Frenzel 1

Guinevere Frenzel
Professor Welch
Philosophy 1000-012
1 May 2016
Critical Thinking-Class Group Paper/ Final Paper
One would have never thought how much of a great experience it was to discuss our
various views with one another as a group. It opened my eyes to new perspectives and ideas on
how each and every one of us saw certain views and beliefs with the discussions. My first initial
hypothesis, considering the observation prior to coming together as a group, that all of us
appeared to share and have similar opinions and way of thinking. However, that definitely was
not the case. Philosophy is the study of knowledge, reality, and existence. With that being said,
this class and the group discussion opened my mind and how to truly see what is knowledge,
what is the reality, and what existence plays in this life and world. Especially, how all our views
came into light in our discussions changed my views on how I perceive others, how differently
we all think and feel about certain things, and taking into consideration how one individual may
see and/or feel in contrast to my beliefs.
Money is a very controversial topic. We earn it through the work that we do and spend it
towards our needs and wants. Some of us make more or make less in comparison to others. Peter
Singer suggests that we have an ethical duty to give away any money we earn that is not spent on
meeting or basic needs of food and shelter to those who cannot afford to pay for their basic
needs. Singer definitely speaks to my values as he states this. I truly feel that if my basic needs
and wants are met, why should I stand by and watch a neighbor struggle? We have a moral
obligation to help out society in whatever way possible. Giving to and serving others is what
make me personally happy and that we all should help each other. Yet, most of my peers would
disagree with Singers and Is opinion. One expressed that how can one give to those who put

Frenzel 2

themselves in that unfortunate situation and are dependent on the charity of others, rather than to
earn an income for themselves? Another mentioned that it is best to focus on oneself first, even
passed ones basic needs and wants before investing your efforts on another. From there, it gave
me some insight to not set oneself up for suffering in order to ease the suffering of someone else.
When it comes to diet, there is a constant debate that the consumption of meat is
unethical and we have an ethical duty to be vegetarian. To save the animals, if you will. But as a
group, we were able to discuss on a few points as to how this can be beneficial, but also, conflict
with our own views having the liberty to choose what we eat. I am sure no one likes to be told
what one should eat and how. Despite the health risks that comes with eating meat, such as high
cholesterol, heart disease and risks of cancer. But to be a vegetarian does come with its health
factors. I have been told from acquaintances and friends, that they were able to lose and/or
maintain their weight and over time become less dependent on medications to stabilize their
illness or pain in their body. Nevertheless, we as individuals should be able to choose what to
consume, whether to eat meat, be a vegetarian or a vegan. We all have a choice and I strongly
stand by to eat what we want.
In Plato's Allegory of the Cave, a group of men was fixed to a wall within a cave where
shadows of different shapes and figures were cast upon it. That was they believed to be reality
and true. However, a man managed to escape the cave and see the full reality of the shadows that
were cast upon the wall. What he thought to be true, actually had more depth to it. So what we
believe to true, could be something totally separate to another person. As a group, we were able
to conclude that as long as we have the facts and have an open mind to seeking the truth and
believe that it is true, then that is all that matters. However, I can see the side of the skeptics that

Frenzel 3

consider we cannot ever have knowledge of the truth. The truth is opinionated and seen in so
many ways that it is hard to determine what is absolutely true.
To what is determined as good and bad behavior is all based upon a case-by-case basis.
As a class and as a group, we referred to a hypothetical example that was shared about an
underage boy who drove to attend a party of an adult brother and partook a soda that was
supposedly spiked with a drug. The boy eventually left the party, unaware of the effects of the
drug and proceeded to drive home. When the drug kicked in, he allegedly lost control of the
vehicle and running over a pedestrian, which resulted in the death of that person. His intentions
were not to kill the individual, but many argued that the consequences of attending the party and
knowing the risks justifies his action for the demise of the pedestrian. Now, there are also some
cases where those who have the full intent of hurting another, yet can say or blame it on a mental
or psychological illness to claim that their actions are good or thought that they were good. Truly
there are instances where it is true that individuals can have those illnesses and do things out of
their control. What matters most is both the action and the intentions behind those actions.
Resulting in giving money to charity in order to cut one's tax bill, many views come into
light in this situation. In my perspective, I would not define it or limit to as less moral in any
way. I believe in the benefit and the impact it will have on the people that it will help most.
Collectively, the group agreed upon the action and result it will have, based on the situation.
Even if it is the wrong reason, a good intention is a good intention. I can definitely see the other
side of the coin where if one does not do a good deed out of the kindness of ones heart, but
rather just to do the act for attention or praise holds no true value to the good deed. Although, I
would much rather see a good deed then no good deed at all. Even if it was for the wrong
reasons. It should not matter.

Frenzel 4

Correspondingly, to do the right action for the wrong reason would not deem it as less
moral. Examples that were used to illustrate this concept were: stealing food to help the poor or
lying to the Nazi in order to save the life of a Jew. I understand that there are laws that we are
obligated to follow. They keep us safe, provide structure and maintain order. However, I am the
type of person that cannot stand idly by and allow someone to suffer. I feel obligated to alleviate
suffering when I can. Even if I must break the law to do so. In consideration, the group could see
that in this instance it is justified to do the wrong action such as lying or stealing in order to save
the life another. Yet, as depicted in my second paragraph, the majority of the group disagreed to
alleviate the suffering of another.To focus on oneself first making sure you are taken care of
before considering helping another. I know possess the insight that philosophy is full of
contradictions and hypocrisy.
Living the good life is something we all have different interpretations of. I envisioned the
good life to have graduated with the degree of my dreams, to be completely debt free, living
comfortably in my home with no mortgage to pay, living with a family of my own and a car to
drive. Despite this mindset, a couple within the group would disagree with my view of the good
life as not good enough. One individual declared that you cannot settle for just comfort, but to
ensure and secure above and beyond, like making tons of money, traveling to where ever you
wanted to go, driving fancy cars, and have everything you ever wanted. Although that sounds
amazing, I do not think I would truly appreciate everything in the life I depict as good to just
satisfy my pleasures. Comfort is what I want to strive for. Living the good life is enjoying the
little things without the stress of trying to impress another with all the luxuries I could have and
upholding it.

Frenzel 5

The qualities that I deem a superior individual to possess is one who wise, rational, kind,
giving, loving, intelligent, firm to their beliefs and unbiased in controversy and judgment. In a
theological standing, I would say Christ would possess such superior attributes and more.
However, not to imply that He is the one and only to be a superior individual. There are many
that sacrifice their time and efforts for others, who make decisions with a clear mind and
understanding, being kinder to someone who has the opposite demeanor, and/or one who can
stand by what they believe in.
Happiness is seen and felt in many different ways to many different people. Happiness
can take form in surrounding oneself with friends and family, having all the luxuries and
pleasures, falling in love, helping those less fortunate, and the list goes on. Happiness is not truly
defined or set to one understanding. I believe it is how an individual makes of it. On what makes
one person truly happy could differ between another and how they would see it. The good life
has substantial value in how a person perceives happiness. Others may feel that being alone or
even having the natural stresses that come into to life call that truly living. It is all based on
perspective. I believe that it cannot be absolute.
Overall, with the many points and statements that were shared, it was an eye-opening
experience for me to participate in our group discussions. I was able to understand and see the
contrasting views that differ from my own with just the ten questions that were provided for us to
debate about. Of course, we all could not all completely agree on one particular matter, but we
were able to appreciate each others opinion. With all the input we provided together, we were
able to support, refine or change our answers for the better. Best of all, we all could see and give
credit due to the many philosophers who brought into light these particular ways of thinking and
perceiving.