NLCS SUMMER PHILOSOPHY CHALLENGE 2022

It is 2050. You have been tasked with the creation of a new school curriculum thatwillprepareitsstudentstobecitizensofthefuturein2100.Whatdoesit looklike?Howwillitbedifferentfromtheschoolsoftoday?

Commended entry by Avika:

The rapid pace at which the world is evolving - especially in the field of science and technologymakes it next to impossible to predict the skills that may be of relevance for even the next decade, let alone all the way into 2100. For instance, there have been new branches such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) that were not even prevalent a decade ago, but given the ever-changing research, have now come to the forefront of current day technologies. To evaluate the skills and ethics required in the future, I would like to start with firstly exploring the new skills potentially required, then secondly, think about skills of today that may still be valuable even in future, and finally explore an ethics and principle’s view.

Firstly, in terms of new skills that may be needed in 2100, these are likely to stem from the key focus areas - space travel and climate change. Why will these topics come to the fore? Space travel will be a prominent part of 2100 as the effects of climate change will only have worsened on our planet, and our only solution will be to find a new inhabitable planet - for this we need advanced space travel. Alongside climate change, overpopulation will also lead to a lack of resources. The United Nations predicts that the world population will grow from 9.8 billion in 2050 to 11.2 billion in 2100. Also, given that the effects of climate change will be more visible by 2100, it will be useful for the curriculum to cover more about climate change. If we do manage to find a new planet, it is important that it is treated with respect and care and that some of the challenges we face with sustainability of Earth are avoided in our new home. Children should also learn about what went wrong on this planet. With new fresh minds, I would hope that we may be able to find a solution to preserve Earth alongside this new planet.

Secondly, although the above new focus areas are likely to come into existence, I feel some of the key skills of today will still be very much relevant. For example, we will always need to know how to communicate our ideas - making both written and oral communication and language skills an important part of the curriculum of 2100. Although the media we use to capture our ideas might change over time - for instance from paper to cloud, the core communication techniques will remain the same. Similarly, we will also still need maths, numerical ability as well as fundamentals of science, history, and geography - as it is important to be able to work out equations and formulae, to be able to use technology effectively, no matter how advanced humanity evolves.

Additionally, I see Religious studies and Philosophy still being a key part of the curriculum - one should always be aware of various beliefs of people around us as this helps us to be tolerant, understanding and accept and embrace our differences. I would also expect that Internet safety will still be taught in schools around the world. With new technology, our exposure to social media will increase and citizens in 2100 should not feel threatened by its omnipresence and should know what is safe to post on the internet and perhaps more importantly, what is not.

Finally, in terms of ethics and principles in 2100, despite all the new focus areas and changes that are likely to happen, the core values that people will still be expected to have will remain the same. Ethics are, at its heart, a system of moral principles that drive right from wrong. In spite of changes and technical advancements around us over time, the guiding principles pointing our moral compass will remain the same.

In conclusion, whilst there are likely to be new focus areas (such as advanced space travel) that emerge in 2100 and cause the application of our knowledge and skills in a new field, the fundamental skills, principles and ethics that form the basis of today’s education will still be of relevance despite the advancement of technology and continued human evolution.

Commended entry by Indrani

Is there an Afterlife?

It doesn’t matter whether there is an Afterlife. What matters is that belief in an afterlife helps me live my life well now. As long as religion is useful, it doesn’t need to be true. Homo-sapiens are spiritual, social and moral beings by nature. So it is not really surprising that one of the things people get the most meaning from is taking part in something collective to achieve something together. We like being in a group as they bring people together and make us feel part of something bigger than ourselves. It gives a sense of belonging. And religion is one such group. Some people argue that we need religion to be moral. It sets a standard for good action and punishes the bad, which is fundamental in maintaining society's fabric. Human behaviour is a product of nature and nurture. It also plays a part in faith and belief in the supernatural. We are hard-wired in our brains to be good to each other. We are not angels, but we are not devils either.

But do we have to be religious to be moral, or is it possible to have morals and be happy without even believing in God? Morality is a lot older than religion. Irrespective of religion, culture, or where we come from, there is a universal code that all societies adhere to. Because these codes are fundamental to our existence (spiritual/physical morals and emotions). Societies, cultures and religions take these codes and wrap them in a supernatural, mystical clock with time myths and superstition growing around it. This entwining makes religion in general so powerful, but today we only learn about 5 different religions, which misses the whole truth. Experts estimate that there are over 30,000 versions of Christianity alone. Religion has the power to motivate people to lead a good life but also can support them emotionally through spirituality: at the same time, I am very much aware that many wars have been waged- many terrorist acts have been undertaken in the name of religion. Then others feel religion teaches negative actions. Discrimination and criminal injustice faced by the LGBTQIA+ community are prime examples. I believe that people who commit acts like this only look at nonrelevant aspects of religion and thereby completely sidestep the core principle of compassion. Pharaohs, on their death, present their claims to be innocent of all crimes against the divine and human order to be 42 gods. Then their heart is placed on a scale, counter-balanced by a feather. This represents an Egyptian Goddess named Maat- the goddess of truth and justice. If their heart was equal to a feather's weight, the Pharaoh would achieve immortality, but if not, it would be devoured by the goddess Amemet.

