Sts

Forget
'Developing' Poor Countries, It's Time to 'De-develop' Rich Countries

by Jason Hickel
Wednesday 23 September 2015
This week, heads of state are gathering in New York to sign the UN’s new sustainable
development goals (SDGs). The main objective is to eradicate poverty by 2030. Beyoncé, One
Direction and Malala are on board. It’s set to be a monumental international celebration.
Given all the fanfare, one might think the SDGs are about to offer a fresh plan for how to
save the world, but beneath all the hype, it’s business as usual. The main strategy for
eradicating poverty is the same: growth.
Growth has been the main object of development for the past 70 years, despite the fact
that it’s not working. Since 1980, the global economy has grown by 380%, but the number of
people living in poverty on less than $5 (£3.20) a day has increased by more than 1.1 billion.
That’s 17 times the population of Britain. So much for the trickle-down effect.
Orthodox economists insist that all we need is yet more growth. More progressive
types tell us that we need to shift some of the yields of growth from the richer segments of the
population to the poorer ones, evening things out a bit. Neither approach is adequate. Why?
Because even at current levels of average global consumption, we’re overshooting our planet’s
bio-capacity by more than 50% each year.
In other words, growth isn’t an option any more – we’ve already grown too much.
Scientists are now telling us that we’re blowing past planetary boundaries at breakneck speed.
And the hard truth is that this global crisis is due almost entirely to overconsumption in rich
countries.
Right now, our planet only has enough resources for each of us to consume 1.8 “global
hectares” annually – a standardised unit that measures resource use and waste. This figure is
roughly what the average person in Ghana or Guatemala consumes. By contrast, people in the
US and Canada consume about 8 hectares per person, while Europeans consume 4.7 hectares
– many times their fair share.
What does this mean for our theory of development? Economist Peter Edward argues
that instead of pushing poorer countries to “catch up” with rich ones, we should be thinking of
ways to get rich countries to “catch down” to more appropriate levels of development. We
should look at societies where people live long and happy lives at relatively low levels of
income and consumption not as basket cases that need to be developed towards western
models, but as exemplars of efficient living.
How much do we really need to live long and happy lives? In the US, life expectancy is
79 years and GDP per capita is $53,000. But many countries have achieved similar life
expectancy with a mere fraction of this income. Cuba has a comparable life expectancy to the
US and one of the highest literacy rates in the world with GDP per capita of only $6,000 and
consumption of only 1.9 hectares – right at the threshold of ecological sustainability. Similar
claims can be made of Peru, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Tunisia.
Yes, some of the excess income and consumption we see in the rich world yields
improvements in quality of life that are not captured by life expectancy, or even literacy rates.
But even if we look at measures of overall happiness and wellbeing in addition to life
01
expectancy, a number of low- and middle-income countries rank highly. Costa Rica manages to
sustain one of the highest happiness indicators and life expectancies in the world with a per
capita income one-fourth that of the US.
In light of this, perhaps we should regard such countries not as underdeveloped, but
rather as appropriately developed. And maybe we need to start calling on rich countries to
justify their excesses.
The idea of “de-developing” rich countries might prove to be a strong rallying cry in the
global south, but it will be tricky to sell to westerners. Tricky, but not impossible. According to
recent consumer research, 70% of people in middle- and high-income countries believe
overconsumption is putting our planet and society at risk. A similar majority also believe we
should strive to buy and own less, and that doing so would not compromise our happiness.
People sense there is something wrong with the dominant model of economic progress and
they are hungry for an alternative narrative.
The problem is that the pundits promoting this kind of transition are using the wrong
language. They use terms such as de-growth, zero growth or – worst of all – de-development,
which are technically accurate but off-putting for anyone who’s not already on board. Such
terms are repulsive because they run against the deepest frames we use to think about human
progress, and, indeed, the purpose of life itself. It’s like asking people to stop moving positively
thorough life, to stop learning, improving, growing.
Negative formulations won’t get us anywhere. The idea of “steady-state” economics is a

step in the right direction and is growing in popularity, but it still doesn’t get the framing right.
We need to reorient ourselves toward a positive future, a truer form of progress. One that is
geared toward quality instead of quantity. One that is more sophisticated than just
accumulating ever increasing amounts of stuff, which doesn’t make anyone happier anyway.
What is certain is that GDP as a measure is not going to get us there and we need to get rid of
it.
Perhaps we might take a cue from Latin Americans, who are organising alternative
visions around the indigenous concept of buen vivir, or good living. The west has its own
tradition of reflection on the good life and it’s time we revive it. Robert and Edward Skidelsky
take us down this road in his book How Much is Enough? where they lay out the possibility of
interventions such as banning advertising, a shorter working week and a basic income, all of
which would improve our lives while reducing consumption.
Either we slow down voluntarily or climate change will do it for us. We can’t go on
ignoring the laws of nature. But rethinking our theory of progress is not only an ecological
imperative, it is also a development one. If we do not act soon, all our hard-won gains against
poverty will evaporate, as food systems collapse and mass famine re-emerges to an extent not
seen since the 19th century.
2
This is not about giving anything up. And it’s certainly not about living a life of
voluntary misery or imposing harsh limits on human potential. On the contrary, it’s about
reaching a higher level of understanding and consciousness about what we’re doing here and
why.
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/
sep/23/developing-poor-countries-de-develop-rich-countries-sdgs
02
The Human Person flourishing in
terms of Science and Technology
The Question Concerning Technology by Martin Heidegger
Martin Heidegger
• German philosopher and a seminal thinker
• born 1889, died 1976
• born in Baden, educated in Freiburg
• became privatdozent in Freiburg in 1915
• professor in Marburg in 1923, in Freiburg
in 1928
The Question Concerning Technology
• We shall be questioning concerning technology, and in so doing we
should like to prepare a free relationship to it. The relationship will be
free if it opens our human existence to the essence of technology.
The Essence of Technology
Definition of Technology
• Instrumental: Technology is a means to an end.
• Anthropological: Technology is a human activity.
• The two definitions of technology belong together.

