Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ENGLISH subtitle enabled - - - - - - - - - - - - -(使用中文的觀眾 請點下方cc關閉字幕)- -

  • Evening, evening, good evening

  • I am Kris from P. P. C. C.

  • Today we are making chocolate mille-feuille

  • This dessert is one of my favorites, cause it's really simple to make

  • First, we cut the store bought puff pastry dough into strips

  • Place it onto the baking tray and put it in the oven for 15 mins

  • Remember to preheat the oven at 180 degrees Celsius

  • Next, melt the chocolate over boiled water

  • While we're waiting for the pastry, let's talk about the death penalty

  • I know you wanna ask, "Kris, do you really want to talk about the death penalty, really?"

  • "Don't you want to keep your show running? Are you sure you want to talk about it?"

  • Wait, let me finish

  • Whether death penalty should be abolished or not is a heated issue

  • It's a public decision

  • Not only will it impact on events going on now

  • but it will also impact the future

  • Those who debate over this issue hold different opinions on death penalty

  • and reaching consensus through discussions, will decide the future direction of the society

  • So discussing about the issue today is a good thing

  • Today we're not setting up the debate but in hopes of you learning something

  • through discussing the death penalty

  • For example, have you thought rationally before you support or oppose an issue?

  • And were we using the right methods when discussing an issue?

  • The follwing may be complicated, so let's welcome our guest to help us clear it up

  • (ignore)

  • Let's welcome out guest to help us clear it up

  • (ignore)

  • Let's welcome our guest

  • Ah! Hi everyone, I am the combination of wisdom and logic, Princess Idiot

  • Let's begin

  • About supporting or opposing death penalty

  • we can take a closer look at the debate

  • Though we can't conclude which is the definite answer

  • we can at least learn critical thinking

  • We will be standing in the shoes of the supporters and opposers

  • And give one possible argument from each side as examples

  • to demonstrate how you can analyze and understand a statement when you see one

  • An Eye for an Eye

  • First let's discuss one of the arguments from those who support death penalty

  • Some people support it because they believe in the idea of

  • "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" and also "a life for a life"

  • Does it make sense?

  • Sometimes people mention just one example when expressing thoughts

  • maybe he/ she only expressed a tip of an iceberg of their entire thought

  • No matter what, even if their statement isn't complete, it doesn't mean their thoughts are not as well

  • Just like the puff pastry in the oven are in strips now, but it doesn't mean that they came as strips when we bought it

  • I have no hair now, but it doesn't mean that my hair won't grow

  • I thinknobody cares about that

  • so, when seeing this kind of argument

  • the first step is to find the most persuasive version for it

  • in other words, the official, emphatic, advanced and complete version

  • This is a very crucial step in the thinking process

  • because if the official, emphatic, advanced and complete version

  • seems doubtful

  • then we can feel more comfortable with saying that this argument is really problematic

  • OK, back to the topic, what could the most persuasive version for "an eye for an eye" be

  • The main idea seems to be using the same method to take revenge on the perpetrators

  • Version 1

  • When A did something bad to B, we should do the same thing back to A

  • and if possible, B should be the one who performs it

  • Comparing to the saying "an eye for an eye"

  • Version 1 presents a more complete idea

  • But we can easily tell that this theory still has some problems

  • Not all bad things have the same effect when it's done to the bad guy

  • For example, sexual harassment

  • Ah, a pervert is touching my butt

  • So what? You can also touch mine

  • Oh! So those who said "an eye for an eye" are totally idiots!

  • Hehehehehehehehehehehe

  • Wittgenstein, what you just said isn't correct

  • When a version of an argument sounds awkward

  • it doesn't mean that the argument itself is awkward

  • It might only be that the version itself is not good enough

  • Obviously, "letting victims perform the same harm back to perpetrators" is not persuasive enough

  • Can we find a better version of the argument for "an eye for an eye?"

  • Version 2

  • When A did something bad to B, we should give the same degree of pain that B felt to A

  • Ok, this version unlike the first, it wouldn't have people touching each other's butt

  • But is it really more acceptable? I'll leave this to you

  • Can Retributive Justice: Version 2. stand for the death penalty? Or will it cause other unfavorable results?

  • After watching the argument from the supporters of death penalty

  • lets discuss one of the arguments from the opposers of death penalty

  • Government Kills

  • Some people pointed out, since citizens must not kill, governments must not kill either

  • The reason behind this argument might be

  • that when governments forbid killing, it means that governments consider killing bad

  • However, governments kill people themselves, isn't that a slap in the face?

  • This argument seems clear and simple, but is it reasonable?

  • If we take a further look at this argument, we will find that there's already a presumption

  • which is "when governments forbid citizens do something, the governments mustn't do it themselves"

  • However, as we inspect this, we can instantly smell something fishy

  • For example, charging tax, issuing tickets, pulling cars over, are things that citizens can't do but governments can

  • In fact, if we really tend to follow the idea of

  • "when governments forbid citizens to do something, the governments mustn't do it themselves"

  • then we'll find that under this circumstance government couldn't exist

  • Governments could only exist when it have more power than citizens

  • so they should be allowed to do things that citizens can't

  • If you try to argue that "citizens are forbidden to kill, so the government should also be forbidden as well"

  • then you should also be against jail based on believing "citizens don't have the right to imprison others"

  • Do you think this deduction is reasonable?

  • From "an eye for an eye" to "government kills", we come to two conclusions

  • First, we should check whether our understanding of an argument is the best version before judging it

  • Second, when making sure that whether a certain argument makes sense, we should try to find if it brings any unfavorable results

  • After discussing both arguments

  • can we know whether death penalty should be abolished?

  • Of course not, because these two arguments are only a tip of an iceberg

  • We believe you can come up with more reasons to support or oppose the death penalty

  • like deterrence, miscarriage of justice, human rights...etc.

  • But due to time constraints, plus our main focus today is not to discuss right or wrong

  • We just hope that through these discussions

  • We can remind ourselves to use this kind of thinking process on other issues

  • Maybe it will bring smoother discussions

  • Finally, we can take our puff pastry strips out of the oven

  • Dip the strips into chocolate and leave them to dry

  • Tasty chocolate mille-feuille are ready to be served!

  • Come, have a bite

  • You gonna feed me? How sweet

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ENGLISH subtitle enabled - - - - - - - - - - - - -(使用中文的觀眾 請點下方cc關閉字幕)- -

字幕與單字

影片操作 你可以在這邊進行「影片」的調整,以及「字幕」的顯示

B1 中級

『談談死刑』-哲學哲學雞蛋糕 EP2 (『談談死刑』-哲學哲學雞蛋糕 EP2)

  • 173 8
    123 發佈於 2021 年 01 月 14 日
影片單字