Buddhists believe that by following the Eightfold Path, they can gain enlightenment, ensuring a better future in the process. Good action would result in a better rebirth as a human or animal, or even ghosts or demi/gods. Being born as a human is a second opportunity, and humans should devote their life to escaping the cycle of life, death and rebirth, and attaining enlightenment.

One question every religion has tried to answer is what happens to us after death. Our body disintegrates and becomes one with nature, but what happens to our soul? In a Nachiketa story from Upanishad, Nachiketa asks Yama (The lord of death) if there is life after death. This is the same question that even we are still asking. Death and whatever happens to us afterwards impacts how we lead our life. The terracotta army of Emperor Qin Shi Huang and the legacy left behind by the pharaohs of Egypt are prime examples of that. Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims believe that our actions decide the kind of afterlife which awaits us. If we do good, we would either go to heaven or be reborn as a human. Do heinous crimes, and you either go to hell or get reborn as an insect or a plant. Some might argue that religious people act as do-gooders with moral weightage because they seek the afterlife. But does it really matter in the whole scheme of things?

In my head, it is the same deal as whose pledge has more credibility- the one who refuses to eat meat because of religion or who abstains from eating meat purely because of their personal choice. For me, they both fall in the same category. As a society, they are both classified as vegetarians, and their efforts are also beneficial for the environment. Whether we believe in the afterlife or not, it is always important to live your life to the fullest, living every day as your last.

Commended entry by Katie R

If one is questioning their religion and its beliefs are about the afterlife, yet they are still doing good because they believe that religion ‘helps me live my life well now’. They know that there is a chance that the afterlife does not exist but she still chooses to do good deeds illustrating that she is not driven by religion to do good but by other means and are not truly faithful in their religion. This provides evidence for the fact that religion transcribes moral truths and with or without religion we would still be driven by the same moral ‘good’ deeds. We want to do virtuous deeds with no reward needed, showing that religion transcribes morality.

Although some commentators may argue that there is no truly selfless action regardless of an afterlife and we always do things for our own benefit – even if it is just to feel satisfaction in our good deeds. In order to determine if a deed is truly altruistic you must know what the intention was behind the action. A truly selfless act must be truly altruistic in order to be a categorical good deed, this means that an altruistic behavior is at a cost to oneself. However, this is not to say that you have to be making a bit sacrifice to do a genuinely good deed but as you can’t truly know the phycological motives behind an action, whereas in an action that you are sacrificing more for the other person objectively then this action is truly altruistic. For example: a stranger taking a bullet for another stranger – is truly altruistic as they have sacrificed their own life for another person and if they cannot have done it to feel like a good person as they will not live to feel the human feelings that they know are real.

In contradiction to the first point many commentators may agree with the statement as in a practical sense it helps to make the world a better place. Even if commentators such as Stephen Hawking are right in: ‘There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers. That is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.’it doesn’t matter if people are believing in something not real they still make the world a better place, and if our idea of an afterlife with a Heaven and Hell is real then it just adds to the benefits. Doing morally good deeds does not do any harm to the world – only good! This argument links into Pascals Wager: which is that we should act as if God exists because the probability of hell, even if it is small, outweighs any immediate benefits of the lifestyle that you would lead if God doesn’t exist. Although, this is true, that there is some possibility that there is an afterlife and some people may argue that there is a lack of evidence on both sides of if there is an afterlife or if not – a 50/50 chance based of the premises that there either is an afterlife or there is not, a simple statement with fair odds on both sides. This is not a valid argument as it is talking about possibility, not probability – possibility is a chance that something may happen however the real probability of an afterlife is much less predictable than 50/50. It is possible that I will win the lottery – I either win it or I don’t, but this does not mean that my odds are 50/50, the same applies when talking about the probability of a heaven and a hell existing. When we use Pascals Wager as an argument, we may use it for anything – there could be an alien spaceship that will come to abduct us to a pain free world if we worship this alien or kill us if we do not. This is a possibility but is not very probable and if we applied Pascals wager to every event in our lives then we would live a worry filled life.