• For to posit ends and procure and utilize the means to them is a human activity.
• The manufacture and utilization of equipment, tools, and machines, the
manufactured and used things themselves, and the needs and ends that
they serve, all belong to what technology is.
Four Aspects of Causality
Technology as a Means of Revealing
What has the essence of technology to do with revealing?
• For every bringing-forth is grounded in revealing.
• Bringing-forth, indeed, gathers within itself the four modes of occasioning—
causality—and rules them throughout.
• Within its domain belong end and means as well as instrumentality.
• Instrumentality is considered to be the fundamental characteristic of
technology.
• If we inquire step by step into what technology, represented as means, actually
is, then we shall arrive at revealing.
Technology as a Means of Revealing
Technology – techné
• encompasses both the activities and skills of the craftsman but also the
arts of the mind and fine arts
• techné “belongs to bringing-forth, to poiésis; it is something poetic.”
• techné is also linked with the word epistémé
• both words “are names for knowing in the widest sense.
• Technology is a mode of revealing.
• Technology comes to presence in the realm where revealing and
unconcealment take place, where alétheia, truth, happens.
Modern Technology
• What is modern technology? It too is a revealing.
• However, the revealing of modern technology differs from that of
earlier, non-machine-powered technology, in a fundamental way.
• It is not a revealing, an unfolding in the sense of poiésis, “the revealing
that rules in modern technology is a challenging, which puts to nature
the unreasonable demand that it should supply energy which can be
extracted and stored as such.
Technology vs Modern Technology
• But does this not hold true for the old windmill as well? No. Its sails do
indeed turn in the wind; they are left entirely to the wind’s blowing. But the
windmill does not unlock energy from the air currents in order to store it.
• In contrast, a tract of land is challenged in the hauling out of coal and
ore. The earth now reveals itself as a coal mining district, the soil as a
mineral deposit.
Technology vs Modern Technology
• The field that the peasant formerly cultivated and set in order appears
differently than it did when to set in order still meant to take care of and
maintain. The work of the peasant does not challenge the soil of the field.
• Agriculture is now the mechanized food industry. Air is now set upon to
yield nitrogen, the earth to yield ore, ore to yield uranium, for example;
uranium is set up to yield atomic energy, which can be unleashed either
for destructive or for peaceful purposes.
Modern Technology
• All technology reveals, but modern technology reveals not in the
unfolding poetic sense but as a challenge; it sets upon nature and
expedites its energy by unlocking it.
• The revealing that rules throughout modern technology has the character of a
setting-upon, in the sense of a challenging–forth.
• Such challenging happens in that the energy concealed in nature is
unlocked, what is unlocked is transformed, what is transformed is
stored up, what is stored up is in turn distributed, and what is
distributed is switched about ever anew.
• Unlocking, transforming, storing, distributing, and switching about are ways of
revealing.
Standing reserve
Once unlocked, this energy (raw or in the form of machine-powered
technology) is held captive as a standing reserve. The airliner standing
on the runway is a stationary object ordered to be ready for take-off.
However, this apparent mastery over nature’s energy is no such thing
because we are challenged, ordered, to act this way. We, in fact, like
the airliner on the runway, are situated in the ‘standing reserve’ as
human resources.
Standing reserve
The forester who measures the felled timber in the woods and who to all
appearances walks the forest path in the same way his grandfather did is
today ordered by the industry that produces commercial woods, whether he
knows it or not. He is made subordinate to the orderability of cellulose,
which for its part is challenged forth by the need for paper, which is then
delivered to newspapers and illustrated magazines. The latter, in their turn,
set public opinion to swallowing what is printed, so that a set configuration
of opinion becomes available on demand.
Enframing
• Since man drives technology forward, he takes part in ordering as a
way of revealing.
• In this way, we are challenged by modern technology to approach
nature “as an object of research” to reveal or “order the real as
standing reserve”.
• Enframing is the essence of modern technology.
Enframing
Man stands so decisively in attendance on the challenging-forth of
Enframing that he does not apprehend Enframing as a claim, that he fails
to see himself as the one spoken to, and hence also fails in every way to
hear in what respect he ek-sists, from out of his essence, in the realm of an
exhortation or address, and thus can never encounter only himself.
Enframing
But enframing does not simply endanger man in his relationship to himself
and to everything that is. As a destining, it banishes man into the kind of
revealing that is an ordering. Where this ordering holds sway, it drives out
every other possibility of revealing. Above all, enframing conceals that
revealing which, in the sense of poiésis, lets what presences come forth into
appearance.
• Heidegger believes that technology’s essence contains both the
danger (enframing) and its saving power. How is this so?
• Enframing is not the essence of technology in the sense of a genus,
“enframing is a way of revealing having the character of destining,
namely, the way that challenges forth.”
• Enframing blocks poiésis.
• What is the saving power “that let’s man see and enter into the highest
dignity of his essence”?
• The answer is to recall that enframing need not only challenge forth
but can also bring forth the revealing of nature.”
• The essential unfolding of technology harbors in itself what we least
suspect, the possible rise of the saving power.”
• Heidegger concludes that technology once shared the root techné with
a broader practice of poiésis.
• Technology (techné) brought forth and revealed that which was true
and beautiful through the poetics of the fine arts.
• It is in the realm of the arts, therefore, that we can practice the
questioning of technology in the hope of revealing the truth, which
modern technology habitually conceals through the order it imposes on
the world.
Summary
• The poetic roots of technology have been obscured by mechanisation
that has compelled us to harness nature’s energy into an accumulated
homogeneous reserve that conceals the true nature of things.
• In this world, humans too, have become resources, slaves to a process
that constructs an appearance of truth rather than a revelation of the
real.
• The solution is to question and confront technology through its forgotten
roots in the arts.
Activity |The Human Person in the Face of Modern Technology
Choose and present an artwork that helps reveal who the human person
is in the face of modern technology.
Criteria:
• Beauty and message of artwork……………………..50%
• Philosophizing, weaving together the
elements of Heidegger’s thought……………..................50%
Activity |The Human Person in the Face of Modern Technology
Human Flourishing
Introduction
EUDAIMONIA
• literally “good spirited”
• coined by Aristotle (385-323 BC)
• describes the pinnacle of happiness
• Nicomachean Ethics: Human flourishing
arises as a result of different components
– phronesis, friendship, wealth, and power
• acquiring these qualities will surely bring
seekers happiness
Conceptions of Human Flourishing
• Ancient Greek society: aims for eudaimonia as the ultimate good
• Eastern vs Western civilization
• Western: focused on the individual – human flourishing as an end is a
primary concern
• Eastern: more community-centric – community takes the highest regard
• Chinese Confucian system & Japanese Bushido – view the whole as
greater than their components
• encourages studies of literature, sciences, and art, not entirely for oneself but
in service of a greater cause
• Today: humans are expected to become a “man of the world”
Science, Technology, and Human Flourishing
• Human flourishing is deeply intertwined with the goal setting relevant
to science and technology.
• The latter is relevant as a tool in achieving the former
• Heidegger: Technology is a human activity that we excel in as a result
of achieving science.
• The end goals of both science and technology and human flourishing
are related, in that the good is inherently related to the truth.
Science as Method and Results
• Science’s reputation stems from the objectivity brought upon by an
arbitrary, rigid methodology whose very character absolves it from
any accusation of prejudice.
• Throughout the course of history, however, there exists heavy objections
on the scientific procedure.
Verification Theory
• earliest criterion that distinguishes philosophy and science
• proposes that a discipline is science if it can be confirmed or
interpreted in the event of an alternative hypothesis being accepted.
• only takes into account those results which are measurable and
experiments which are repeatable.
Verification Theory
• espoused by a movement in early 20th century (Vienna Circle)
• only those which can be observed should be regarded as meaningful
and reject those which cannot be directly accessed as meaningless.
Verification Theory
Disadvantages
• Several budding theories that lack empirical results might be shot down
prematurely, causing slower innovation and punishing ingenuity of
newer, novel thoughts.
• The theory fails to weed out bogus arguments that explain things
coincidentally.
• Example: astrology
Thomas Kuhn warned against bridging the gap between evidence and
theory by attempting to interpret the former according to our own
biases.
Example:
Suppose for instance, this girl, _____ has a (not-so) scientific theory that
her classmate _____ likes her.
Falsification Theory
• perhaps the current prevalent methodology in science
• asserts that as long as an ideology is not proven to be false and can
best explain a phenomenon over alternative theories, we should accept
the said ideology
• encourages research in order to determine which among the theories
can stand the test of falsification
Karl Popper
• notorious for stating that up-and-coming
theories of the time, such as Marx’s Theory of
Social History and Sigmund Freud’s
Psychoanalysis, are not testable and thus not
falsifiable.
Example:
________ is generally everybody’s friend. He likes to be around people
and generally aspires to become everybody’s friend. However, there is
this one girl, _______, who seemed to not like him when he is around.
Science as a Social Endeavor
• New school of thought on the proper demarcation criterion of science
• Perpetuates a dimension which generally benefits the society
• Example: South American tribes do not regard Western science as their science
• A manifestation of shared experience forging solidarity over
communities
Science and Results
• For the most part, people who do not understand science are won over
when the discipline is able to produce results.
• However, science is not the only discipline which is able to produce
results – religion, luck, and human randomness.
• Science is not entirely foolproof; it does not monopolize the claim for
definite results.
• Example: weather reports – inability to predict disasters
Science as Education
• There still exists a repressing concept that comes about as a result of
unjustified irreverence of science – the preference of science-inclined
students over those which are less adept.
• Example: entrance exams, STEM
• This kind of academic environment has made students unwelcoming of
objections against science.
Science as Education
• Aristotle’s eudaimonic person is required to be knowledgeable about
science, among other things of equal importance.
• A true eudaimon recognizes that flourishing requires one to excel in
various dimensions, such as linguistic, kinetic, artistic, and socio-civic.
How Much is Too Much?
• In 2000, world leader signed the Millennium Development Goals
(MDG) that targets eight concerns, including the ability to forge a
global partnership for development.
• Growth is a primary indicator of development
• Technology has been a primary instrument to pursue the said goal,
utilizing resources, machineries, and labor.
• Growth presents an illusory notion of sustainability – the world’s
resources can only provide so much, it cannot be expected to stretch
out for everybody’s consumption over a long period of time.
Assignment (pair)
• Read Jason Hickel’s article (Forget 'Developing' Poor Countries, It's Time
to 'De-develop' Rich Countries).
• Prepare a one-page essay discussing human flourishing vis-à-vis the
progress of science and technology.
Email at jtnarag1@up.edu.ph
Subject: [SURNAMES_SCTC1013_CODE]
Deadline: October 7, 2019 (11:59 PM)
The Good Life
Objectives
At the end of this lesson, you should be able to:
1. examine what is meant by a good life;
2. identify how humans attempt to attain what is
deemed to be a good life; and
3. recognize possibilities available to human being to
attain the good life.
Introduction
• Greek philosophers had a very different concept of
what is happiness than our modern viewpoint.
• Today, happiness is portrayed as a state of mind at any
given moment, more or less a subjective mindset.
• Aristotle and Plato equated happiness with a more
objective mindset – not merely as a transient state of mind.
• Happiness is a result of human flourishing.
Introduction
• In Ancient Greece, the need to understand
the world and reality was bound with the
need to understand the self and the good
life.
• Plato: In an attempt to understand
reality and the external world, man
must seek to understand himself, too.
Introduction
• Aristotle: gave a definitive distinction
between the theoretical and practical
sciences.
• Theoretical disciplines: logic, biology, physics,
and metaphysics, among others.
• Practical disciplines: ethics and politics.
• Every attempt to know is connected in some
way in an attempt to find the "good" or the
attainment of human flourishing.
The Good Life | Plato
• Plato was convinced that reality is full of seemingly
contrasting manifestations of change and permanence.
• This can only be explained by postulating two aspects of
reality:
• World of matter – things are changing and impermanent.
• World of forms – the entities are only copies of the ideal and
the models, and the Forms are the only real entities.
• Plato also claims that despite the reality of change, things
remain and they retain their ultimate "whatness“.
The Good Life | Aristotle
• Aristotle forwarded the idea that there is no reality
over and above what the senses can perceive.
• It is only by observation of the external world that one
can truly understand what reality is all about.
• Change is a process that is inherent in things. We, along
with all other entities in the world start as potentialities
and move toward actualities. The movement, of course
entails change.
• Aristotle extends this analysis from the external world
into the province of the human person and declares
that even human beings are potentialities who aspire
for their actuality.
• Every human being moves according to some end.
• Every action that emanates from a human person is a
function of the purpose (telos) that the person has.
• Every human person aspires for an end. This end, is
happiness or human flourishing.
• Aristotle claims that happiness is be all and end all of
everything that we do. We may not realize it but the
end goal of everything that we do is happiness.
Happiness as the Goal of Life
• In the 18th century, John Stuart Mill declared the Greatest
Happiness Principle
• an action is right as far as it maximizes the attainment of
happiness for the greatest number of people.
• The individual happiness of each individual should be prioritized
and collectively dictates the kind of action that should be
endorsed.
• When an action benefits the greatest number of people, said
action is deemed ethical.
• The ethical is, of course, meant to lead us to the good and happy
life.
Materialism
Democritus and Leucippus
• the world is made up of and is controlled by the tiny
indivisible units in the world called atomos or seeds.
• the world, including human beings, is made up of matter.
• Atomos simply comes together randomly to form the things in
the world. As such, only material entities matter.
• In terms of human flourishing, matter is what makes us attain
happiness.
Hedonism
• Hedonists see the end goal of life in acquiring
pleasure.
• For them, life is about obtaining and indulging in
pleasure because life is limited.
• The mantra of this school of thought is the famous,
"Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die."
• Led by Epicurus, this school of thought also does not
buy any notion of afterlife just like the materialists.
Stoicism
• Another school of thought led by Epicurus
• The stoics espoused the idea that to generate happiness,
one must learn to distance oneself and be apathetic.
• apatheia, precisely means to be indifferent.
• For the stoics, happiness can only be attained by a careful
practice of apathy.
• We should adopt the fact that some things are not within our
control. The sooner we realize this, the happier we can
become.
Theism
• Most people find the meaning of their lives using God as a
fulcrum of their existence.
• Example: Catholics base their life goals on beliefs that
hinged on some form of supernatural reality called heaven.
• The ultimate basis of happiness for theists is the communion
with God.
• The world where we are is only just a temporary reality
where we have to maneuver around while waiting for the
ultimate return to the hands of God.
Humanism
• Humanism espouses the freedom of man to carve his
own destiny and to legislate his own laws, free from the
shackles of a God that monitors and controls.
• Man is literally the “captain of his own ship”.
• Inspired by the enlightenment in 17th century, humanists
see themselves not merely as stewards of the creation
but as individuals who are in control of themselves and
the world outside them.
Humanism
• As a result of the motivation of the humanist current,
scientists eventually turned to technology in order to
ease the difficulty of life.
• Scientists of today meanwhile are ready to confront
more sophisticated attempts at altering the world for
the benefit of humanity.
• Some people now are willing to tamper with time and
space in the name of technology.
Humanism
• Whether or not we agree with these technological
advancements, these are all undertaken in the hopes of
attaining the good life. The balance, however, between
the good life, ethics, and technology has to be
attained.
When Technology and
Humanity Cross
Objective
• discuss the effects of the interplay between technology
(specifically robotics) and humanity through the dilemma(s)
they face.
Robotics and Humanity
The International Federation of Robotics (IFR) and United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) made it
their task to formulate a working definition for service
robots.
A robot is an actuated mechanism programmable in two or
more axes with a degree of autonomy1, moving within
environment, to perform intended tasks.
1. Autonomy – the ability to perform intended tasks based on current state and
sensing without human intervention.
A service robot is a robot that
performs useful tasks for humans or
equipment excluding industrial
automation application.
Note: A robot may be classified according to its
intended application as an industrial robot or a
service robot.
A personal service robot or a service robot for personal use is
a service robot used for a noncommercial task, usually by
laypersons.
Examples are domestic servant robot, automated wheelchair,
personal mobility assist robot, and pet exercising robot.
A professional service robot or a
service robot for professional use is a
service robot used for a commercial
task, usually operated by a properly
trained operator 1.
Examples are cleaning robot for public places,
delivery robot in offices or hospitals, fire-
fighting robot, rehabilitation robot, and surgery
robot in hospitals
1. Operator – a person designated to start, monitor, and
stop the intended operation of a robot or a robot system.
Roles Played by Robotics
• Robots play different roles not only in the lives of the
people but also in the society as a whole.
• They are primarily used to ease the workload of mankind
and were invented to make life more efficient and less
stressful.
• Just like people living in the society,
robots also have their own set of rules
and characteristics that define what a
good robot is.
• These laws were formulated by Isaac
Asimov back in the 1940s, when he
was thinking of the ethical
consequences of robots.
LAW ONE
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow
a human being to come to harm.
LAW TWO
A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except
where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
LAW THREE
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection
does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Ethical Dilemma/s Faced by Robotics
SAFETY
Who should be held accountable if someone’s safety is
compromised by a robot? Who should be blamed, the
robot, the agent using the robot, or the maker/inventor of
the robot?
EMOTIONAL COMPONENT
[...] looking at how fast technology progresses nowadays, it
is not completely impossible for robots to develop emotions
(Evans, 2007).
What if robots become sentient? Should they be granted
robot rights? Should they have their own set of rights to be
upheld, respected, and protected by humans?
In the field of robotics, there are the so-called partial
autonomy and full autonomy.
• Partial autonomy includes active human-robot interaction
• Full autonomy excludes active human-robot interaction;
can perform actions or activities even without a master
telling it what should be done or what should be
performed next (IFR, 2012).
Using Asimov's laws for robots, it can be concluded that
robots are ethical but only if they strictly follow the laws
specified. They are ethical mostly because the laws
formulated by Asimov ensure the safety of not only the
users of the technology but also the people around him.
Activity | Group Skit
Show the role played by a technological advancement, as
well as its ethical dilemma(s), in the lives of people.
1. Robots that are capable of having emotions
2. Google and stupidity
3. Filipinos’ addiction to mobile games
4. Waze application
UNIVERSITY OF SAINT LOUIS
Tuguegarao City
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, ARTS and SCIENCES

Second Semester
A.Y. 2020-2021
CORRESPONDENCE LEARNING MODULE

SCTS 1013 – Science, Technology and Society
Prepared by:
MARVIN B. BACCAY, MST

NICKSON B. CAMMAYO
MARLY I. CANAPI Ph.D.
ANGELOU D. CAOLE
MILVIN RAY T. CARAG
WILSON LACAMBRA
Course Instructors
Reviewed by:
RENZ MARION C. GAVINO, MP

General Education Area Head
Recommended by:
VENUS I. GUYOS, Ph.D.

