Passage Discussion

[andrewgong01]

I wanted to check if my understanding was correct because I found this passage(both of them) the hardest in the section. In particular, I am not sure if I understand "B" correctly now:

Passage A:

P1: St. Augustine background, introduces topic

P2: Pushback against St Augustine, maybe the idea of forfeiture is good

P3: Potential Pushback against P2 since it then says it leads to two questions

P4: Not always correct to respond with lies/whatever the other guy did; you must take into account total harm on self, and general trust --> In other words, the liar's/ wrongdoer's personal action in itself is not sufficient to allow you to respond with "bad" actions

To me P4 was hard to understand and during my original read I just labeled it as "pushback"


Passage B:

P1: Kant holds by virtue of rationality in you , how you treat others is how you can be expected to be treated by others. On my review, a key phrase was "as if that person's act is the product of rational decision" - Lines 36-37.

P2: Pushback against Kant's idea saying if we push that idea to the extreme we must go out and react for every action others have done; author steps in and says it is a "Right" and not "Duty". If someone does exercise the right to treat you in the way you treated others you have no recourse for complaints but it is not a duty for someone to treat you in such a way.

To me P2 was hard to understand. On my original first read I circled the "But the assertion... " (Line 40) sentence and "leads t o a right rather than a duty" (Line 49) and gambled that this was the author pushing back/adding a caveat to the Kantian argument. But the final sentence from line 52 did make it more confusing because it was talking about valid complaints and injustices... Now I think it is indeed a pushback but the specifics is still hard to grapple with


It seems like both passages are concerned with how you as a private citizen should respond to wrong doings from other citizens. Both passages intially introduce some idea that equal retaliation is "good" but both passages subsequently push back against the idea of equal retaliation by adding caveats. Both also appeal to philosophers.

There wasn't really like any stand out most important sentences in either of the passages but the author's stance is clear with how each passage concludes.

[ohthatpatrick]

I think the central question each passage is trying to answer is
"Should you lie to a liar?"

And both authors essentially say,
"You COULD lie to a liar. It's within your rights.
But no, we wouldn't say you SHOULD. There could be other considerations that would make it more appropriate to keep telling the truth."