Firstly I believe that we should not only do good in order to get benefits in an afterlife that we do not know exists. We have no guarantee of the afterlife yet we still choose to do good things; ‘Feeling and thought are the only things which we directly know to be real’ - J.S Mill in Three Essays on Religion. When somebody dies all we know is that they cease to exist in our view. So a logical person would argue that there is a very slim chance that the afterlife exists so we should honour what we already know and act in what we think is the best thing to do in the world that we see around us by abiding by laws and doing good deeds. By doing these good deeds we do help the world however, we don’t know the motives behind them and if they are truly altruistic. If we are only doing good deeds because we think that a divine power commanded us to in order to go to the afterlife then it is subjective whether these are good deeds or not. Whereas truly good deeds should have a good motive – we should react to bad things we see in the world and try to make the world a better place. It does matter whether there is an afterlife or not because the motives and meaning of our actions are as important as the action itself.

Commended entry by Anya

‘How do we know that our knowledge now is better or ‘more true’ than the knowledge of past societies?’

I will start by defining the concept of ‘knowledge’ in its entirety. Is knowledge an awareness of societal norms and stereotypes, a mental manual instructing us how to act in everyday life, for example etiquette and respect for elders? However, everyone is raised differently, their parents teaching them different moral values and principles based on their own experiences, thus everyone’s ‘manual’ differs slightly. Yet surely this ‘knowledge’ is more progressive and ‘more true’ than that of past civilisations as today’s society is the most humane and educated; we have the most advanced medicine and technology since history began. Or perhaps we should define ‘knowledge’ as an objective phenomenon. Concrete, scientific facts like the law of gravity and the anatomy of the human body. However, this begs many questions. How do we know these ‘facts’ are absolute, and will not be disproven in future generations? The answer is we simply do not. Regardless, these facts are ‘more true’ than that of the past due to technological and scientific advancements. Therefore, in this essay I will argue that we do know that our knowledge now is better than the knowledge of past societies.

I begin with my first definition of ‘knowledge’ - a social construct. Today’s modern society rests upon progressive values compared to our ancestors. For example, the acceptance of gay marriage and the emergence of feminism. Therefore our ‘knowledge’ today is more forward and therefore ‘better’ than that of the past. I will illustrate this through deduction.

1. In general, today the common population have more influence over public opinion due to social media. Meaning that anyone can voice an opinion, not just those in places of political authority and power.

2. Therefore, more are confident to speak up on social issues.

3. Thus, there are millions of opinions surrounding these issues. However, one could argue that the introduction of social media results in an overflow of contrasting opinions as everyone feels confident to speak up, rendering it hard to know what to believe. Yet this is irrelevant, as this new ‘knowledge’ however contrasting and overwhelming, still exists unlike in previous society. Therefore our ‘knowledge’ surrounding social issues such as gay marriage is ‘more true’ and ‘better’ simply because there is more of it, as opposed to one conservative viewpoint.

I continue with my second definition of ‘knowledge’ - an objective phenomenon. Today’s scientific ‘knowledge’ concerning the workings of the world is ‘more true’ than that of past societies due to empiricism. This is because:

1. Empiricism states that all knowledge comes from experience. Whether it be scientific experiments or space sightings of meteors.

2. Today in the 21st century, we have had the most time out of all civilisations.

3. Therefore today, we have had the most experience, as we know the experience that all past societies have gathered through historical documents, as well as our own discoveries.

Thus, we can deduce that our ‘knowledge’ today is the ‘most true’ as it has come from centuries of experience and thinking. Although a logical contradiction can be made against phase 1, in that all knowledge does not necessarily come from experience because of innatism and rationalism which state that we are born with some knowledge already, and some knowledge is acquired simply through intuition and deduction, respectively. This is however irrelevant because even if it were true, all humans would be born with the same ‘innate’ and ‘rational’ knowledge, therefore the only distinguishing factor is empirical knowledge, of which today’s people have the most. Therefore, our knowledge today surpasses that of all past societies.

But what if we are wrong? What if at some point in history, someone somewhere realised the nature of reality, and in fact, what we believe to be objective is merely illusionary?

Take the Buddha. After attaining enlightenment around 588 BC, he gained a higher wisdom and profound understanding of the universe that non-enlightened folk simply cannot comprehend. His ‘knowledge’ is thus ‘more true’ and ‘better’ than that of today’s world, disproving my arguments. However, due to how long ago this occurred, it is hard to prove the Buddha’s enlightenment and thus we cannot confirm it for sure.

To conclude, it is evident that we can know that our knowledge now is ‘better’ and ‘more true’ than that of past societies due to the more democratic and progressive nature of modern society which has catalysed citizens to voice their opinions, resulting in more perspectives on societal issues. Furthermore, we can deduce that the people of modern society have the most ‘true’ knowledge as we can learn from the mistakes and build on the experience of past societies. However, an exception is the Buddha who supposedly gained the highest form of knowledge after attainting enlightenment in 588 BC, far superior to that of 2022. Yet this cannot be proven due to lack of empirical evidence.