Academic Dean
Approved by:
EMMANUEL JAMES P. PATTAGUAN, Ph.D.

Vice President for Academics
SCTS 1013 - Science, Technology and Society Module 5 | 1

UNIVERSITY PRAYER
O God, wellspring of goodness and blessings, we give you thanks and praise as one Louisian community. The
graces You incessantly grant upon us and Your divine providence have sustained our beloved University
throughout the years of mission and excellence.
Having been founded by the Congregation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, we pray that You keep us committed
and dedicated to our mission and identity to serve the Church and the society as we become living witnesses to the
Gospel values proclaimed by Jesus. For if we are steadfast in our good and beautiful mission, our works will bring
success not only to ourselves but also to those whom we are bound to love and serve.
Inspired by St. Louis our Patron Saint, who was filled with a noble spirit that stirred him to love You above all things,
may we also live believing that we are born for a greater purpose and mission as we dwell in Your presence all the
days of our life.
Grant all these supplications through the intercession of

Mother Mary and through Christ our Lord. Amen.

SCTS 1013: Science, Technology and Society
AY 2020-2021
LESSON 6: Good Life

Topic: A. The Human Flourishing in Progress and De-development
B. The Good Life
Learning Outcomes: At the end of this module, you are expected to:
1. Explain de-development as a progress and development framework;

2. Differentiate between traditional frameworks of progress and development and Hickel’s concept of
de-development;
3. Define the idea of good life;
4. Identify how humans attempt to attain what is deemed to be a good life; and
5. Recognize possibilities available to human being to attain the good life.
Date Topics Activities or Tasks

March 29-30 The Human Person Flourishing in Read Lessons
March 31 Progress and De-development Complete Participation Sheet
April 5-6 Read Lessons
The Good Life
April 7-8 Complete Learning Task Sheet
April 9 Araw ng Kagitingan
LEARNING CONTENT
Introduction:
In Ancient Greece, long before the word “science” has been coined, the need to understand the world
and reality was bound with the need to understand the self and the good life. For Plato, the task of
understanding the things in the world runs parallel with the job of truly getting into what will make the soul
flourish. In an attempt to understand reality and the external world, man must seek to understand himself, too.
It was Aristotle who gave a definitive distinction between the theoretical and practical sciences . Among the
theoretical disciplines, Aristotle included logic, biology, physics, and metaphysics, among others. Among the
practical ones, Aristotle counted ethics and politics. Whereas “truth” is the aim of the theoretical sciences, the
“good” or as said in the previous lesson, the attainment of human flourishing. Rightly so, one must find the
truth about what the good is before one can even try to locate that which is good.
In the previous lesson, we have seen how a misplaced or an erroneous idea of human flourishing can
turn tables for all of us, make the sciences work against us rather than for us, and draw a chasm between the
search for truth and for the good. In this lesson, we endeavor to go back a little and answer these questions:
What does it really mean to live a good life? What qualifies as a good existence? Granting this understanding,
we are assumed to be in a better position to reconcile our deepest existential needs as human beings and
science as tool to maneuver around the world.
Therefore, with our topics in this module, I expect you to become not just informed students, but to be
transformed students ready to seek knowledge and to do more wi th the knowledge that you have! That maybe

more challenging, especially with this pandemic we are experiencing, but with the right motivation, we can still
attain this goal. Let’s go!
Lesson Proper:
The Good Life
Before we proceed to the topic the good life, let us discuss the human flourishing in progress and de-
development for us to understand on how we will attain a good life despite the challenges we face in our
modern world, particularly science and technology.
A. The Human Flourishing in Progress and De-development
Despite efforts to close out the gap between the rich and poor countries, in 2015 a report stated that
the gap in growth and development just keeps on widening. Although there is no standard measure of
inequality, the report claimed that most indicators suggest widening of the growth gap slowed during the
financial crisis of 2007 but is now growing again. The increasing inequality appears paradoxical having in mind
the efforts that had been poured onto the development programs designed to assist poor countries to rise from
absent to slow progress.
With this backdrop and the context of unprecedented scientific and technological advancement and
economic development, humans must ask themselves whether they are indeed flourishing, individually or
collectively. If development efforts to close out the gap between the rich and poor countries have failed, is it
possible to confront the challenges of development through a nonconformist framework?
To better understand this topic, here is an article by Jason Hickel, an anthropologist at the London
School of Economics, criticizes the failure of growth and development efforts to eradicating poverty seven
decades ago. More importantly, he offers a nonconformist perspective toward growth and development.

Forget ‘developing’ poor countries, it’s time to develop rich countries
By Jason Hickel
This week, heads of state are gathering in New York to sign the UN’s new sustainable development goals
(SDGs). The main objective is to eradicate poverty by 2030. Beyoncé, One Direction and Malala are on board.
It’s set to be a monumental international celebration.
Given all the fanfare, one might think the SDGs are about to offer a fresh plan for how to save the world, but
beneath all the hype, it’s business as usual. The main strategy for eradicating poverty is the same: growth.
Growth has been the main object of development for the past 70 years, despite the fact that it’s not working.
Since 1980, the global economy has grown by 380%, but the number of people living in poverty on less than
$5 (£3.20) a day has increased by more than 1.1 billion. That’s 17 times the population of Britain. So much for
the trickle-down effect.
Orthodox economists insist that all we need is yet more growth. More progressive types tell us that we need to
shift some of the yields of growth from the richer segments of the population to the poorer ones, evening
things out a bit. Neither approach is adequate. Why? Because even at current levels of average global
consumption, we’re overshooting our planet’s bio-capacity by more than 50% each year.
In other words, growth isn’t an option any more – we’ve already grown too much. Scientists are now telling us
that we’re blowing past planetary boundaries at breakneck speed. And the hard truth is that this global crisis is
due almost entirely to overconsumption in rich countries.
Right now, our planet only has enough resources for each of us to consume 1.8 “global hectares” annually – a
standardized unit that measures resource use and waste. This figure is roughly what the average person in
Ghana or Guatemala consumes. By contrast, people in the US and Canada consume about 8 hectares per
person, while Europeans consume 4.7 hectares – many times their fair share.
What does this mean for our theory of development? Economist Peter Edward argues that instead of pushing
poorer countries to “catch up” with rich ones, we should be thinking of ways to get rich countries to “catch
down” to more appropriate levels of development. We should look at societies where people live long and
happy lives at relatively low levels of income and consumption not as basket cases that need to be developed
towards western models, but as exemplars of efficient living.
How much do we really need to live long and happy lives? In the US, life expectancy is 79 years and GDP per
capita is $53,000. But many countries have achieved similar life expectancy with a mere fraction of this
income. Cuba has a comparable life expectancy to the US and one of the highest literacy rates in the world
with GDP per capita of only $6,000 and consumption of only 1.9 hectares – right at the threshold of ecological
sustainability. Similar claims can be made of Peru, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Tunisia.
Yes, some of the excess income and consumption we see in the rich world yields improvements in quality of
life that are not captured by life expectancy, or even literacy rates. But even if we look at measures of overall
happiness and wellbeing in addition to life expectancy, a number of low- and middle-income countries rank
highly. Costa Rica manages to sustain one of the highest happiness indicators and life expectancies in the
world with a per capita income one-fourth that of the US.
In light of this, perhaps we should regard such countries not as underdeveloped, but rather as appropriately
developed. And maybe we need to start calling on rich countries to justify their excesses.
The idea of “de-developing” rich countries might prove to be a strong rallying cry in the global south, but it will
be tricky to sell to westerners. Tricky, but not impossible. According to recent consumer research, 70% of
people in middle- and high-income countries believe overconsumption is putting our planet and society at risk.
A similar majority also believe we should strive to buy and own less, and that doing so would not compromise
our happiness. People sense there is something wrong with the dominant model of economic progress and
they are hungry for an alternative narrative.
The problem is that the pundits promoting this kind of transition are using the wrong language. They use terms
such as de-growth, zero growth or – worst of all – de-development, which are technically accurate but off-
putting for anyone who’s not already on board. Such terms are repulsive because they run against the deepest
frames we use to think about human progress, and, indeed, the purpose of life itself. It’s like asking people to
stop moving positively thorough life, to stop learning, improving, growing.
Negative formulations won’t get us anywhere. The idea of “steady-state” economics is a step in the right
direction and is growing in popularity, but it still doesn’t get the framing right. We need to reorient ourselves
toward a positive future, a truer form of progress. One that is geared toward quality instead of quantity. One
that is more sophisticated than just accumulating ever increasing amounts of stuff, which doesn’t make
anyone happier anyway. What is certain is that GDP as a measure is not going to get us there and we need
to get rid of it.
Perhaps we might take a cue from Latin Americans, who are organizing alternative visions around the
indigenous concept of buen vivir, or good living. The west has its own tradition of reflection on the good
life and it’s time we revive it. Robert and Edward Skidelsky take us down this road in his book How Much is
Enough? where they lay out the possibility of interventions such as banning advertising, a shorter working
week and a basic income, all of which would improve our lives while reducing consumption.
Either we slow down voluntarily or climate change will do it for us. We can’t go on ignoring the laws of nature.
But rethinking our theory of progress is not only an ecological imperative, it is also a development one. If we
do not act soon, all our hard-won gains against poverty will evaporate, as food systems collapse and mass
famine re-emerges to an extent not seen since the 19th century.
This is not about giving anything up. And it’s certainly not about living a life of voluntary misery or imposing
harsh limits on human potential. On the contrary, it’s about reaching a higher level of understanding and
consciousness about what we’re doing here and why.
Source: Hickel, J. (2015, Sep 23). Forget ‘developing’ poor countries, it’s time to ‘de-develop’ rich countries.
The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/global-developmentprofessionals-
network/2015/sep/23/developing-poor-countries-de-developrich-countries-sdgs.

In order to ensure learning after you read the given article, answer the following questions in two to three
sentences. Proceed to the Participation Worksheet for your answers. (5 points each)
1. What does the de-development movement propose and impose to societies, especially the rich ones?
How can societies de-develop?
2. What is the difference between de-development and traditional development? What are the bases of de-
development and moving away from traditional development?
3. How do the terms de-growth and de-development bring negative interpretations to the movement? How
can you convince other people to follow the tenets of de-development?
4. How is ‘De-development’ similar to Heidegger’s views on the essence of Technology and Modern
Technology?
To enhance your learning, watch these films which pertain to human flourishing in progress and de-
development:
The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case Against Scientism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi5YJPWHQKo
Akiro Kurosawa’s Dreams “Village of the Watermills”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK4mtPQ_THM&t=98s
B. The Good Life
Are we living the good life? This question is inarguably one universal human concern. Everyone aims
to lead a good life. Yet, what constitutes a happy and contented life varies from person to person. Unique
backgrounds, experiences, social contexts, and even preferences make it difficult to subscribe to a unified
standard on which to tease out the meaning of ‘good life’. Thus, the prospect of a standard good life- one that
resonates across unique human experiences- is inviting.
Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics and the Good Life
To answer the question, “Are we living the good life?”, necessary reflection must be made on two
things: first, what standard could be used to define “the good life”? Second, how can the standard serve as a
guide toward living the good life in the midst of scientific progress and technological advancement?
In the documentary film, The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case Against Scientism, C.S. Lewis
posited that science must be guided by some ethical basis that is not indicated by science itself. One such
ethical basis is Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics.
Aristotle, who lived from 384 to 322 BC, is probably the most important ancient Greek philosopher and
scientist. He was a student of Plato, who was then a student of Socrates. Together, they were considered the
‘Big Three of Greek Philosophy’.
What is Nichomachean Ethics?
 It is the fundamental basis of Aristotelian ethics consisting of ten books.

