Extra Credit – Essay: NCLS

Extra Credit – NCLS Essay [25 pts]

Due: T19 (1 Mar 11)

ASSIGNMENT: This year’s theme for NCLS is “Strength Within, Leadership Throughout.” The allusion to virtue ethics should be apparent, as we’ve just finished that section of the course. As you know, there’s a rich tradition associated with the term virtue; it serves as a link to our cultural roots and calls to mind an ideal that warriors have preserved for centuries. Compare that to the values promoted by other areas of society, and you get a sense for how virtue is highly regarded and sought after, but also extremely fragile. In the words of Marcus Aurelius (and Richard Harris), “There was once a dream that was Rome. You could only whisper it. Anything more than a whisper and it would vanish…”

We host the NCLS each year in part to help preserve our sense of virtue. The speakers have all, in one sense or another, embodied different virtues to overcome adversity in life. While attending NCLS events, consider these two questions:

1. What virtues did the speaker mention or allude to during his/her presentation? How were the virtues acquired and/or applied? What specific character traits did you observe? Has the speaker adapted a virtue to contemporary life? Is the virtue enduring or has it changed over time?

2. How can contemporary leaders preserve a sense of virtue? When addressing this topic, think about how technology and instant communication have changed our notions of virtue. When mistakes and scandalous behavior are posted somewhere minutes after they occur, does that affect our expectations of today’s leaders?

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

Your assessment should be based on what you hear and learn at the NCLS lectures. If the speaker doesn’t sufficiently addresses the topic you choose, ask them to in the Q & A. (Simple questions would be, “what virtues do you feel helped you during…?” “Is it harder to maintain virtue in today’s instant media culture?” etc.). You may critique the speaker(s) presentation or response, agree, disagree, etc. Remember that your own argument (your answer to the questions) should be based on solid reasons/premises.

GRADING: This assignment will be graded on your ability to analyze the NCLS Speaker’s position (10 pts.), build a solid argument of your own (10 pts.), and communicate both clearly (5 pts.).

ALTERNATE: For those who won’t be here for NCLS, contact me for an alternate assignment.

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.