Commended entry by Zara H:

‘As long as religion is useful it doesn’t need to be true.’

Billions of people use religion as a guide for how to live a good life, while others argue that the philosophy of religion – such as the belief in God and the afterlife – is not true. Saying religion is not true means that God is not real, and the afterlife is not real. Religion being “useful” means that religious people gain something from religion that non-religious people do not have. It is therefore useful to consider whether, if religion helps people to be kind and live good lives, does it matter if it is true? Below we will discuss this issue and will come to the overall conclusion that religion does need to be true if it is useful.

One reason why it does not matter whether religion is true is because in daily life everyone uses things that are not true to help them become good people. For example, stories with morals, even though they are entirely made up, are regularly used to teach people life lessons – such as do not lie, and do not steal. Religion is very similar as religious texts contain stories with the same messages, only they are often linked back to God. Therefore, to say religion is useless unless it is true would be like saying “Never tell stories as they did not actually happen”. The addition of God to religious stories is often what makes people criticise religion, but if the concept of God helps people understand universal values and messages, why does God need to be real?

That said, I believe that religion does need to be true – and that truth is required in order for religion to be useful. For example, a humanist would say that belief in the afterlife stops this life being special, as if something is endless it loses its meaning. However, a religious person would say that God created the afterlife, and the afterlife helps them live a good first life. Both statements cannot be true, as the afterlife either exists or does not exist. Therefore, by believing in the afterlife one is believing in something that could be a hoax. Following a hoax for our entire lives to live a good life is like believing that Earth is the centre of the universe because it makes us feel important. Therefore, religion does need to be true to be useful because, if it is not true, it causes people to follow a hoax.

Secondly, we do not need religion to become good people: humanists and atheists have moral values and are able to live good lives without a belief in God. This means that if religion is not true, religious people are not gaining anything by being religious, as they can live the same good lives without religion. However, if religion is true, religious people gain something as they can go to Heaven. Therefore, religion does need to be true to be useful because non-religious people can live equally good lives as religious people; in contrast, religious people only gain something above nonreligious people if their belief in the afterlife is true.

Thirdly, to counter the above argument suggesting that religion is like moral stories, nobody follows moral stories and prays to them like people pray to God. The argument suggested that the addition of God to these moral stories in religion does not matter, but I believe this adds a whole other unknown dimension to life. Moral stories, for example “The Boy who Cried Wolf” have morals that are universally accepted and do not contain unknowns: in “The Boy who Cried Wolf”, this moral is “do not lie or nobody will believe you when something bad happens to you”. However religious stories have the moral “Believe in God”, which is entirely different from the universally accepted morals that non-religious stories have. This means morals from non-religious stories are more trustworthy than morals of religious stories – as religious stories often do not focus on what happened, they just focus on God. Therefore, religion does need to be true to be useful as there is no point focussing your life on relying on God to fix everything if God is not real.

Overall, I believe that it does matter whether religion is true: as the only part of religion that could help religious people live better lives than non-religious people is that part which could potentially be false. Only if religion is true, can it be truly useful.

Commended entry by Amber Y

‘It doesn’t matter whether there is an Afterlife. What matters is that belief in an afterlife helps me live well now. As long as religion is useful, it doesn’t need to be true. Discuss.’

Religion is a social-cultural system of certain practices, rules, beliefs, holy texts and places of worship. Billions of people across the globe follow a religion, with 85% of the whole population identifying with one. The truth of religion in general is a topic that people often have differing views on. Some believe that religion does not necessarily need to be true or real, as long as it is useful. I am fairly neutral on the subject, however I am slightly more in favour of the notion that religion being beneficial is more important than religion being true.

Some may feel that religion does need to be true for it to be worthwhile. It is foolish for someone to believe in something false throughout their entire lifetime, only to find that their whole religion is a lie. People follow their religion because they feel it is true, not because they wish to derive benefits from doing so. Religion should not be regarded as simply a tool; something ‘useful’ to live by in order to gain the most out of life. The statement suggests that some may choose to follow a religion just because its teachings will prove valuable, but religion is not something that we can bring ourselves to believe in if we feel it false, just because its teachings may benefit us. If a person had devoted their entire life to a single religion, then they would hope that they had not been living in ignorance and blindly putting their faith in something that was never true. From a personal, emotive perspective, people would absolutely wish that their religion was real. Additionally, part of the main reason why some choose to follow one religion over another is because they believe its teachings are real or more likely to be true than another. This therefore means that religion should really be true, so that the person can feel they are justified in the path they have chosen to take.

However, I to some extent agree that religion actually being true itself does not matter. What matters more is that we believe our religion is true. We will not ever discover that religion is false, so as long as we have lived a good life by following key religious principles, it doesn’t matter that we lived our life mistaken. Though we may have lived believing in something that doesn’t exist, or is not true, we have