 Originally, they were lecture notes written on scrolls when he taught at the Lyceum.
 It is widely believed that the lecture notes were compiled by or were dedicated to one of Aristotle ’s
sons, Nichomaus.
 Alternatively, it is believed that the work was dedicated to Aristotle’s father who was of the same
name.
 This book is abbreviated as NE or sometimes EN based on Latin version of the name, is a treatise on
the nature of moral life and human happiness based on the unique essence of human nature. The NE
is particularly useful in defining what the good life is.
Everyone has a definition of what good is- getting a college degree, traveling across the world,
succeeding in a business venture, pursuing a healthy and active lifestyle, or being a responsible parent.
However, although everyone aims to achieve that which is good, Aristotle posited two types of good. In NE
Book 2 Chapter 2, Aristotle explained that every action aims at some good. However, some actions aim at an
instrumental good while some aim at an intrinsic good. He made it clear that the ultimate good is better than
the instrumental good for the latter is good as a means to achieving something else or some other end while
the former is good in itself.
Remember the following terms:

Ultimate/Intrinsic Good- the value is itself (Example: Happiness)
Instrumental/Extrinsic- in order to know the value, an action is needed to reveal it (Example:
Money, Justice)
Eudaimonia: The Ultimate Good
What then is the ultimate good? Based on the contrast between the two types of good, one could reflect on
some potential candidates for the ultimate good. These are situations to better understand the ultimate good.
Is pleasure an ultimate good?

You might aim for pleasure in the food you eat or in the experiences you immerse yourselves into. Yet,
while pleasure is an important human need, it can’t be the ultimate good. Why? First, it is transitory- it
passes. You might have been pleased with the food you had for lunch, but you will be hungry again or will
want something else after a while. Second, pleasure does not encompass all aspects of life. You might be
pleased with an opportunity to travel but that may not make you feel good about leaving, say, your studies or
the pandemic we have been struggling now. So, is pleasure an ultimate good? It’s not.
Is wealth an ultimate good?
Others might think that wealth is a potential candidate for the ultimate good, but a critique of wealth
would prove otherwise. Indeed, many, if not most, aim to be financially stable, to be rich, or to be able to afford
a luxurious life. However, it is very common to hear people say that they aim to be wealthy insofar as it would
help them achieve some other goals. Elsewhere, it is also common to hear stories about people who have
become very wealthy but remain, by and large, unhappy with the lives they lea d. In this sense, wealth is just
an intermediate good- that is, only instrumental. It is not the ultimate good because it is not self-sufficient
and does not stop one from aiming for some other ‘greater’ good.
Is fame and honor an ultimate good?
Many people today seem motivated by a desire to be known- to be famous. Others strive for honor and
recognition. This is reflected by those people who use social media to acquire large virtual following on the
internet and wish to gain foothold on the benefits that fame brings. Many people act according to how they
think they will be admired and appreciated by other people. However, these cannot constitute the ultimate
good, simply because they are based on the perception of others. Fame and honor can never be good in
themselves. If one’s definition of the good life is being popular or respected, then the good life becomes
elusive since it is based on the subjective views of others.
Unlike pleasure, wealth, fame, and honor, happiness is the ultimate good. In Aristotelian sense, happiness is
“living well and doing well”. Among the Greeks, this is known as eudaimonia from the root words eu
meaning good and daimon meaning spirit. Combining the root words, eudaimonia means happiness or
welfare. More accurately, others translate it as human flourishing or prosperity. Aristotle proposed two
hallmarks of eudaimonia, namely virtue and excellence. Thus, happiness in the sense of eudaimonia has to
be distinguished from merely living good. Eudaimonia transcends all aspects of life for it is about living well in
whatever one does.
Eudaimonia: Uniquely Human?
Eudaimonia or happiness is unique to humans for it is a uniquely human function. It is achieved only
through a rationally directed life. Aristotle’s notion of a tripartite soul as summarized in the diagram below
nested hierarchy of the functions and activities of the soul. The degrees and functions of the soul are nested,
such that the one which has a higher degree of soul has all of the lower degrees. Thus, on the nutritive
degree, all living things for example plants, animals and humans require nourishment and have the ability to
reproduce. On the sensitive degree, only animals and humans have the ability to move and perceive.Finally,
on the rational degree, only humans are capable of theorethical and practical functions. Following this,
humans possess the nutritive, sensitive, and rational degrees of the soul. More importantly, only humans are
capable of a life guided by reason. Because this so, happiness too, is a uniquely human function for it can only
be achieved through a rationally directed life.
Aristotle’s Tripartite Soul
Arete and Human Happiness
Eudaimonia is what defines the good life. To live a good life is to live a happy life. For Aristotle, eudaimonia is
only possible by living a life of virtue.
What is Arete?
 It is a Greek term defined as “excellence of any kind” and can also mean “moral virtue”. A virtue is
what makes one function well. Aristotle suggested two types of virtue: intellectual virtue and moral
virtue.
Intellectual virtue- it is achieved through education, time, and experience. Key

intellectual virtues are wisdom, which guides ethical behavior, and
understanding, which is gained from scientific endeavors and contemplation.
Wisdom and understanding are achieved through formal and non-formal means.

Intellectual virtues are acquired through self-taught knowledge and skills as
much as those knowledge and skills taught and learned in formal institutions.
Moral Virtue- it is achieved through habitual practice. Some key moral virtues
are generosity, temperance, and courage. Aristotle explained that although the
capacity for intellectual virtue is innate, it is brought into completion by practice. It
is by repeatedly being unselfish that one develops the virtue of generosity. It is
by repeatedly resisting and foregoing every inviting opportunity that one
develops the virtue of temperance. It is by repeatedly exhibiting the proper
action and emotional response in the face of danger that one develops the virtue
of courage. By and large, moral virtue is like a skill. A skill is acquired only
through repeated practice. Everyone is capable of learning how to play the guitar
because everyone has an innate capacity for intellectual virtue, but not everyone
acquires it because only those who devote time and practice develop the skill of
playing the instrument.
 If one learns that eating too much fatty foods is bad for the health, he or she has to make it a habit to
stay away from this type of food because health contributes to living well and doing well.
 If one believes that too much use of social media is detrimental to human relationships and
productivity, he or she must regulate his or her use of social media and deliberately spend more time
with friends, family, and work than in virtual platform.
 If one understands the enormous damage to the environment that plastic materials bring, he or she
must repeatedly forego the next plastic item he or she could do away with. Good relationship dynamics
and a healthy environment contribute to one’s wellness, in how he or she lives and what he or she
does.
With the given three situations above, both intellectual virtue and moral virtue should be in accordance with
reason to achieve eudaimonia. Indifference with these virtues, for reasons that are only for one’s convenience,
pleasure, or satisfaction, leads humans away from eudaimonia.
What then is the good life?
Putting everything in perspective, the good life in the sense of eudaimonia is the state of being happy,
healthy, and prosperous in the way one thinks, lives, and acts. The path to the good life consists of the virtues
of thought and character, which are relative mediators between the two extremes of excess and deficiency. In
his way, the good life is understood as happiness brought a bout by living a virtuous life.
One could draw parallels between moving toward the good life and moving toward further progress and
development in science and technology. In appraising the goodness, the next medical procedure, the new
social media trend, the latest mobile device, or the upcoming technology for food safety, one must be guided
by Aristotelian virtues. Science and technology can be ruined by under-or-over-appreciation of the scope and
function it plays in the pursuit of the uniquely human experience of happiness. Refusing science and
technology altogether to improve human life is as problematic as allowing it to entirely dictate reason and
action without any regard for ethical and moral standards. By imposing on science and technology an ethica l
standard that is not dictated by itself, as C.S. Lewis proposed, not only will scientific advancement and
technological development flourish, but also the human person.

To enhance your learning, watch the documentary film entitled “That Sugar Film” (2015)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9gUjN9xELc
Happiness as the Goal of a Good Life
In 18th century, John Stuart Mill declared the Greatest Happiness Principle by saying that an action is
right as far as it maximizes the attainment of happiness for the greatest number of people. At a time when
people were skeptical about claims on metaphysical, people could not make sense of the human flourishing
that Aristotle talked about in the days of old. Mill said that individual happiness should be prioritized and
collectively dictates the kind of action that should be endorsed. Consider the pronouncements against mining.
When an action benefits the greatest number of people, said action is deemed ethical. Does mining benefit
than hurt the majority? Does it offer more benefits rather than disadvantages? Does mining result in more
people getting happy than sad? If the answers to the said questions are in the affirmative, then the said action,
mining, is deemed ethical.
Through the ages, man has constantly struggled with the external world in order to reach human
flourishing. History has given birth to different schools of thought which will be mentioned below, all of which
aim for the good and happy life.
1. Materialism
Do material things make you happy?
The first materialists were the atomists in Ancient Greece.

Democritus and Leucippus led a school whose primary belief is that the
world is made up of and is controlled by the tiny indivisible units in the
world called atomos or seeds. For Democritus and his disciples, the
world including human beings, is made up of matter. There is no need to
posit immaterial entities as sources of purpose. Atomos simply comes
together randomly to form the things in the world. As such, only material
entities matter. In terms of human flourishing, matter is what makes us
attain happiness. We see this at work with most people who are clinging
on to material wealth as the primary source of the meaning of their
existence.
2. Hedonism
Are you the type of a happy-go-lucky person?
The hedonists, for their part, see the end goal of life in
acquiring pleasure. Pleasure has always been the priority of
hedonists. For them, life is about obtaining and indulging in
pleasure because life is limited. The mantra of this school of
thought is the famous, “Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow
we die”. Led by Epicurus, this school of thought also does not
buy any notion of afterlife just like the materialists.
3. Stoicism

Have you encountered a certain point of your life that there are events which were surprisingly happened out
of your plans? It may be good or bad, Stoics discussed it as “not within our control” and acceptance is a key
for us to be happy.
Another school of thought led by Epicurus, the stoics espoused

the idea that to generate happiness, one must learn to distance oneself
and be apathetic. The original term, apatheia, precisely means to be
indifferent. For the stoics, happiness can only be attained by a careful
practice of apathy. We should, in this worldview, adopt the fact that
some things are not within our control. The sooner we realize this, the
happier we can become.
4. Theism
Amidst the pandemic we are facing right now, we Filipinos have a strong faith with God that this pandemic will
end very soon. With that belief, everything will be at ease by putting our trust unto Him.
Most people find their meaning of their lives using God as a

fulcrum of their existence. The Philippines, as a predominantly Catholic
country, is a witness to how people base their life goals and beliefs that
hinged on some form of supernatural reality called heaven. The ultimate
basis of happiness for theists is the communion with God. The world
where we are in is only just a temporary reality where we have to
maneuver around while waiting for the ultimate return to the hands of
God.
5. Humanism
We are the ones making our own destiny. The question is, are you happy with the life you have?
Humanism as another school of thought espouses the freedom of man to

carve his own destiny and legislate his own laws, free from the shackles of a God that
monitors and controls. Inspired by the enlightenment in 17th century, humanists see
themselves not merely as stewards of the creation but as individuals who are in
control of themselves and the world outside them. This is the spirit of most scientists
who thought that the world is a place and space for freely unearthing the world in
seeking for ways on how to improve the lives of its inhabitants.
Scientists of today meanwhile are ready to confront more sophisticated attempts at altering the world
for the benefit of humanity. Some people now are willing to tamper with time and space in the name of
technology. Social media, as an example, has been so far a very effective way of employing technology in
purging time and space. Not very long ago, communication between two people from two continents in the
planet will involve months of waiting for a mail to arrive. Seeing each other real time while talking was virtually
impossible. Now, communication between two people wherever they are, is not just possible but easy. The
internet and smart phones made real-time communication possible not just between two people, but even with
multiple people simultaneously.

Whether or not we agree with these technological advancements, these are all undertaken in the hopes
of attaining the good life. The balance, however, between the good life, ethics, and technology has to be
attained.
To better understand what is meant by good life with these school of thoughts, read the article provided below.
What is the Good life?

