Proceedings of the Hwa Chong Invitational Philosophy Olympiad 2018

HCIФO 1

Proceedings of the Hwa Chong Invitational Philosophy Olympiad 2018

Hwa Chong Invitational Philosophy Olympiad 2018 /hcipo2018

@hcipo2018 Hwa Chong Invitational Philosophy Olympiad — HCIPO

Designed by Quince Pan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Hwa Chong Invitational Philosophy Olympiad is the first pre-university level philosophy competition in , and formally endorsed by International Philosophy Olympiad. It is founded on the belief that constructive debate best nurtures skills such as open-mindedness, inquisitiveness, multi-perspective thinking, logical rigour, and effective communication.

HCIPO is also supported by and in official partnership with the Yale–NUS Philosophy Society, Nanyang Philosophy, and SIM GE Philosophy Club.

The HCIPO Secretariat would like to thank the following for their invaluable guidance and support throughout the Olympiad. Without them, the efforts of the Secretariat would not have realised.

JUDGES SCHOOL STAFF

Ms Alexandra Serrenti Mr Pang Choon How Lecturer Principal Psychology University of Wollogong (SIM Global Education) Mr Chan Kwok Leong Prof Andrew T. Forcehimes Deputy Principal / Studies Assistant Professor Hwa Chong Institution Philosophy / School of Humanities Nanyang Technological University Dr Melvyn Lim Deputy Principal / Student Development Prof Hiu Chuk Winnie Sung Hwa Chong Institution Assistant Professor Philosophy / School of Humanities Mr Christopher David Burge Nanyang Technological University Lecturer / Humanities Hwa Chong Institution Prof Loy Hui Chieh Associate Professor & Deputy Head of Department Mr Tan Wah Jiam Department of Philosophy Senior Consultant / Knowledge and Inquiry National University of Singapore Hwa Chong Institution

Prof Matthew D. Walker Mr U.K. Shyam Associate Professor Lecturer / Knowledge and Inquiry Humanities (Philosophy) Department Hwa Chong Institution Yale–NUS College

Prof Matthew Hammerton Assistant Professor Philosophy Singapore Management University

Prof Qu Hsueh Ming Assistant Professor Department of Philosophy National University of Singapore

4 SECRETARIAT, MODERATORS & FACILITATORS

FRONT ROW (from left to right) BACK ROW (from left to right)

Ong Pin Ern (Photographer/Videographer) Quince Pan (Secretariat, Media) Ning Xinran (Secretariat, Media) Tan Joy (Secretariat, Logistics) Tang Zixuan (Moderator) Andrew Ke Yanzhe (Photographer/Videographer) Tang Han Shin (Secretariat, Academics) Valerie Chua Yan Tong (Secretariat, Media) Dragon Chew (Moderator) Wang HaoJia (Photographer/Videographer) Cui Zizai (Secretariat, Organising Chairperson) Gui Ming Jiang (Secretariat, Academics) Dillon Tan (Logistics) Jordan Lim (Secretariat, Logistics) Toh Wei Chuan (Moderator) Joshua Lim (Moderator) Soh Zhi Hong (Logistics) Sharmaine Koh (Moderator) Aidan Ong Zongren (Reporter) Auyok Ryan (Moderator)

NOT PICTURED ABOVE

Isabella Hee (Master of Ceremony) Li Yundi (Logistics)

