Discussion
-
Week 2: Reading Guide
Read more: Week 2: Reading GuideEach week’s readings will be accompanied by a set of guiding questions. As you read the materials, take notes about key messages as well as questions you have. Class discussions will center around these.
-
Week 1: Reading Guide
Read more: Week 1: Reading GuideEach week’s readings will be accompanied by a set of guiding questions. As you read the materials, take notes about key messages as well as questions you have. Class discussions will center around these.
-
Discussion Question – Innovative Games
Read more: Discussion Question – Innovative GamesBoth authors emphasize the potential of games to address relevant social issues and educate the gamers. What are some cultural, political, or ethical issues that you think might be usefully addressed by games? How would you design a game to address this issue? (Brainstorm and get creative!)
-
Discussion Question – Why Eat Less Meat
Read more: Discussion Question – Why Eat Less MeatThe website Why Eat Less Meat cites four major reasons to eat less meat: the efficiency of the global food system, the environment, health (both personal and public), and animal welfare. Which of these reasons to eat less meat do you find most compelling? Are any of these reasons (or the combination of them) compelling enough to make you think you personally should eat less meat? Why or why not?
-
Discussion Question – Ecology
Read more: Discussion Question – EcologyIn the transcript of Slavoj Žižek’s conversation from Examined Life, he says, "the true ecologist must also accept that nature is the ultimate human myth, that we humans, when we perceive ourselves as beyond nature, exploiting nature and so on, we also, through this opposition, create a certain image of nature. And that idealized image of nature is the ultimate obstacle to ecology. So, again, this is why my formula is ecology without nature. The first duty is to drop this heavily ideologically mythological, invested notion of nature." What do you think? What are the two notions of "ecology" he is comparing? Do you agree?
-
Discussion Question – Famine Relief
Read more: Discussion Question – Famine ReliefIn his clip from Examined Life, Peter Singer argues that we should all be giving substantial amounts of money and/or time to famine relief, e.g., by giving to Oxfam. He draws on an analogy: suppose you were walking by a shallow pond and a child was drowning. All you need to do to save her life is wade in and help her, though you would ruin your nice shoes. You are morally required to sacrifice your shoes to save the child's life. He argues: children are dying every day from famine. If you restrict yourself to what you really need and sacrifice luxuries, giving the money you save to famine relief, you will save many lives. So you are morally required to do so. What do you think of the analogy?
-
Discussion Question – What can a body do?
Read more: Discussion Question – What can a body do?In the Judith Butler / Sunaura Taylor clip from Examined Life, Butler considers the question "what can a body do?” She and Taylor suggest that the "can" here is not just about what bodies are physically capable of, but what constraints are imposed by society. They consider the possibility that gender and disability are similar, socially speaking, because there are substantial social constraints on how we can use our bodies to enact our gender and/or physical capacities. What do you think? Is there an analogy here? What other social constraints are there on our embodiment?
Notice something that doesn’t seem right? Want to make a suggestion or provide feedback about how something is classified?
Please reach out to esi [at] mit.edu and include SCALES Website in the subject of your email.
Feedback and any actions taken with regards to the feedback, will be shared as they are addressed.