The various meanings of “living well”
By Emrys Westacott
What is “the good life”? This is one of the oldest philosophical questions. It has been posed in different ways—
How should one live? What does it mean to “live well”? —but these are really just the same question. After all,
everyone wants to live well, and no one wants “the bad life.”
But the question isn’t as simple as it sounds. Philosophers specialize in unpacking hidden complexities, and
the concept of the good life is one of those that needs quite a bit of unpacking.
The Moral Life
One basic way we use the word “good” is to express moral approval. So, when we say someone is living well
or that they have lived a good life, we may simply mean that they are a good person, someone who is
courageous, honest, trustworthy, kind, selfless, generous, helpful, loyal, principled, and so on.
They possess and practice many of the most important virtues. And they don’t spend all their time merely
pursuing their own pleasure; they devote a certain amount of time to activities that benefit others, perhaps
through their engagement with family and friends, or through their work, or through various voluntary activities.
This moral conception of the good life has had plenty of champions. Socrates and Plato both gave absolute
priority to being a virtuous person over all other supposedly good things such as pleasure, wealth, or power.
In Plato’s dialogue Gorgias, Socrates takes this position to an extreme. He argues that it is much better to
suffer wrong than to do it; that a good man who has his eyes gouged out and is tortured to death is more
fortunate than a corrupt person who has used wealth and power dishonorably.
In his masterpiece, the Republic, Plato develops this argument in greater detail. The morally good person, he
claims, enjoys a sort of inner harmony, whereas the wicked person, no matter how rich and powerful he may
be or how many pleasures he enjoys, is disharmonious, fundamentally at odds with himself and the world.
It is worth noting, though, that in both the Gorgias and the Republic, Plato bolsters his argument with a
speculative account of an afterlife in which virtuous people are rewarded and wicked people are punished.
Many religions also conceive of the good life in moral terms as a life lived according to God’s laws. A person
who lives this way—obeying the commandments and performing the proper rituals—is pious. And in most
religions, such piety will be rewarded. Obviously, many people do not receive their reward in this life.
But devout believers are confident that their piety will not be in vain. Christian martyrs went singing to their
deaths confident that they would soon be in heaven. Hindus expect that the law of karma will ensure that their
good deeds and intentions will be rewarded, while evil actions and desires will be punished, either in this life or
in future lives.

The Life of Pleasure
The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus was one of the first to declare, bluntly, that what makes life worth
living is that we can experience pleasure. Pleasure is enjoyable, it’s fun, it’s...well...pleasant! The view that
pleasure is the good, or, to put I another way, that pleasure is what makes life worth living, is known
as hedonism.
The word “hedonist,” when applied to a person, has slightly negative connotations. It suggests that they are
devoted to what some have called the “lower” pleasures such as sex, food, drink, and sensual indulgence in
general.
Epicurus was thought by some of his contemporaries to be advocating and practicing this sort of lifestyle, and
even today an “epicure” is someone who is especially appreciative of food and drink. But this is a
misrepresentation of Epicureanism. Epicurus certainly praised all kinds of pleasures. But he didn’t advocate
that we lose ourselves in sensual debauchery for various reasons:
 Doing so will probably reduce our pleasures in the long run since over-indulgence tends to cause
health problems and limit the range of pleasure we enjoy.
 The so-called “higher” pleasures such as friendship and study are at least as important as “pleasures of
the flesh."
 The good life has to be virtuous. Although Epicurus disagreed with Plato about the value of pleasure,
he fully agreed with him on this point.
Today, this hedonistic conception of the good life is arguably dominant in Western culture. Even in everyday
speech, if we say someone is “living the good life,” we probably mean that they enjoying lots of recreational
pleasures: good food, good wine, skiing, scuba diving, lounging by the pool in the sun with a cocktail and a
beautiful partner.
What is key to this hedonistic conception of the good life is that it emphasizes subjective experiences. On this
view, to describe a person as “happy” means that they “feel good,” and a happy life is one that contains many
“feel good” experiences.
The Fulfilled Life
If Socrates emphasizes virtue and Epicurus emphasizes pleasure, another great Greek thinker, Aristotle, views
the good life in a more comprehensive way. According to Aristotle, we all want to be happy.
We value many things because they are a means to other things. For instance, we value money because it
enables us to buy things we want; we value leisure because it gives us time to pursue our interests. But
happiness is something we value not as a means to some other end but for its own sake. It has intrinsic value
rather than instrumental value.
So for Aristotle, the good life is a happy life. But what does that mean? Today, many people automatically
think of happiness in subjectivist terms: To them, a person is happy if they are enjoying a positive state of
mind, and their life is happy if this is true for them most of the time.
There is a problem with this way of thinking about happiness in this way, though. Imagine a powerful sadist
who spends much of his time gratifying cruel desires. Or imagine a pot-smoking, beer-guzzling couch potato
who does nothing but sit around all day watching old TV shows and playing video games. These people may
have plenty of pleasurable subjective experiences. But should we really describe them as “living well”?

Aristotle would certainly say no. He agrees with Socrates that to live the good life one must be a morally good
person. And he agrees with Epicurus that a happy life will involve many and varied pleasurable experiences.
We can’t really say someone is living the good life if they are often miserable or constantly suffering.
But Aristotle’s idea of what it means to live well is objectivist rather than subjectivist. It isn’t just a matter of how
a person feels inside, although that does matter. It’s also important that certain objective conditions be
satisfied.
For instance:
 Virtue: They must be morally virtuous.

 Health: They should enjoy good health and reasonably long life.
 Prosperity: They should be comfortably off (for Aristotle this meant affluent enough so that they don’t
need to work for a living doing something that they would not freely choose to do.)
 Friendship: They must have good friends. According to Aristotle human beings are innately social; so
the good life can’t be that of a hermit, a recluse, or a misanthrope.
 Respect: They should enjoy the respect of others. Aristotle doesn’t think that fame or glory is
necessary; in fact, a craving for fame can lead people astray, just as the desire for excessive wealth
can. But ideally, a person’s qualities and achievements will be recognized by others.
 Luck: They need good luck. This is an example of Aristotle’s common sense. Any life can be rendered
unhappy by tragic loss or misfortune.
 Engagement: They must exercise their uniquely human abilities and capacities. This is why the couch
potato is not living well, even if they report that they are content. Aristotle argues that what separates
human beings from the other animals is the human reason. So, the good life is one in which a person
cultivates and exercises their rational faculties by, for instance, engaging in scientific inquiry,
philosophical discussion, artistic creation, or legislation. Was he alive today he might well include some
forms of technological innovation?
If at the end of your life you can check all these boxes then you could reasonably claim to have lived well, to
have achieved the good life. Of course, the great majority of people today do not belong to the leisure class as
Aristotle did. They have to work for a living.
But it’s still true that we think the ideal circumstance is to be doing for a living what you would choose to do
anyway. So, people who are able to pursue their calling are generally regarded as extremely fortunate.
The Meaningful Life
Recent research shows that people who have children are not necessarily happier than people who don’t have
children. Indeed, during the child-raising years, and especially when children have turned into teenagers,
parents typically have lower levels of happiness and higher levels of stress. But even though having children
may not make people happier, it does seem to give them the sense that their lives are more meaningful.
For many people, the well-being of their family, especially their children and grandchildren, is the main source
of meaning in life. This outlook goes back a very long way. In ancient times, the definition of good fortune was
to have lots of children who do well for themselves.
But obviously, there can be other sources of meaning in a person’s life. They may, for instance, pursue a
particular kind of work with great dedication: e.g. scientific research, artistic creation, or scholarship. They may
devote themselves to a cause: e.g. fighting against racism or protecting the environment. Or they may be
thoroughly immersed in and engaged with some particular community: e.g. a church, a soccer team, or a
school.

The Finished Life
The Greeks had a saying: Call no man happy until he’s dead. There is wisdom in this. In fact, one might want
to amend it to: Call no man happy until he’s long dead. For sometimes a person can appear to live a fine life,
and be able to check all the boxes—virtue, prosperity, friendship, respect, meaning, etc.—yet eventually be
revealed as something other than what we thought they were.
A good example of this Jimmy Saville, the British TV personality who was much admired in his lifetime but
who, after he died, was exposed as a serial sexual predator.
Cases like this bring out the great advantage of an objectivist rather than a subjectivist notion of what it means
to live well. Jimmy Saville may have enjoyed his life. But surely, we would not want to say that he lived the
good life. A truly good life is one that is both enviable and admirable in all or most of the ways outlined above.
Source: Westacott, E. (2018). What is the good life? Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-the-
good-life-4038226
*** END of the Lesson Proper***
REFERENCES
Textbooks
Aldea, K, Caronan H.P, and Candido, M.B. (2018). Science, Technology and Society (OBE Ready).
Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Book Atbp. Publishing Corp.
Serafica, J.P., Pawilen, G., Caslib Jr., B.N., and Alata, E.J. (2018). Science, Technology and Society. Quezon
City, Philippines: Rex Book Store, Inc. (RBSI)
Quinto, E.J. and Nieva, A. (2019). Science, Technology and Society. Quezon City, Philippines: C & E
Publishing, Inc.
Online
Hickel, J. (2015, Sep 23). Forget ‘developing’ poor countries, it’s time to ‘de-develop’ rich countries. The
Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/global-developmentprofessionals-
network/2015/sep/23/developing-poor-countries-de-developrich-countries-sdgs
Westacott, E. (2018). What is the good life? Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-the-good-life-

4038226
Learning Materials
Worksheets (teacher-made)
The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case Against Scientism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi5YJPWHQKo

Akiro Kurosawa’s Dreams “Village of the Watermills”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK4mtPQ_THM&t=98s
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCES

General Education Area
2nd SEMESTER S.Y 2020-2021
Name: _________________________________________ Code: ____________________

Yr. & Course: ___________________________________
Instructor: ______________________________________
Participation
After reading the article Forget ‘developing’ poor countries, it’s time to ‘de-develop’ rich countries,
answer the questions you have found in the learning content of this module. Answers must only be 3-5
sentences. (5 points each)
1. -
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________ ________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
2. -
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
3. -
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
4. -
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________

LEARNING TASK (WEEK 10)
PERSONAL CONSUMPTION AUDIT. (20 points) People believe that the more they are able to
purchase things and avail services, the more ‘developed’ and ‘progressive’ are lives they lead. Yet, Hickel
made it clear in his article that huge consumption does not necessarily equate to long and happy lives .
Reflecting on philosophical views such as Materialism and Hedonism, in a world dominated by modern
technology and superficial happiness, what affects our true self and happiness? In this sense, is it possible for
people to also de-develop their consumption, but still remain happy and contented?
Accomplish the personal consumption audit table below and on the next page and see what things you
can reduce or minimize without sacrificing, or even improving, the quality of your daily live. For your guidance,
the first row has been provided as an example.
Criteria (5 points/row)
Content 4 points
Grammar/Spelling 1 point
My Personal Consumption Audit

Product/ Average No. of Impact of this ‘de-developing’ on my everyday living
Service/Facility quantity/time hours/day I’ll
used, reduce/do
consumed away with
Ex. Milk tea 5 large 1 large Aside from the reduction of plastic cups used which will
cups/week cup/week have an impact to the environment, less consumption of

sugar will lessen my risk of having Diabetes Miletus and
cardiac diseases. This can also help me save money.
1.
2.
3.
4.

UNIVERSITY OF SAINT LOUIS
Tuguegarao City
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, ARTS and SCIENCES

Second Semester
A.Y. 2020-2021

SCTS 1013 – Science, Technology and Society
Prepared by:
MARVIN B. BACCAY, MST

NICKSON B. CAMMAYO
MARLY I. CANAPI Ph.D.
ANGELOU D. CAOLE
MILVIN RAY T. CARAG
WILSON LACAMBRA
Course Instructors
Reviewed by:
RENZ MARION C. GAVINO, MP

General Education Area Head
Recommended by:
VENUS I. GUYOS, Ph.D.

Academic Dean
Approved by:
EMMANUEL JAMES P. PATTAGUAN, Ph.D.

Vice President for Academics

UNIVERSITY PRAYER
O God, wellspring of goodness and blessings, we give you thanks and praise as one Louisian community. The
graces You incessantly grant upon us and Your divine providence have sustained our beloved University
throughout the years of mission and excellence.
Having been founded by the Congregation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, we pray that You keep us committed
and dedicated to our mission and identity to serve the Church and the society as we become living witnesses to the
Gospel values proclaimed by Jesus. For if we are steadfast in our good and beautiful mission, our works will bring
success not only to ourselves but also to those whom we are bound to love and serve.
Inspired by St. Louis our Patron Saint, who was filled with a noble spirit that stirred him to love You above all things,
may we also live believing that we are born for a greater purpose and mission as we dwell in Your presence all the
days of our life.
Grant all these supplications through the intercession of

Mother Mary and through Christ our Lord. Amen.

