heroic man is resistant, but in light of his heroic act, is forced to defend himself against Singer’s arguments. Will he bow to pressure, or argue his way out of it?
Covering on the topic of ‘Rich and Poor’, this video aims to explain concepts against the ‘Drowning child argument’ e.g. distance factor, causal disconnection, ‘why single me out’ and marginal utility through the interactions between a volunteer with utilitarian beliefs and a regular NUS student.
This is a retelling of Peter Singer’s argument about charity. Phillis is on a game show where she is given a series of choices which illustrate Singer’s argument from consistency. When Phillis is given a sudden windfall, she struggles in reconciling her attitudes towards saving a baby and refusing to save the poor in Timbuktu.
Our team would like to satirize and contrast the difference between Singer and Friedman’s views on the philosophical ideas around life saving with a funny video.
We present the for and against arguments with regards to the consumption of factory-farmed meat through the review of a newly-opened restaurant. The various arguments, presented in the style of a forum, provide the audience with multiple perspectives and factors of consideration to allow them to make an informed decision before deciding whether to patronise this restaurant.
The aim of the video is to introduce deontology and utilitarianism through the use of two scenarios. The actor/actress will show what a deontologist and utilitarian would do. Watch and find out where your ethical position lies!
The Sugar Daddy is a book role playing game (RPG) where readers may choose different morality-related paths that lead to their ultimate fates. Set in a future where sugar is a highly controlled substance, The story’s protagonist is a special agent that infiltrated the biggest illegal sugar dealer operative in Japan. Readers must make decisions to choose the dates of themselves and the characters around them.
In this video, we explore the prospect of simulated lives in the future (or present depending on one’s school of thought). The story centres around Geraldine and her attempt to pass one of the most difficult classes known to all. With a number of tongue-in-cheek and humorous moments laced throughout the video, we aim to provoke thought into the possibility of simulated lives today; are we Real, or are we Sims? And more importantly, will we ever pass SIM4101: Life, the Universe, and Everything?
Two friends were on their way to have a meal together. Right before they entered the restaurant, they were offered a flyer which conveyed the message of anti factory farming. However, they threw it away. In the restaurant, one of the friend ordered different kinds of meat and dishes. When the other friend was asked if he wanted anything else, he said he wanted shark’s fin soup. That led to a debate on whether there is a difference between consuming factory farmed food and shark’s fin soup, and whether it is right to consume both.
A stop-motion video that briefly explains utilitarianism and deontology vis-a-vis the trolley problem which concludes that in time-sensitive real world scenarios, rational deliberation over normative ethical theories may not be the best course of action.
The Philosophy Cult Society is back again with their weekly videos, aimed at promoting their love for Philosophy. This week, the cult has decided to tackle on the topic of Knowledge and it’s Discontent, using ancient Chinese Philosophy featuring key characters such as Mozi, Zhuangzi and HuiShi. While Zhuangzi and HuiShi debate over the happiness of turtles, Mozi proposes his own objective standards of assessment for there to be true knowledge. But yet, can this really be considered objective? Is there really no such thing as true objective knowledge?