Attached.

Running head: EXAMINED LIFE FILM

HI, I DO UNDERSTAND THIS IS INCOMPLETE WORK. PLEASE BEAR WITH ME AS I
FINALISE THE WORK AND SUBMIT A DULY COMPLETED DOCUMENT. I REGRET
THE MISTAKE THAT IS HUGELY ATTRUBUTED TO A BROKEN LINK TO THE FILM
THAT YOU ATTACHED. WILL GET BACK SOON.

Examined life film
Institutional affiliation:
Date:

EXAMINED LIFE FILM

Introduction
This is a philosophical documentary filmed in 2008 in Canada and is directed by Astra
Taylor. It is a lengthy film that features over eight philosophers majorly focusing the
contemporary insights in life. Eight modern scholars walk around New York City and other
metropolises and help provide practical insights and their application to modern life. They
include Avital Ronell, Colonel West, Peter Singer, Kwame Anthony, Appiah, Judith Butler,
Michael Hardt, Martha Nassbaum and Slovak Zizek. Judith Butler has been accompanied by
Sunny, who is Taylor’s sister and a disability activist. The film made a debut appearance in 2008
in Toronto Canada during the International Film Festival. It also made an appearance in
Melbourne International Film and Kingston Canadian Festival later the following year. This film
is a coproduction involving National Film Board of Canada and Sphinx Production. Others that
have taken part include Ontario Media Development Corporation, Knowledge Network and TV
Ontario.
A keen observation of the film reveals a keen visual imagination and a clear and practical
sense of atmosphere and place. This is clearly against what Socrates tradition philosophies in
Europe. It demystifies philosophy by making it a subject outside classroom and putting it in the
streets. In a series of unique excursions through places and spaces Astra Taylor and other
thinkers helps compare philosophy to jazz and blues which brings a perspective of intensity and
invigorating nature of the life of the mind. The great thinkers discuss an array of life issues and
topics ranging from moral philosophies to cultural philosophy. It helps in shaping the way we
perceive the world around us and hence our responsibility and place in making it a better place.

EXAMINED LIFE FILM

1) Avital Ronell’s walk through a path in central park is related to her comments of a path to
living an ethical life.
A) What are her basic presumptions on ethics?
An American philosopher, Avital Ronell assumes that a rational being must uphold moral
principles to help govern his or her behavior at all times. Her insights help shape the
behavior of all humans at all times and gives them the right perspective and thinking
which instills responsibility. Ethics is about principles as she opines. A morally upright
society is key in fighting most of the social ills witnessed in the society. In her view, it is
not possible to describe the world using ethics. The concepts of thin, ought and good
must be used to represent where the current world upholding the right principles should
be. This contrasts the current world with where we ought to be if the right ethics and
morality are upheld.

B) As a deconstructionist, Ronell refers to Derrida (the father of deconstruction) when she
claims that a person who is satisfied and has a good conscience is morally bankrupt.
What do you think she means by this?
She implies that a rational being is prone to making wrong choices. This is moral deprivation
since one would expect a satisfied person, with the right knowledge and information about
the realities around him should be in a position to make good choices that are morally fit.
This will lead to ethics and right values and principles being upheld in the society. This is
however not true as we see the people with sound and a clear conscience and are satisfied

EXAMINED LIFE FILM

challenging the morals of good behavior. They become morally unfit leading to moral
bankruptcy.
C) Ronell also talks about how understanding the other is an error as well, she claims that
when we believe we understand the other, it makes us want to kill or harm them. In what
ways is this a valid point?
Understanding the other is an error as proposed by Ronell. This proposition, according to
her stems from the fact that human beings cease to be rational and reasonable despite
possessing unique advantages over the animals. This is an ability to understand each
other and behave like rational beings. On the contrary, we used the knowledge that we
possess against each other in making sophisticated arms and weaponry of war, all
motivated by selfish interest and gains. Our primary motivation is not to safeguard the
natural beings that we owe the duty of care to, but to harm them. We harm even the
animals and the environment that we live in despite our ability to reason and understand
each other. This is ironical. The problem can be seen to result from an innate evil that is
resident to all human beings that makes them behave that way.
2.) Singer feels that an essential element of ethics is tied up with money and buying. He expands
this to the ethics of vegetarianism vs. carnivorous diets. Simply put, why are humans entitled to
eat the flesh of other species? Singer admits that such questions were not part of the
philosophical endeavor of the 1970s, but it was precisely then that he found himself wanting to
pose such questions and challenge "common sense morality" through applied ethics. He defends
applied ethics as not necessarily subjective and individualistic but an appropriate way to serve
larger groups. "We should take into account the interests of others." He adds that "ethics is not
just what I decide to do, but what I decide not to do." There is a moral obligation to help as well