AY 2020-2021
LESSON 6: Humanity and Technology

Topic: A. When Technology and Humanity Cross
B. Why the Future Does Not Need Us?
Learning Outcomes: At the end of this module, you are expected to:
1. Enumerate various technological advancements in society;

2. Discuss the development of science and technology in the Philippines;
3. Discuss the effects of the interplay between technology and humanity through the dilemma(s) they
face;
4. Identify William Nelson Joy’s arguments as to why the future does not need us; and
5. Evaluate contemporary human experiences with science and technology;
Date Topics Activities or Tasks

April 12-13 When Technology and Humanity Cross Read Lessons
April 14-15 Complete Participation Task Sheet
April 16 & 19 Why the Future Does not Need Us? Read Lessons
April 20-22 Complete Quiz and Learning Task Worksheet
Turning over of learning task and acquisition
April 23
of new module
LEARNING CONTENT
Introduction:
Technology keeps on progressing due to the changing times and environment and also to the ever -
progressing mind of mankind. It would not be possible for all these technological advancements to exist if it
were not for the brilliance, creativeness, and power of the mind. However, it is also important to note that
anything too much is bad. The same problem is faced by technology. Although it has been very helpful to
people, it is still not immune to criticisms and backlash. Various ethical dilemmas have been identified
throughout time involving the use of different technological devices and its effects to humanity. Usually,
different problems arise when either the technological device available is misused or if it was invented to
produce bad results. People who are aware of the possible dangers of the use and misuse of technology are
not keeping still. They lay these dilemmas for the public to see and realize what they are in for.
In this module, several technological devices will be introduced, the roles they play in society and their
effects, particularly on the lives of people.
Therefore, I expect you to become not just informed students, but to be transformed students ready to
seek knowledge and to do more with the knowledge that you have! That maybe more challenging, especially
with this pandemic we are experiencing, but with the right motivation, we can still attain this goal. Let’s go!

Lesson Proper:
WHEN TECHNOLOGY AND HUMANITY CROSS
The worry begins when we question ourselves that what if we will be replaced by robots 10 years from
now? Where does humanity stand in the face of these technological advancements?
The roles played by technology these days are very crucial not only to a few but also to everyone. In
one way or another, each person in the society is directly or indirectly affected by technology whether he wills
it or not. In fact, most people survive their everyday lives with great reliance to the different technological
advancements already available to the masses. While there may be some who would claim that their lives are
not greatly affected by technology, the fact cannot be denied that technology is already an inevitable part of
the society.
It is with great effort that people were able to achieve such great inventions. It makes life so much
easier and more convenient than ever before. It can clearly be seen from the simplest task at home to the
most complicated ones inside the office or laboratory. Technology these days enjoys such fame and glory
because of the many different benefits it brings to mankind. Some would even say that it does not only bring
convenience but also pleasure and happiness to people. This is because of the different leisure activities that
technology can offer to people. For example, it allows people to listen to good music wherever they are.
Another is, it allows them to communicate with their loved ones anywhere in the world; but most of all, it allows
them to surf and play games anytime, anywhere.
The act of pinpointing a single activity that does not in any way require the use of technology has
become very hard because almost all activities that humans perform already require the assistance of some
kind of technological advancement. But this is not all, for there are people who would even argue that
technology has become a necessity and no longer a want. At present, people work very hard in order to save
money to buy these necessities while in the past, people only used their money for the things that would help
them survive like food, housing, and clothing. In effect, anything outside these categories was considered a
luxury. However, that is no longer the case at present.
In general, technology keeps on progressing due to not only the changing times and environment but
also to the ever-progressing mind of mankind. It would not be possible for all these technological
advancements to exist if it were not for the brilliance, creativeness, and power of the mind. However, it is also
important to note that anything too much is bad. The same problem is faced by technology. Although it has
been very helpful to people, it is still not immune to criticisms and backlash. Various ethical dilemmas have
been identified throughout time involving the use of different technological devices and its effects to humanity.
Usually, different problems arise when either the technological device available is misused or if in the first

place, it was invented to produce bad results. People who are aware of the possible dangers of the use or
misuse of technology are not keeping still. They lay these dilemmas for the public to see and realize what they
are in for.
There are lots of technological advancements that are available in our modern world today and in this
module, we mainly focus on the three most commonly used (Television, Mobile Phone, and
Computers/Laptops)
Television
 According to Kantar Media, one of the most trusted television audience measurement
providers, in the Philippines, 92 percent of urban homes and 70 percent or rural homes own at
least one television set that’s why television remains to be the ultimate medium for
advertisement placements.
 Filipinos have a big fascination with televisions because according to Kantar Media, the current
count of households with television set already reached 15.135 million and counting.
How were televisions invented?
 Paul Gottlieb Nipkow, a German Student, in the late 1800s was successful in his attempt to
send images through wires with the aid of a rotating metal disk. This invention was then called
the “electric telescope” that had 18 lines of resolution.
Paul Gottlieb Nipkow Electric Telescope

 In 1907, two inventors Alan Archibald Campbell-Swinton (left) who was an English scientist
and Boris Rosing (right) who was a Russian scientist, created a new system of television by
using the cathode ray tube in addition to mechanical scanner system.
Cathode ray tube with mechanical

scanner system
This success story gave rise to two types of television systems, namely, mechanical and electronic
television. These experiments inspired other scientists to improve the previous inventions, which led to
the modern television we have today. However, it is important to remember that several scientists and
several experiments were performed first before finally achieving the modern television at present.
Mobile Phones
 We Filipinos love to use our mobile phones anywhere, anytime. We use it for different purposes other
than communication. More than half of the Filipino population own at least one mobile phone
regardless of type.
 In 2010, global research agency Synovate conducted a survey and declared 67 percent product
ownership in the country. In fact, it was also claimed that mobile phones are considered a must-have
among young Filipinos.
 Ipsos Media Atlas Philippines Nationwide Urban 2011-2012 survey regarding the love of Filipino
people in using their mobile phones resulted that one in every three Filipinos cannot live without a
mobile phone. In other words, 30% of the Philippine urban population nationwide said that mobile
phones are necessities in life.
 Philippine streets are full of people using their mobile phones. Not only this, there are some Filipinos
who even own more than one mobile phone.
Brief Background of Mobile Phones
 On April 3, 1973, Martin Cooper, a senior engineer at Motorola, made the world’s first mobile
phone call.
 He called their rival telecommunications company and properly informed them that he was
making the call from a mobile phone.
 The mobile phone used by Cooper weighed 1.1 kilograms and this device was capable of a 30-
minute talk time. However, it took 10 hours to charge.
 In 1983, Motorola made their first commercial mobile phone available to the public. It was
known as the Motorola DynaTAC 8000X.
Martin Cooper
Computers/Laptops
 Some Filipino families own more than one computer or laptop while some own at least one computer or
laptop. However, the number of computers or laptops sold per year may not be as high as the number
of mobile phones and television sets because of the relative high cost of computers.
 In 2010, 3.6 trillion was the estimated total value output of all manufacturing establishments. Semi-
conductor devices and other electronic components took more than half of the total value output of all
manufacturing establishments. 5.4 % of the total value output came from computers and peripheral
equipment and accessories.
 In line with growing number of computer and laptop sales, there has also been a growing number of
Internet users in the Philippines.
Charles Babbage- a 19th century English Mathematics professor, who

designed the Analytical Engine which was used as the basic framework
of the computers even until the present time. In general, computers can
be classified into three generations. Each generation of the computer was
used for a certain period of time and each gave people a new and
improved version of the previous one.
Note: Before, the first design of computer was so big that it could occupy whole floors of buildings. It was not
long before people started dreaming that they could bring their devices to any place they wished. Wish granted
because in April 1981, the first true portable computer was released. It was called the Osborne 1.

Osborne 1 Computer
Here are some facts about Filipinos and their use of gadgets and the Internet:
 Mobile phone subscription is at 119 million

 Filipinos spend approximately 3.2 hours on mobile and 5.2 hours on desktop daily.
 Currently, the Philippines has one of the highest digital populations in the world.
 There are now 47 million active Facebook accounts in the Philippines
 The Philippines is the fastest-growing application market in Southeast Asia.
Roles Played by Television, Mobile Phones, and Computers/Laptops
1. Television
 It is mainly used as a platform for advertisements and information dissemination. For example,
speeches of VIPs, important interview of politicians, and launching of rockets and space crafts,
which are directly telecast will make us feel as if the entire world has become our next-door
neighbor. Another example is the news that is daily broadcasted for us to be aware of the
happenings around us. As easy as that, we will be connected to the world at the comfort of our
homes.
 It is the most used avenue by different advertising companies not only in the Philippines but
also all over the world and it is still one of the most used technological devices up until today.
This is because television is able to attract the audiences of all age groups, literate and illiterate
and of all the strata of the society. It has been also able to influence the people living in remote
areas of our country as its outreach has covered the remotest villages and tribal pockets.
Through this, it would bring about awareness among the people of sociological problems and
make them conscious of national goals which will play a vital role in cultivating civic
consciousness and respect for law and public morality.
 It also serves as a recreational activity and good stress reliever to most families, specifically to
Filipino families. This has been one of our family bonding since then. Through viewing as one
family, we will be able to share thoughts with each other and can be considered as a leisure
time for everyone. Most Filipino families love to watch comedy movies in television that will
make them laugh and relieve stress from work. Some also watch educational movies which is
suited for all especially those families with kids. That is why television plays a big role in
connecting every Filipino family because through this technological advancement, it brings us
closer to our loved ones.

2. Mobile Phones
 Primarily used for communication and it can offer services like texting and calling and additional
features of mobile phones today.
 Some people use their mobile phones to surf the Internet and to take pictures more than to text
or call people that’s why people prefer smart phones for its additional features.
 It is like an all-in-one device. It is very portable and convenient because it can fit into any space,
may it be inside the pocket or bag. This is a good example that we can even use our mobile
phones in our work. It may help us access anytime the important things we want to search with
the aid of the Internet. Unlike televisions and computers/laptops, mobile phones are easy to
bring anywhere. The good thing about mobile phones is it’s almost similar with the features of
television and computers/laptops, however, has also its limitations that other gadgets can offer.
 In Japan, mobile phone companies provide immediate notification of earthquakes and other
natural disasters to their customers free of charge. In the event of an emergency, disaster
response crews can locate trapped or injured people using the signals from their mobile phones
or the small detonator of flare in the battery of every cell phone; an interactive menu accessible
through the phone's Internet browser notifies the company if the user is safe or in distress.
(Retrievedfrom:https://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/132870/cell_phones/importance_of
_mobile_phones.html)
3. Computers/Laptops
 It has a wide keyboard and screen compared to mobile phones that’s why it is easy to type.
 Mouse and a touchpad are made available to easily maneuver than mobile phones.
 For youth and those who love to play different computer games, personal computers or laptops
are really the better choice because these allow them to play with comfort and convenience.
 Laptops/computers can help students write papers more easily as well. Typing can make the
writing process go faster, and the tools in word processing software make it easier for
students to edit their work. By writing on laptops instead of a desktop computer, students can
work at home, in the library or during work time in class. A project to give students laptops in
the classroom in Maine resulted in an increase in student writing achievement, according to
The National Writing Project. Eighty percent of students in the project said they would rather
use their laptop to do their work and were more likely to edit their work using their laptop. In
addition, 75 percent said that laptops helped them to be better organized, while 70 percent
said laptops helped them improve the quality of their work. (Retrieved from:
https://education.seattlepi.com/benefits-laptops-students-3053.html)
 Group work is integral to student success. Students who learn how to work in a team and
benefit from the strengths of other students in the group learn material in a new way. Laptops
facilitate group work by allowing students to meet at any location -- whether it's a library,
school room or a student's home -- and access all the materials they may need, including
classroom notes, journal articles, online research or software for creating videos, slide shows
or other items they may need for presentations. Wherever students have access to the
Internet, they can also easily share files with one another. (Retrieved from:
https://education.seattlepi.com/benefits-laptops-students-3053.html)