5 Hwa Chong Invitational HCIФO Philosophy Olympiad 2018

6 CONFERENCE DAY

7 for the participants’ confident delivery of quality CONFERENCE REPORT content and lauded their passion for a discipline as by Aidan Ong Zongren, Valerie Chua Yan Tong abstract and rigorous as philosophy. Professor Hiu Chuk Winnie Sung (Assistant Professor of Philosophy, To think, to learn, to philosophise— Nanyang Technological University) also shared insights into argumentation in philosophy. She reminded the These humble ideals formed the fundamental principles participants of the importance of grounding questions from which the Hwa Chong Invitational Philosophy in everyday phenomena: “At the early stages of inquiry, Olympiad (HCIPO), Singapore’s first pre-university it is better to have small, mundane examples which are level philosophy competition, was founded. On 4 August manageable and allow one to tease out the different 2018, 48 students — split into 12 teams of 4 — from dimensions of the question.” 12 junior colleges gathered in Hwa Chong Institution to kickstart a day of tenacious argumentation, and Participants subsequently took the opportunity to raise a thorough assessment of humanity’s most baffling questions to the panel of judges. Fruitful discussions enigmas. followed. There were various talking points, for instance: What is the meaning of philosophy to the The highlight of HCIPO Conference Day was ordinary man? What are the career options following undoubtedly the two rounds of verbal discussion — a degree in philosophy? As the Panel Discussion took each lasting 90 minutes — that took place during flight, it was interesting to see the judges holding vastly the conference. Distinguished guest judges from 5 different opinions. Perhaps the advice of Ms Alex universities presided dutifully over the various exchanges Serrenti (Lecturer of Psychology, SIM) best explains with the facilitative help of student moderators. With how each judge’s distinctive character came about: “Live their air of professionalism and finesse pervading the life deeply, for it gives your philosophy authenticity.” seminar rooms, the stage was set for the free, constructive presentation of ideas among the participants. Indeed, philosophy adds meaning to our experience of the world, and HCIPO offers a platform for an Discourse proceeded with each round consisting of exchange of meanings. For Zhao Ziqi (Year 5, ACJC), short 4-minute speeches given by each member of both HCIPO was an opportunity to meet many great teams, interspersed with quick-fire 1-minute Q&A people, learn from their perspectives, and be inspired. sessions for the clarification of controversial positions. This positive experience was not gained without the It saw seamless transitions to various fields of knowledge initial challenge of working together as a team. Ziqi’s that exposed all participants to a variety of ideas and teammate, Natasha Khoo Mei Hui (Year 6, VJC) shared argumentative styles. Impassioned speeches advanced that while their group dynamics were poor at first, the well-justified propositions; even spectators were able ideas they bounced off one another challenged their to have a little taste of the action and were given just preconceived notions and led them to “re-evaluate as much opportunity to contribute to the thoughtful [their] thinking process.” Such critical thinking on their conversations. part was evident in their meticulous writing, which enabled them to clinch the Best Written Proposal award In particular, Professor Matthew D. Walker (Associate for Topic 1. Professor, Humanities Department at Yale-NUS College), was impressed by the high standard of As the video montage was screened and the conference discussion and the “strong philosophical muscles” of drew to a close, a deep sense of fulfilment and the Olympiad participants. He commended the care satisfaction dwelled in the heart of every participant. and attention students brought to their presentations, Ultimately, the first ever HCIPO stayed true to its highlighting how they were reasonable in supporting vision, bringing together like-minded students with a their viewpoints while staying open in respecting penchant for philosophy to nurture open-mindedness, different stances. inquisitiveness, and multi-perspective thinking. ∎

Such sentiments were reaffirmed during the Panel Discussion, where judges took the stage to share their thoughts on the written submissions and discussions that they had assessed. They expressed appreciation

8 9 PARTICIPANTS

Team A$AP Team Gettier

Wesley Simeon Tan Anglo–Chinese School (Independent) Lek Siang Ern

Teoh Chyi Hui Jacey Eunoia Junior College Johanna Ong Li Xin (NJC)

Jay Tan Zi Lin National Junior College Ow Yong Yen Kay Jill (SJI) St. Joseph’s Institution

Ang Jun Sheng Jordan Wang Boyan Hwa Chong Institution

Team Bentham Team Hume

Maximilian Yap Ming Khuan Anglo–Chinese School (Independent) Zhu Wentao Hwa Chong Institution