EXAMINED LIFE FILM

as not to harm. "We make our lives most meaningful when we connect ourselves to some
important causes or issues….” In short, the good life is one that reduces the amount of
unnecessary pain in the world.
A) As a utilitarian and an animal liberation leader, Singer is focused on what is best for society
as a whole, in such, he concludes that the meaning of life can be found in what we do to make
the world a little bit better. Do you agree with this? Why or why not?
This statement "to make the world a better and harmonious" place to live in is true. When
we co-exist with each other harmoniously and do no harm to animals and the environment, the
world will be a little bit better. The only loss of life will be as a result of natural causes that are
beyond the control of man, animal and environment. Taking a good care of the society means
procreating it which will enable man and animals benefit from it maximumly. This will bring
peace and prosperity as it will pose no threat to animal and human life.
On the contrary, I differ with the statement since we are only able to harness value and
benefit especially when humans eat the flesh of other species. This supports the laws of
ecosystem that places human beings and the other species in various levels in the food chain and
food web. Naturally, without the use of money as a means of exchange, we cannot realize the
good life that is free from pain and suffering as facts beyond human existence, that are motivated
by the very environment he lives in will contribute to the pain and suffering. This means that
humans are not entirely to blame for the pain, evil and suffering witnessed in the society.

EXAMINED LIFE FILM

B) Singer points out that very few people would worry about ruining their shoes to save a child
in a pond, yet then makes the point that the same amount of money spent on a pair of shoes could
save a child through donations to UNICEF or the like and yet very few people donate. Seeing
that both actions can save lives, why do you think that most people still overspend on items like
clothing, food and other luxuries like a new iPhone, when that extra money could save the lives
of others? Why is it easier to save a child we see then one we don't see?
This statement is a paradox that humans with understanding and ability to perceive fellow
human beings and identify with their needs can choose to leave them in pain and suffering
instead of being present to support them and help them. Humans are slave to what they perceive,
sense, see and feel in their current situation as they tend to focus their attention on what is
currently influencing their existence than what is not within their reach. This will make it easier
to address the needs of a child we see than a child we do not see.
Human beings do not always behave as they ought to act. They do not choose and perceive
according to their intellectual ability and understanding they possess. This is due to factors that
are not within their control and influence. The evil resident in every human coerces them and
denies them the rational ability and sound understanding which impairs their judgment and
rationality. This explains why human will live in luxury while the fellow human is in suffering
and pain. This is due to loss of sense and good judgement.
C) When discussion common sense morality, Singer makes the claims that modern day
conservatives are much like those who prosecuted Socrates for ‘corrupting the youth.’ Since
common sense morality must be challenged in applied ethics, why do you think this charge

EXAMINED LIFE FILM

against conservatives is valid? (You have to understand what common sense morality is to
answer this, so you may have to do some research).
3) Princeton/Fordham professor of philosophy Kwame Anthony Appiah supports the notion of
global citizenship. He recognizes that we have virtual relationships with the world, no longer just
with 100 or fewer family, friends, and co-workers. Through travel, communications,
entertainment, and the Internet we are now so much more aware of the people of the world. With
such extensive connectivity, he infers we have now become “responsible for each other.” Appiah
sees the creation of a global conversation of human beings about what is right and wrong in the
21st century. We will have to recognize the huge diversity of values by which we are guided but
must endeavor to find common ground. We can neither abandon our core group nor ignore the
rest of humanity.
A) Appiah does not want to give into subjectivism in ethics and instead points towards a global
conversation of what is moral rather than a judgmental one. He makes a reference to his binary
background and how each culture looks at who is responsible for raising the children be it
through a father or a maternal uncle and claims that a Universalist would say only one way can
be right. He additionally claims that why can't the answer be what makes something right is if it
gets the job done and not how. Would this be a consequentialist theory in a sense? In what way?
If not, how not?
According to consequentialist theory, one’s conduct contributes in making the judgement
on what is right or wrong. Appiah explanation informs this theory since the parents’ conduct
contributes entirely to the upbringing of the child. In short, their behavior, habits and conducts
shapes the judgement of what is right or wrong to the child. The parent is not to escape the

EXAMINED LIFE FILM

responsibility of demonstrating good conduct and judgement at all times in the presence of their
children. This responsibility will go a long way to influencing the conduct and the growth of a
child in all times.
B) Appiah, like many of the speakers, brings us back to the Greeks in his talk. Why do you think
so many of the philosophers refer to the Greeks so often? Would this mean that a truly well done
education should include the Greek ideas and thoughts? In doing so, wouldn’t we be
universalizing education?
The ancient Greece is renowned for wisdom as a source of wisdom and intellect since the
ancient times. Its philosophy dates back in the 6 th century which is long enough for most scholars
to refer to the views and opinions of philosophers who existed in such days and era. It dealt with
many subjects ranging from logic, political philosophy, ontology, rhetoric among other
disciplines. This makes many scholars to refer to legendary scholars who lived and influenced
philosophy positively during their days in Greece.
A truly well done education should be a blend of what other scholars who existed in
ancient days are saying and should incorporate the modern scholars and researchers to remain
relevant and cotemporally as possible. This will make education universal.Thus, we cannot claim
that Greece philosophy and way of live is what should entirely inform our education system and
way of life. This is because is not sufficient to respond to the current problems that we are facing
in the society.
D) A very important point that Appiah discusses is the idea that we have at least a virtual
connection to the citizens of the world, a term he calls Cosmopolitanism. In this theory,
we are interconnected globally with all fellow citizens of the world and owe each other

EXAMINED LIFE FILM

moral obligations and responsibility. He claims that we must balance our love and care
with our core group with that of the rest of humanity. How could we do this? Is it worth
doing? Why should we be responsible for all humanity or why not?
That we are in charge of exercising due care and responsibility is the essence of humanity
and procreation. This should be a balanced care that enables humans to view the fellow other
with great respect and responsibility. This will increase love and promote the culture of peace
and harmony. The only way to exist in harmony with each other is to respect each other’s
rights and seek to uphold and protect them. We should be brother’s keeper and we should
therefore act in manners that promote happiness and joy to the fellow humans. We should be
responsible for all humanity to make the world a better place to live in. The opposite is true
where we should if we embrace hate, chaos and disturbance, we will not be able to enjoy life
and live for its purpose.
4) Classicist Martha Nussbaum examines the social contract which began to emerge in the 17th
and 18th centuries and considers ways of expanding social justice to cover those with unequal
physical and mental abilities, including the disabled, children, and eld erly. She pursues ideas
embodying a “capability approach” which works to ensure that everyone benefits from social
justice and has the opportunity to develop to the best of his/her abilities.
A) As a follower of Aristotle’s idea on justice as the enabler of human capability, Nussbaum
advocates for the application of this idea to all humans (rather than the select few of Aristotle).
She develops a new theory called the capability approach, described above. In what ways would
this new approach help those in society who had been forgotten or neglected in the past?

EXAMINED LIFE FILM

Upholding justice in an already chaotic society that does not uphold and respect the rights
of the marginalized and the less fortunate in the society promotes the basic human rights to live.
Everybody is entitled to a life of peace and harmony despite the mental capacity or physical
ability. It is only in a just society where the value of life is respected and upheld. This will make
the society alive and sensitive to the rights of the less fortunate. People will begin appreciating
each other with love and decorum. This will lead to formation of movements and policies that
will address the rights of disabled and the mentally challenged persons in the society. This will
promote peace and harmony as well as peaceful coexistence.
B) In her walk, Nussbaum dismantles the social contract theorists and points out many of its
weaknesses. Which of her arguments against the social contract theorists are the strongest?
Her social theories propose the motivation of the rights of humans at all times. She helps
state and explain the right behavior and evil behavior. This will promote the sense of what is
perceived right which will make humans want to be morally responsible to each other. She is a
proponent of political morality in a society that does not embrace morality as a way of life. This
will promote social justice as politicians will be held accountable of their deeds and actions.
C) Nussbaum is the only Universalist in this group of philosophers, she believes in the
essentialist aspects of moral theory (the idea that there is a universal right and wrong in each
scenario). In some ways, she agrees with those whom she attacks such as Kant and Rousseau
who both claimed a universal right and wrong. How do you think she justify her belief in
universal right and wrong in a modern multicultural world?
In her view, the perception of right and wrong behavior is what guides human beings in
making their decision. She justifies this fact by clearly cutting what is deemed right and moral