ETHICAL DILEMMAS FACED BY THESE TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS
While it’s true that these technological devices are useful and beneficial, the fact remains that there are
several dilemmas faced by these “necessities”. Here are the following ethical dilemmas that these
technologies may bring:
1. Children becoming unhealthy with the use of technology
Your Thoughts!
In not more than 4 sentences, share your insights on this question.
A. Are you becoming dependent on technology just like these kids? What might you get from
too much use of gadgets?
Please proceed to the Participation Section of this module

Most parents would argue that these devices make their children addicted and unhealthy. This is
because of the fact that people who are fixated on these technological advancements start and end their day
by using such devices. They have a great tendency to sit and chill all day long without doing anything
productive in their homes, thus making them unhealthy because they do not just skip meals sometimes but
also lack exercise or any bodily movements.
For example, those who love to watch television shows stay in front of the television for more than six
hours a day while those who love to surf the Internet or play computer games stay on their laptops, computers
or mobile phones for more than a half day. These people have the tendency to be unaware of the time
because they are so engrossed with the use of technological device. In fact, if they get disturbed, there is a
great chance that they will get mad or annoyed. Moreover, these are the same people who are more likely to
experience alienation because they no longer take time to get out of their houses and mingle with other
people.
On this first dilemma, it is really concerning to know that there are people who develop different kinds
of sickness because of too much use of technological devices. Not only this, it also causes them to beco me
reclusive, alienating themselves from other people. Although some would argue that technology brings people
together, it can also be argued that this is not always the case in real world because it may bring them virtually
closer but not physically or personally. In fact, there are people who are friends, for example, only on social
media but not in real life. This just shows that there are things that technology claims to do but in reality, does
not. It is for these reasons why there are people who call for the establishment of ethics of technology. This

subcategory of ethics will in one way or another guide people on how technology ought to be used in order to
prevent abuse and other unfortunate results.
The word “responsibility” in the sense of being accountable for and accountable to is very
appropriate to the ethics of technology because it makes each and every person in the scientific -technological
development a proxy with reference to one another. In other words, each person must indicate the priorities,
values, norms, and principles that constitute the grounds for one’s actions and define one’s contribution to the
scientific-technological event. The ethics of responsibility focuses on the positive rather than negative. Instead
of asking “What ought not to be allowed?” ask “What ought to be allowed?” To put it in another way, people
who are part of the scientific development ought to let the public know the good in their respective
technological contribution/s. in this way, the people will have an idea how the devices ought to be used in
order to maximize their positive results.
2. Moral dilemma
Technology is accessible to anyone. Can you imagine your brothers/sisters at an early age w ere
exposed already to the use of technology?
People, especially the children who are not capable yet of rationally deciding for themselves what is
right or wrong, are freely exposed to different things on television, mobile phones, laptops, or computers. Due
to the availability and easy access to the Internet, they can just easily search the web and go to different
websites without restrictions. This allows them to see, read, or hear things which are not suitable for their very
young age. This makes them very vulnerable to character change and can greatly affect the way they view the
world and the things around them.
In this sense, moral dilemma can be a danger to the children brought by technology. Why? Moral
dilemma is defined as a conflict between what is the right or wrong decision to be made in particular situations
or whether an action will have good or bad consequences. In the context that these children are not yet
capable to decide for themselves and determine what is right or wrong, they tend to acquire both good and
bad consequences. Good consequences like for example, at an early age, they will be corrected and properly
educated by their parents on how these technologies should be properly used and pose an awareness the
next time they encounter these gadgets. On the other hand, the children will also be prone to bad
consequences because at an early age, they are already exposed to these technological advancements where
in fact they should be more of interpersonal activities with the family and should be developing their skills and
talents at this age. The consequence is later on when they grow older, they might be lacking in some parts of
their developmental growth that will lead to misbehavior.

However, on this second dilemma, neither the people in the scientific world nor the children are
blameworthy because first, the children are not yet capable of rationally deciding for themselves what is good
and what is bad. Second, even if creators of these technologies went out of their way to inform children of the
pros and cons of these technological contributions, it would still be useless because the children have no
capacity to understand them yet. So, in this dilemma, the ones to be blamed are the adults who allowed the
children to have access to such devices in the first place without any supervision. It is the recklessness and
overconfidence of the adults that cause the character change in children. However, we should not be putting
blames into anyone else now, instead, we should always be there to supervise our youngsters and assist them
in any technological endeavor they might be in or better, limit them in using any gadgets.
ROBOTICS AND HUMANITY
The International Federation of Robotics (IFR) and United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
(UNECE) made it their task to formulate a working definition for service robots. A robot is an actuated
mechanism programmable in two or more axes with a degree of autonomy, moving within environment, to
perform intended tasks.
Autonomy is the ability to perform intended tasks based on current state and sensing without human
intervention.
 A service robot is a robot that performs useful tasks for humans or equipment excluding industrial
automation application.
At your service! Robots are now made today to aide and assist humans in the form of service.
Note: A robot may be classified according to its intended application as an industrial robot or a service
robot.
 A personal service robot or a service robot for personal use is a service robot used for a
noncommercial task, usually by laypersons.

Robots as humans’ friend? If not for service, robots are made to be one’s friend and will be
there anytime.
Examples are domestic servant robot, automated wheelchair, personal mobility assist robot, and pet
exercising robot.
 A professional service robot or a service robot for professional use is a service robot used for a
commercial task, usually operated by a properly trained operator
Operator – a person designated to start, monitor, and stop the intended operation of a robot or a robot
system.
Look! Robots are on the go to be people’s customer representative. This is how they can
professionally act.
Other examples are cleaning robot for public places, delivery robot in offices or hospitals, firefighting
robot, rehabilitation robot, and surgery robot in hospitals
Germany was one of the first countries to develop service robots. As part of the German Federal
Ministry of Education and Research’s “Service Robotics Innovation Lead Initiative”, it sponsored a
collaborative project called DESIRE (Deutsche Servicerobotik Initiative- Germany Service Robotics Initiative)
which was launched on October 1, 2005.

The following are the DESIRE objectives:
 To achieve a technological edge toward attaining key functions and components that are suited
for everyday use.
 To create a reference architecture for mobile manipulation
 To promote the convergence of technologies through integration into a common technology
platform
 To conduct pre-competition research and development activities for new products and
technology transfer in start-up enterprises in the field of service robotics
Some of the expected work to be performed by DESIRE are the following:
1. “Clear up the kitchen table” – all objects on top of the kitchen table will be moved to where they
belong.
2. “Fill the dishwasher” – the dirty dishes will be sorted correctly into the dishwasher.
3. “Clear up this room” – all objects that are not in their proper places will be moved to where they
belong.
The earliest conception of robots can be traced around 3000 B.C. from the Egyptians. Their water
clocks used human figurines to strike the hour bells. This mechanical device was built to carry out specific
physical task regularly.
From that time on, different machines were already built that displayed
the same mechanism and characteristics as the robots in the present. For
example, there was a wooden pigeon that could fly, a talking doll, steam-
powered robots, and hydraulically-operated statues that could speak and
gesture. However, the earliest robots as people know them were created in the
early 1950s by George Devol. “Unimate” was his first invention from the words
“Universal Automation”. Unfortunately, his attempt to sell his product to the
industry did not succeed. After Unimate, several robots were also invented which
were better versions of the previous ones. Ever since, people never stopped
their quest in the field of robotics.
Water clocks of Egyptians

manipulated by robots
Robots play different roles not only in the lives of the people but also in the society as a whole. They
are primarily used to ease the workload of mankind and were invented to make life more efficient and less
stressful. Just like people living in the society, robots also have their own set of rules and characteristics that
define what a good robot is. These laws were formulated by Isaac Asimov back in the 1940s, when he was
thinking of the ethical consequences of robots.
LAW ONE: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
LAW TWO: A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict
with the First Law.

LAW THREE: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First
or Second Law.
ETHICAL DILEMMA/S FACED BY ROBOTICS
1. SAFETY- Who should be held accountable if someone’s safety is compromised by a robot? Who should be
blamed, the robot, the agent using the robot, or the maker/inventor of the robot? It is important to know who
should be blamed and who should be held responsible if such thing happens.
2. EMOTIONAL COMPONENT- What if robots become sentient? Should they be granted robot rights? Should
they have their own set of rights to be upheld, respected, and protected by humans? This may seem a little
absurd as of the moment, but looking at how fast technology progress nowadays, it is not completely
impossible for robots to develop emotions. It is interesting to know how people would react if the time comes
when robots can already feel pain and pleasure. Would they act differently or not at all? The question now is,
are you ready when that time comes?
In the field of robotics, there are the so-called partial autonomy and full autonomy. Partial autonomy
includes active human-robot interaction while full autonomy excludes active human robot interaction.in other
words, a robot with full autonomy can perform actions or activities without a master telling it what should be
done or what should be performed next.
Using Asimov’s laws for robots, it can be concluded that robots are ethical but only if they strictly follow
the laws formulated by Asimov ensure the safety of not only the users of the technology but also the people
around him. Remember that these service robots are already available to the public ; thus, they can already be
found inside the homes. Having said that, the safety of not only the owner of the technology but also all the
people inside the house should be the priority more than anything else. In other words, the service robots only
follow what their masters tell them to do with great consideration to the laws formulated by Asimov. However, if
the agent using the technology misuses the robot to achieve personal agendas, then without a doubt, the
agent should be held accountable for any consequences it may bring. It is important to note that this is under
the assumption that the robot strictly followed the laws specified without any form of deviation.
If the problems arise when the robot deviates from the laws specified, then the maker or the inventor of
the machine should be blameworthy. It just means that the robot was not programmed very well because it
violated the laws. Other problems may arise when the machine develops the ability to think for itself. In this
case, the one that should be blame can both be the maker or inventor and the robot itself. This is because, in
the first place, the maker gave the robot the capacity to think for itself so he should be very much aware of its
possible consequences. To put it in another way, the maker programmed the robot in such a way that it can
already think for itself without an active participation from a human being. In addition, since the robot thinks for
itself, whatever decision it makes and whatever consequence it may bring, the robot itself should be held
responsible.
For the second dilemma, it is just right for the robots to be given their own set of rights should they
develop the ability to feel different kinds of emotion. It can be argued that the same thing happened with
animals. Before, animals did not have their own set of rights because people believed that they were not
capable of having emotions. However, after years of testing and experimenting, it was concluded that animals
are indeed capable of emotions. It is for the reason that people decided to give them rights that are due to
them. The same should be done to robots without any reservations. Should that time come, they ought to be
treated differently and they ought to have new laws to follow in order to accommodate the new characteristic
they have developed.

