Phil 104 N61: Discussion Topic for the Republic

February 8 (Wed.), 2006

Please discuss the following in small groups of five, and appoint one of your members to
take notes on the discussion. The note-taker must report their group’s discussion on
WebCT. Please see the backside for must-read instructions on writing up a report.

The Socratic Method:

Take any position P, and divide yourselves into two sides. The first side should defend P
as best as possible. The second side should assume the role of Socrates, trying to refute
(prove as false) P by showing that the first side has beliefs that actually contradict P. In
other words, the second side should ideally show that the first side in fact believes the
contradiction P and not-P.

You may switch sides after some time: the side that first defended P can try to refute it,
and the side that first tried to refute P can try to defend it as best as possible. The point is
to enable you to think on both sides of an issue. You cannot make convincing arguments
against a position if you cannot appreciate the full strength of supporting reasons for that
position.

Here are some suggestions for P. You may choose one of them to debate on, or come up
with one of your own:

(1) “Eating meat is wrong.” [or “There’s nothing wrong w/ eating meat.”]
(2) “Abortion is (always) wrong.” [or “Abortion is (sometimes) permissible.”]
(3) “The recent war against Iraq is justified.” [or “…not justified”]
(4) “God is perfectly good, all-powerful, and all-knowing.”
(5) “If God is dead, everything is permitted.” (I think Nietzsche said this, but then I
have bad memory.)
(6) an immoral action =df. an illegal action

[Note: if there is a contradiction in your position, it does not necessarily mean that your
position is wrong, but that you have no good reasons for believing it, and that you should
either revise your reasons for believing the position, or give up your position.]