EXAMINED LIFE FILM

and what is not morally acceptable. This presents choices and consequence aspects to all humans
as they are needed to be accountable at all times to fellow humans. It helps to create sense of
sobriety in a society that has forgotten the morals of what is right or wrong.
She further justifies this aspect by requiring accountability from humans at all times.
With accountability and responsibility, all humans will be able to make the right choices which
will reduce evil in the society and promote harmony.
5. Political philosopher Michael Hardt discusses revolutionary desire and his activist
generation’s experiences in Central America in the 1980s. He came to realize that he and other
Americans were not really helping the revolutions of Nicaragua and El Salvador, but he was
confused when told to go back to America and start a revolution “in the mountains” and commit
sabotage. The entire enterprise of creating guerrilla cells came to seem ridiculous in the
American context. Instead Hardt began to examine the very meaning of revolution. Is it the
replacement of one corrupt, selfish elite with another elite that might be better (the dictatorship
of the Communist Party preceding the withering away of the need for government)? Or is
revolution simply the removal of all notions of authority? Hardt began to focus more on
rethinking the possibility of changing human nature, transforming people in such a way as to
make them truly capable of real democracy and self-rule without elites.
A) “We’re stuck conceptually, I think, between two almost cliché ways of thinking revolution
today. On the one hand, we have the notion of revolution that involves the replacement of a
ruling elite with another better, in many ways, ruling elite. And that’s in fact the form that many
of the modern revolutions have taken and have posed great benefits for the people, et cetera, but
they have not arrived at democracy. And so that notion of revolution is really discredited, and I

EXAMINED LIFE FILM

think rightly so. But opposed to that is another notion of revolution, which I think is equally
discredited from exactly the opposite point of view, which is the notion of revolution- that, in
fact hasn’t been instituted-that thinks of revolution as just the removal of all of those forms of
authority- state power, the power of capital- that stop people from expressing their natural
abilities to rule themselves.” With this quote in mind, which form of revolution should we seek?
Why would it be better to revolutionize our thought than overthrow a government?
According to this view, the right form of revolution that we should seek should challenge
the status quo of the current economic and social political establishments and seeks to bring
reforms that upholds the growth of economy and social political prosperity. This should not be a
selfish revolution that seeks to benefit the interest of few fascists and individuals who are bent on
dictatorial tendencies and inclinations. The reforms should focus in making the lives of the
citizenry better and more valuable than creating chaos and problems. Revolutionizing our
thoughts is critical as it will help dispel the wrong attitudes and thoughts that motivates selfish
interests and gains.
B) “How do people learn democracy? How does human nature change to become capable of
democracy? Not by its opposite. It can only be done in a sort of positive development byYou can only learn democracy by doing it. And so that that seems to me- the conception- the
only way it seems to me today to be able to rehabilitate the conception of revolution.” Do you
agree or disagree with this statement? Explain your answer.
People learn democracy by upholding the rights of the majority and respecting the
choices and inclinations of the minority. The right perspective should not segregate the minority
but should provide proper guidance and support in appreciating what is right and morally

EXAMINED LIFE FILM

acceptable. Human nature will be influence and changed by democracy that advocates for what
is morally acceptable and right than the democracy against what is right and can foster
prosperity. Any inclination to choosing what is wrong will lead to bad choices and bad results.
I agree with the statement “rehabilitating the conception of revolution” since the right
perspective and motivation to revolution will guarantee the right results. The flipside of this
argument is true. A wrong concept and understanding of revolution has always lead to massive
loss of life and property and catapulted many democracies into untold suffering and problems.
Hence, it’s only the right conception of democracy that will lead to better reforms in any society
and democracy.
C) “The relevant fact for politics is really that human nature’s changeable. Human nature isn’t
good or evil. Human nature is, uh, constituted. It’s constituted by how we act. Human nature is,
in fact, the history of habits and practices… that are the result of past struggles, of past
hierarchies, of past victories and defeats. And so this is, I think, actually-The key to rethinking
revolution is to recognize that revolution is not just about a transformation for democracy. It’s
really- Revolution really requires a transformation of human nature so that people are capable of
democracy. Democracy is one of those concepts that seems to me has been almost completely
corrupted today. In some cases, it’s used to mean simply periodic elections with a limited choice
of rulers. In other cases, when one thinks especially in international affairs, it often means
following the will of the United States. But really, democracy means the rule of all by all. It
means everybody involved in collective self-rule.” The claim that democracy has been totally
corrupted is a serious one. In what ways is Hardt correct? What could be some of the solutions to
this corruption?

EXAMINED LIFE FILM

This claim that democracy have been corrupted is true. This is because of many wrong
choices made by humans that always lead to suffering and pain. Many countries abuse the right
of majority to make the wrong choices. This is often in...