Extra Credit – Essay: Frankfurt & the Honor Code

ASSIGNMENT: Read Frankfurt’s essay On B.S. From that and our discussion in class, assess whether and how Frankfurt’s work may apply to the Honor Code. Could the work on b.s. offer some improvements to the Honor Code, or not so much?

Select one of the following topics and write a two-page (500 word) essay answering the associated question(s).

1. Like the Honor Code, Frankfurt takes into consideration the speaker’s state of mind. Does his work add anything to the concept of intent as outlined in the Honor Code?

or

2. Does the Honor Code deal with B.S. as defined by Frankfurt?

This isn’t an “agree or disagree” type assignment. Your assessment should be based on the strength of the argument Frankfurt makes in relation to the question you’re answering. Remember that your own argument (your answer to the question) should be based on solid reasons/premises, one of which will be an explicit definition of b.s.

GRADING: This assignment will be graded on your ability to analyze Frankfurt’s work (10 pts.), the development of your own line of argumentation (10 pts.), and your ability to communicate both clearly (5 pts.).

EXTRA CREDIT: BS and the Honor Code

We have a theme running through what you’ve written for assignment #2: the second question (Does the Honor Code deal with BS as defined by Frankfurt?) seems to have elicited more response – either the Code doesn’t address BS directly but doesn’t need to (for various reasons), or the Code does deal with BS when it’s egregious. The root argument in both of these positions runs something like: when BS approaches a certain point, a perception of lying on the part of the receiver, the Code kicks in, regardless of the BSer’s intent.

On several of your papers, I’ve written a comment to the effect that an example or case that illustrates that line – where BS crosses into lying – would strengthen the root argument.

So give me one. Everyone’s eligible, regardless if you chose this question or the other (on intent/state of mind). Give me a “Cadet X”-type scenario where the BSer sticks to Frankfurt’s definition but also “activates” the Honor Code’s definition of lying. For the sake of clarity, here are your terms of reference:

BS (Frankfurt) – pointless, unnecessary, insincere, or empty speech or act; not necessarily false, but always deceptive or phony in the sense that the speaker’s enterprise is to convey some sense of authenticity, while s/he is ultimately unconstrained by a concern for truth and is indifferent to how things really are.

Lying (Honor Code) – making an assertion with an intent to deceive or mislead.

Limit your case to 1-2 paragraphs. Max points – 10 – based on the outcome, a good, plausible scenario. Email it to me by 0000 hrs., 23 Aug.

The Next Generation of BSers

NYT has an article today ("The Language of Fakebook") on a pair of YA authors supplementing their story, “My Darkling,” with a Facebook page for their fictional character. According to the Times, the fake Facebook page does a good job of replicating real pages by copying the phony, persona-injected postings that mark real teen (and for that matter, adult) pages. Here's an excerpt; as you read it, think of Frankfurt’s definition of BS:

“My Darklyng” offers a brilliant commentary on how fictional teenagers are
on Facebook. Their stylized, mannered projections of self are as invented as any
in a novel. There are regional differences, of course, to the mannerisms but
there are certain common tics: Okayyyyyyyyy. Ahhhhhhh. Everything is extreme:
So-and-so “is obsessed with.” So-and-so “just had the longest day EVERRRRRR.”
They are in a perpetual high pitch of pleasure or a high pitch of crisis or
sometimes just a high pitch of high pitch. Holden Caulfield might have called it
“phoniness.”

A 14-year-old I talked to about this sent me a message that pretty much
sums it up: “I write more enthusiastically on Facebook than I actually am in
real life. Like if I see something remotely funny I might say
‘HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA,’ when really there is no expression on my
face.”

Frankfurt Interview

Click on the image to watch Harry Frankfurt interviewed on "The Daily Show" (March 2005).

Recap: Lessons 1-4

We started with basic terms, Philosophy, Ethics and Morality, and we made a distinction between Ethics and Morality for the purpose of this course. Remember, most people use the terms Ethics and Morality interchangeably (though they wouldn’t say something like “business morality” or “the ethic of the story”). We make the distinction here because (1) the words have seperate roots and origins, and (2) when we look at the etymology, we find that ancient difference informs an important feature of your relationship to the Academy.

It goes something like this: You come here with an established set of morals. The job here at the Academy is to present to you our military ethic. Your job then is (1) to decide whether you want to be a part of the military, and (2) to adopt the military ethos. We all operate under the assumption that the answer to (1) is “yes,” so the real work is going on with (2). Adopting the military ethos is a process, not something you do overnight. Throughout that process, we, the faculty, staff and personnel at the Academy, work to reinforce your decision in various ways. Ultimately, we’re working to persuade you to adopt our ethos. That may sound strange at first, but much of human communication and interaction amounts to little more than some function of persuasion. In class I said philosophers have two main tasks; to analyze and to persuade. The same could be said for any academic field. Science, for instance, does the majority of its business behind the scenes, with scientists working to persuade one another about what constitutes evidence. In the Air Force, our “official” (i.e., the one we learn in PME) definition of leadership is “the art and science of influencing and directing people to accomplish the assigned mission.” Sometimes the best way to persuade someone is to have them persuade themselves, so your fist assignment for the course, reading George F. Will’s lecture and answering the two questions, was designed to have you reflect on your own process of internalizing the military ethos up to this point.

We talked in class about how persuasion moves one to adopt a belief or position or course of action and how it’s based on argument. We looked at the construction of arguments and the different types, how our experience of the world is matured through argument, and how we judge good arguments from the bad ones, which is the critical step in developing our knowledge. On that last point, the Harry Frankfurt reading took us beyond fallacies with his work on BS. We read him as an exemplar of how philosophers do their work. His examinations of lying and intent are also applicable to your experience with the Honor Code here at the Academy. Your second assignment will explore that further and consider whether Frankfurt might offer some enhancement to the Code and its application.

Finally, we applied some tools of the trade to a case study by taking a critical look at the justifications for going to war in Iraq and identifying the bad arguments, i.e., those that failed to persuade.

QRC - Bad Arguments

A one-page guide summarizing our brief examination of bad arguments...