Why the Future Does Not Need Us?
Your Thoughts!
In not more than 4 sentences, share your insights on this question.
B. Can you imagine a future without the human race? Do you think that robots and machines can
replace humans? Do you believe that there will come a time when human existence will be at the
mercy of robots and machines? It is also possible that medical breakthroughs in the future may go
terribly wrong that a strain of drug-resistant viruses could wipe out the entire human race?
Please proceed to the Participation Section of this module

For some, imagining a future without humans is nearly synonymous to the end of the world. Many
choose not to speculate about a future where humans cease to exist while the world remains. However, a
dystopian society void of human presence is the subject of many works in literature and film. The possibility of
such society is also a constant topic of debates.
William Nelson Joy- an American computer scientist and chief scientist of Sun
Microsystems, wrote an article in April 2000 for Wired magazine entitled Why the
Future doesn’t need us? In his article, Joy warned against the rapid rise of new
technologies. He explained that 21 st century technologies- genetics,
nanotechnology, and robotics (GNR)- are becoming very powerful that they can
potentially bring about new classes of accidents, threats, and abuses. He further
warned that these dangers are even more pressing because they do not require
large facilities or even rare raw materials- knowledge alone will make them
potentially harmful to humans.
What are the arguments of Joy in his article?
 He argued that robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology pose much greater threats than
technological developments that have come before.
 He particularly cited the ability of nanobots to self-replicate, which could quickly get out of control.
 He also cautioned humans against overdependence on machines that if machines are given the
capacity to decide on their own, it will be impossible to predict how they might behave in the future. In
this case, the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of machines.
 He voiced out his apprehension about the rapid increase of computer power which made him concern
about computers will eventually become more intelligent than humans, thus ushering societies in
dystopian visions, such as robot rebellions.
 His concern was drawn from Theodore Kaczynski’s book, Unabomber Manifesto, where Kaczynski
described that the unintended consequences of the design and use of technology are clearly related to
Murphy’s Law: “Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong” Kaczynski argued further that
overreliance on antibiotics led to the great paradox of emerging antibiotic-resistant strains of dangerous
bacteria. The introduction of Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) to combat malarial mosquitoes,
for instance, only gave rise to malarial parasites with multi-drug resistant genes.
Joy’s arguments against 21st century technologies have received both criticisms and expression shared
concern. John Seeley Brown and Paul Duguid, in their article A Response to Bill Joy and the Doom-and-
Gloom Technofuturists, criticized Joy’s failure to consider social factors and only deliberately focused on
one part of the larger picture. Others go as far as accusing Joy of being a neo-Luddite, someone who
rejects new technologies and shows technophobic leanings.
As a material, Joy’s article tackles the unpleasant and uncomfortable possibilities that a senseless
approach to scientific and technological advancements may bring. Whether Joy’s propositions are a real
possibility or an absolute moonshot, it is unavoidable to think of a future that will no longer need the human
race. It makes thinking about the roles and obligations of every stakeholder a necessary component of
scientific and technological advancement. In this case, it is preeminently necessary that the s cientific
community, governments, and businesses engage in a discussion to determine the safeguards of humans
against the potential dangers of science and technology.
To enhance your learning watch this film: A.I Artificial Intelligence, 2001
Watch using this link: https://123moviesfree.net/movie/artificial-intelligence-ai-5743/watching.html
*** END of the Lesson Proper**
REFERENCES
Textbooks
Aldea, K, Caronan H.P, and Candido, M.B. (2018). Science, Technology and Society (OBE Ready).
Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Book Atbp. Publishing Corp.
Serafica, J.P., Pawilen, G., Caslib Jr., B.N., and Alata, E.J. (2018). Science, Technology and Society. Quezon
City, Philippines: Rex Book Store, Inc. (RBSI)
Quinto, E.J. and Nieva, A. (2019). Science, Technology and Society. Quezon City, Philippines: C & E
Publishing, Inc.
Online
Vats,A.ImportanceofMobilePhones.Retrievedfrom:https://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/132870/cell_p
hones/importance_of_mobile_phones.html
Magher, M. What are the Benefits of Laptops? Retrieved from: https://education.seattlepi.com/benefits-

laptops-students-3053.html
Learning Materials
Film: A.I: Artificial Intelligence (2001)

Worksheets (teacher-made)
SCTS 1013 (Science, Technology and Society)
Name: _________________________________________ Code: ____________________

Yr. & Course: ___________________________________
PARTICIPATION
In this page, write your answers for the Your Thoughts Questions/Items given in the Learning Content of the
module. (5 points/item)
A. __________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
B. __________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________

SCTS 1013 (Science, Technology and Society)
Name: _________________________________________ Code: ____________________

Yr. & Course: _____________________ Instructor: ______________________________
QUIZ
Essay Writing (Picture Analysis)

Directions: Share your insights about the image/cartoon shown in each item. Limit your answer to 5-10
sentences. Write your entries on the space provided below each statement. (20 points)
Consider the criteria:
Content – 8 points
Grammar – 2 points
1.
Image retrieved from https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdiginomica.com%2Fautomation-future-work-

people&psig=AOvVaw3OF4SdiaEzzMK_nieh_y82&ust=1617970266946000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAMQjB1qFwoTCL
CG75PP7u8CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________ _
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________ _________
________________________________________________________________________________________
2.
Image retrieved from https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fslate.com%2Ftechnology%2F2015%2F04%2Fex-machina-can-

robots-artificial-intelligence-have-
emotions.html&psig=AOvVaw1JeePLN6Jatyi_5XHW7wKc&ust=1617970800951000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAMQjB1qFwoTCMjokJP
R7u8CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAJ
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________ ________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
LEARNING TASK
Poster Making (40 points)
Guidelines:
1. Consider the arguments presented by William Nelson “Bill” Joy in his article Why the Future doesn’t
need us? as the subject of your output.
2. Present or illustrate the conflicts, issues and arguments of the topic through poster making.
3. If you have coloring materials, you may illustrate your poster in a piece of bond paper.
4. In the absence of coloring materials, you draw using any apps/software of your computers, tabs or
cellphones.
5. Upload a clear scanned copy, picture or screenshot of the output in the answer box provided here on or
before April 23, 2021.
6. Send me a message for any questions or clarifications about the task.
7. Consider the rubrics:
Criteria Indicator
Poster Content The poster includes ample information relevant to the
20/20) topic in an organized fashion.
Appearance/Illustration The output exhibits quality and creativity. It has
(15/15) excellent color combinations and composition.
Neatness
(5/5)

834: Science, Technology and Society - SCTS 1013
ASSESSMENT QUIZ
QUIZ 1
Submissions
Here are your latest answers:
Item 1
3. He believed and promoted the idea that a good life is a “life of pleasure”.
Response: Epicurus
Correct answer: Epicurus
Score: 1 out of 1 Yes
Item 2
14.What does the term aletheia mean?
Response: B. Truth
Correct answer: B. Truth
Item 3
11. According to Aristotle, what is the end goal of a good life?
Response: C. Happiness
Correct answer: C. Happiness
Item 4
8. The school of thought is espoused on the idea that man is literally the captain of his own ship.
Response: B. Humanism
Correct answer: B. Humanism
Item 5
9. The school of thought is based on the belief that matter is what makes men attain happiness.
Response: B. Materialism
Correct answer: B. Materialism
Item 6
7. The Nichomachean Ethics is a series of books that were originally a compilation of lecture notes of Aristotle in scrolls as he taught in the _______________.
Response: C. Lyceum
Correct answer: C. Lyceum
Item 7
10. Among the following values, which is NOT moral virtue?
Response: A. Open-mindedness
Correct answer: A. Open-mindedness
Item 8
12. Which of the following Greek terms is defined as moral virtue?
Response: C. Arete
Correct answer: C. Arete
Item 9
6. Marvin is always involved with the happenings in his environment. He always tries to determine if there are unexplained occurrences unfolding. Which of the following
steps in scientific methodology does he exhibit?
Response: A. Observation
Correct answer: A. Observation
Item 10
4.The school of thought that is in line with the improvement of one’s character and the realization of one’s existence.
Response: Theism
Correct answer: Humanism
Score: 0 out of 1 No
Item 11
2.The ability of a machine to perform intended tasks based on current state and sensing without human intervention.
Response: Autonomy
Correct answer: Autonomy
Item 12
15. Which among the following fields of study considers primarily utilizes practical reason, thus is considered practical science?
Response: B. Biology
Correct answer: C. Economics
Item 13
13. What degree of the Tripartite Soul is shared by plants, animals and humans?
Response: C. Nutritive
Correct answer: C. Nutritive
Item 14
5. The term Technology comes from the Greek words, techne and logos. What does techne mean?
Response: Art
Correct answer: Art
Item 15
1.The school of thought that prioritizes desire over other life values and is characterized as the independence of well-being.
Response: Hedonism
Correct answer: Hedonism

834: Science, Technology and Society - SCTS 1013
ASSESSMENT QUIZ
QUIZ 2
Submissions
Here are your latest answers:
Item 1
4.Enframing leads to revealing through challenging forth.
Response: True
Correct answer: True
Item 2
7.Aristotle describes the pinnacle of happiness as Eudaimonia.
Response: True
Item 3
8.Epicurus certainly praised all kinds of pleasure and physiological needs of man such as sex, food, drinks and sensual indulgence in general.
Response: True
Item 4
13.Wealth is just an intermediate good and it is only instrumental.
Response: True
Item 5
15.Plato emphasized that the purpose of life is the achievement of happiness and flourishing.
Response: False
Correct answer: False
Item 6
According to Stoics, he believes that happiness can only be attained by a careful practice of apathy.
Response: True
Item 7
The total amount of resources used by individuals in economies is described as ‘Global hectare’
Response: True
Item 8
12.Asimov promotes the incorporation of the emotional components of robots for full functionality.
Response: False
Item 9
14.Fame, prestige and honor can all lead to the presence of eudaimonia.
Response: True
Item 10
5.The essence of technology is not found in the instrumentality and function of machines constructed but in the significance such technology unfolds.
Response: False
Item 11
11.A robot is an actuated mechanism programmable in two or more axes with a degree of autonomy moving within environment to perform intended tasks.
Response: True
Item 12
1.The main objective of UN’s new Sustainable Development Goals is to eradicate poverty by 2030.
Response: True
Item 13
6.According to traditional development, in order to address poverty, the economy must flourish further.
Response: True
Item 14
3.The ultimate basis of happiness for Theists is the communion with God.
Response: True
Item 15
9.Humanists see themselves not merely as stewards of the creation but as individuals who are in control of themselves and the world outside them.
Response: True

Sts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Forget

'Developing' Poor Countries, It's Time to 'De-develop' Rich Countries

Negative formulations won’t get us anywhere. The idea of “steady-state” economics is a

• The two definitions of technology belong together.

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, ARTS and SCIENCES

CORRESPONDENCE LEARNING MODULE

MARVIN B. BACCAY, MST

RENZ MARION C. GAVINO, MP

VENUS I. GUYOS, Ph.D.

EMMANUEL JAMES P. PATTAGUAN, Ph.D.

SCTS 1013 - Science, Technology and Society Module 5 | 1

Grant all these supplications through the intercession of

SCTS 1013 - Science, Technology and Society Module 5 | 2

LESSON 6: Good Life

1. Explain de-development as a progress and development framework;

Date Topics Activities or Tasks

SCTS 1013 - Science, Technology and Society Module 5 | 3

The Good Life

A. The Human Flourishing in Progress and De-development

SCTS 1013 - Science, Technology and Society Module 5 | 4

SCTS 1013 - Science, Technology and Society Module 5 | 6

Akiro Kurosawa’s Dreams “Village of the Watermills”

B. The Good Life

Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics and the Good Life

What is Nichomachean Ethics?

 It is the fundamental basis of Aristotelian ethics consisting of ten books.

Remember the following terms:

Eudaimonia: The Ultimate Good

Is pleasure an ultimate good?

SCTS 1013 - Science, Technology and Society Module 5 | 8

Is wealth an ultimate good?

Is fame and honor an ultimate good?

Eudaimonia: Uniquely Human?

Aristotle’s Tripartite Soul

Arete and Human Happiness

Intellectual virtue- it is achieved through education, time, and experience. Key

SCTS 1013 - Science, Technology and Society Module 5 | 10

What then is the good life?

SCTS 1013 - Science, Technology and Society Module 5 | 11

Happiness as the Goal of a Good Life

The first materialists were the atomists in Ancient Greece.

SCTS 1013 - Science, Technology and Society Module 5 | 12

Another school of thought led by Epicurus, the stoics espoused

Most people find their meaning of their lives using God as a

Humanism as another school of thought espouses the freedom of man to

SCTS 1013 - Science, Technology and Society Module 5 | 13

What is the Good life?

The Moral Life

SCTS 1013 - Science, Technology and Society Module 5 | 14

The Fulfilled Life

SCTS 1013 - Science, Technology and Society Module 5 | 15

 Virtue: They must be morally virtuous.

The Meaningful Life

SCTS 1013 - Science, Technology and Society Module 5 | 16

*** END of the Lesson Proper***

Westacott, E. (2018). What is the good life? Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-the-good-life-

SCTS 1013 - Science, Technology and Society Module 5 | 17

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCES

Name: _________________________________________ Code: ____________________

SCTS 1013 - Science, Technology and Society Module 5 | 19

My Personal Consumption Audit

SCTS 1013 - Science, Technology and Society Module 5 | 20

SCTS 1013 - Science, Technology and Society Module 5 | 21

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, ARTS and SCIENCES

* END of the Lesson Proper*

Name: _____________________ Code:

* END of the Lesson Proper

Name: _____________________ Code:

Name: _____________________ Code: