In our video, we explore the cognitive dissonance which we believe will result should we discover that our lives are simulations. Bostrom postulates that we will live our lives “in much the same way” nonetheless – but can we, as beings of flesh and emotion, truly wrap our minds around it?
This video aims to educate and entertain the public on the rationality argument put forth in the case of factory farmed animals consumption. The video highlights the problem with the rationality argument and why it does not work.
Presenting the trolley argument with a twist of exploring an Ethical dilemma that we face everyday of the utilitarian argument of eating meat. Similar to the trolley argument, the train is on the path to run over some animals instead of humans and YOU are in-control of the train.
This stop motion animation is about a conversation between two students during lunch hour. The conversation presents the Utilitarian argument against consuming factory farmed meat and raises questions with regards to the argument to show the typical NUS student that philosophy can be applied to situations in everyday life too.
Our group adopted a “movie trailer review” concept consisting of two segments aimed at entertaining and educating layman audience about moral philosophy (specifically Utilitarianism). The first segment presents the concepts of Utilitarianism through a movie trailer. The second segment (review by YouTuber) explains the Utilitarian values behind the protagonist’s decisions.
To educate viewers the philosophical concepts learned from the topic ‘Knowledge and its Discontents’ by exploring from 4 perspectives of a Foundationalist, Coherentist, Infinitist and Contextualist to justify the common belief that 1+1 = 2.
Following Norcross’ Puppy argument, this animation highlights the differential attitudes most laymen hold towards factory-farmed dog and chicken meat, inviting them to reflect on this logical inconsistency given that both are morally indistinguishable. It raises questions about the actual difference between both meats, leaving the ethical debate open to discussion.
A young CEO with paid-up capital ~$100 million, crosses a street when a car speeds along at 200km/h. An old man (100 years old) witnesses this and contemplates… “Should I save him or not?” This video introduces the idea of Utilitarianism to a lay audience in a fun and accessible manner.
Taking the role of World Wide Fund for nature (WWF), our group aims to persuade consumers to decrease consumption of shark fin, by adopting a utilitarian perspective illustrated by a Shark Fins Consumption Argument Infographic Poster.
This special project aims to educate non-philosophers about moral ethics. Using an A3-size poster, there will be an introduction to the three ethical theories taught in the module, followed by the analysis of three thought experiments, each featuring the response of a utilitarian, deontologist and a virtue ethicist.
A prisoner is dying, but has two healthy organs. The doctor knows that there are two people (a Philosophy professor and a social worker) who need organ transplants. Caught in a dilemma, the video explains what the doctor would do using the three theories of right and wrong.
Our aim is to create more interest in learning philosophy, by showing how to do it in a fun way by using Singer’s argument as an example. Our audience is people with already some knowledge in philosophy (and in Singer’s argument) but they don’t have a lot of interest in it (yet).
We have created a comic strip on the problem of evil by attempting to show how ironic it is when one attempts to justify inducing pain. The comic will revolve around a theist who tries to justify his evil act by explaining that it will bring about a 2nd order good.
This project is a short video that brings the layperson a brief glimpse into some of the topics that Philosophy entails. We hope the video will inspire him to think of these issues with new appreciation. We also wish to bring some comedic-relief to you amidst this (pre-determined?) busy month.
Our project features a cafe review on a dessert made using hormones obtained from torturing puppies. The comments section features ‘Lomasky’ and ‘Norcross’ arguing. We aim to illustrate and promote understanding of the arguments on ‘consumption of factory-farmed animals’ in a light-hearted manner. We will target netizens and Philosophy students.
In reference to the Regress Argument for Skepticism, the video localises the trilemma and presents its prevalence in everyday Singaporean life. We hope to make the arguments more palatable for a general audience, as they identify themselves within the examples, and question the legitimacy of any knowledge we hold.
“The reason” aims to make everyone ponder – are we truly responsible for our actions? As Strawson would say, all our actions are in fact pre-determined by past events! Of course, do take this with a pinch of salt, for we all know we still face consequences for our actions.
This poster seeks to introduce utilitarianism and its limitations to NUS students, who will find our argument very relatable. We also aim to show that while utilitarianism is a popular theory to adopt, some do not subscribe to it. This makes conclusive remarks regarding right and wrong actions tricky.
Our group created a short film based on the story of Fred from the GET1029 topic “Eating meat” with a humorous twist. The film aims to follow Fred through the origins of his damaged Godiva gland and how he obtains his supply of Cocoamone. The film introduces the analogy presented by Norcross in his paper “Puppies, Pigs & People”.
Our group produced a notice board where two pretend news article or fictitious story were produced to highlights the two moral theories: utilitarianism and political authority. These articles will simulate an alternative universe where different societies are guided by the moral ideologies that is most widely accepted by its members.