This site requires Javascript to be turned on. Please enable Javascript and reload the page.

Together Apart: Freshman Colloquium

Panel 10: Challenges and Concessions to Authority

This varied set of papers offers a complex engagement with authority, whether it be imposed or consented to, beneficent or oppressive. Writers look at how authorities might intervene to support public health or preserve the ideals of sportsmanship. By contrast, others examine how corrupt systems of authority harm communities of color or silence the voices of those who have been historically oppressed. In diverse topics ranging from regulation of smoking and performance enhancing drugs to negotiating the limitations of new medical technologies, to challenging the status quo, these writers explore the limitations of authority. --V. O.

This page has paths:

Contents of this path:

Contents of this path:

By Nicole Black

As technology advances, it is necessary to stop and reflect upon how these new developments will change our world in the future. One example is the ever developing Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector. AI promises faster and more capable computers, and many have predicted that these developments will lead to a takeover of careers in fields such as medicine. But when we take a closer look at what medicine really is, and what aspects make up the role of a doctor, it becomes clear that medicine’s roots in humanity will hold fast. However, this is not to say that Artificial Intelligence is useless when it comes to healthcare. In fact, if implemented in a way that will carefully balance the human aspects of medicine, AI can revolutionize medicine, while still allowing doctors to continue their crucial, and fundamentally human, work.
By Sophia Hernandez

I associated this untouchable box with politics because politics has a ways been a topic that individuals avoid discussing because it is too controversial. The writers that we studied in class are amongst the few that took on the moral responsibility to express the political climate of their time. I included the works Carolyn Forche and Claudia Rankine as well as encounter I have faces as a person of color in Los Angeles to support my analysis.
By Ashley Ka

Fair play theory’s appeal lies in its supposed ability to explain political obligation without the problems that arise when relying on consent to ground that obligation. However, I aim to show that the fair play account does not succeed in providing a distinct basis for political obligation, as it relies upon consent. I examine several illustrative variations of Robert Nozick’s neighborhood example to demonstrate that in each case, the presence or absence of consent aligns with our intuitive conclusions about the respective presence or absence of obligation. I find that fair play fails to provide an account of obligation (including political obligation) that provides a useful alternative to consent. Consent remains the driving force behind “fair play” obligations.
By Raymond Lu

Doping in sports has become increasingly prevalent at the professional and international level, and strict measures have been put in place to prevent this form of cheating. However, aside from affecting individual competitions, what are the widespread and deeper effects that doping has on all sports? This paper analyzes how doping hurts and ruins the inherent value of sports on the amateur and professional level, arguing against recent pushes to legalize performance enhancing drugs. I draw on the works of the philosophers Peter Singer and Julian Savulescu to prove that sports are not just about winning, but rather self-growth, enjoyment, and teamwork. Finally, I propose a solution that can potentially remove doping from sports all together, a solution that involves the audience rather than the athletes.
By Lyme Cho

Should health decisions should be left solely up to individuals? This paper will focus specifically on smoking regarding the ethical implications of prioritizing individuals over the public. Although individual values of freedom are important, paternalism promotes just health outcomes by offering solutions to self-control problems. There are three central claims focused on addressing this debate: intervention, constant vigilance, and subjective health values. Drawing from psychology and philosophy, I discuss the extent of paternalism and autonomy adequately intervening in decisions to smoke, analyzing the role of objective values against subjective beliefs in health decisions.