Shan Yunhong Hwa Chong Institution Alma Delia Sukma National Junior College

Joshua Yong Zhi Hao Nguyen Duy Anh Quan St. Joseph’s Institution

Jonathan Koh Ern Juan Victoria Junior College Ng Weihan Eunoia Junior College

Team Cardiac Arrest Team Infinite Regress

Zhao Ziqi Anglo–Chinese Junior College Boh Jie Qi

Sun Yiran Hwa Chong Institution Amelia Ding Yinuo Raffles Institution

Pan Liyu Raffles Institution Maximillian Lim Sheng Lee St. Joseph’s Institution

Natasha Khoo Mei Hui Victoria Junior College Feng Yuxin Hwa Chong Institution

Team Determinant Team Jabberwocky

Lok Wai Cheng United World College of Faith Claudette Chong Dunman High School South East Asia Li Chang Raffles Institution Hoh Zheng Feng Sean Hwa Chong Institution Isabella Patricia Mulles Ocampo School of the Arts, Singapore Pan Yue Raffles Institution Lucia Marie Ng St. Joseph’s Institution Zhou Zitong Victoria Junior College

Team Kryptonite Team Eyjafjallajökull Koh Hui Ling Dunman High School Wint Wah Thit Thit Zaw National Junior College Allison Anne Samuel National Junior College Phang Yeu Yeou Raffles Institution Kristina Gweneth Ponce St. Joseph’s Institution Samuel Lee Cong St. Joseph’s Institution Simundo

Qi Siyi Hwa Chong Institution Song Chenan

Team Fallacious Reasoning Team Lambda

Ng Yong Ming Keane National Junior College Lin Zhonglin Anglo–Chinese Junior College

Xuan Zi Han Raffles Institution Tasha Anna Leow Dunman High School

Nisha Thanabal St. Joseph’s Institution Chu Chi Huen Carina National Junior College

Fong Ken Rui Hwa Chong Institution Dorothy Boyle St. Joseph’s Institution

10 BEST WRITTEN PROPOSALS

Topic 1 — Ethics and Justice in History: Remembering, Forgetting, Forgiving Team Cardiac Arrest

Topic 2 — What is Truth? Team Kryptonite

BEST WRITTEN RESPONSES

Topic 1 — Ethics and Justice in History: Remembering, Forgetting, Forgiving Team Infinite Regress

Topic 2 — What is Truth? Team Determinant

BEST SPEAKER AWARDS

Topic 1 — Ethics and Justice in History: Remembering, Forgetting, Forgiving Xuan Zi Han Pan Yue Zhu Wentao Zhao Ziqi Qi Siyi Li Chang

Topic 2 — What is Truth? Amelia Ding Yinuo Lek Siang Ern Sun Yiran Song Chenan Fong Ken Rui Pan Yue

11 decisions is a social construct, which the governing BEST WRITTEN PROPOSAL body is responsible for. Topic 1 — Ethics and Justice in History: Remembering, Forgetting, Forgiving If there is no lapse in time, justice can be served with immediate effect on the direct criminals and victims. by TEAM CARDIAC ARREST However, in the case of a historical wrongdoing, it Zhao Ziqi (ACJC), Sun Yiran (HCI), becomes unclear upon who justice can act. New-born Pan Liyu (RI), Natasha Khoo Mei Hui (VJC) individuals do not hold stakes in the collective, and thus are not responsible for the collective. The governing body is also dynamic, elected through the combined The authors in this proposal discuss how power of the individuals. The combination of these justice may be meted out to punish historical implies that there is no longer an active criminal after wrongdoings such as war crimes, drawing a the death of all criminal individuals in the interaction. distinction between active participants (i.e. criminals and victims) and passive victims of Such is not necessarily true of the victim. Even after the subsequent generations that retain a right death of all individual victims involved in the interaction, to seek justice. They conclude that the most in the case of a large enough value deficit, descendants morally commendable stance to take is to of the direct victims would be living on a reduced value forgive, achieving closure, but not to forget, share as compared to without the interaction. They, too, in acknowledgement of the irreversible harm are then passive victims. This could be extended to the collective. In the assumption that the governing body inflicted upon victims, so that justice may be always makes the choice of greatest value production, fairly dealt. the collective forever operates on a value deficit. Hence, even beyond the first generation descendants of the Who made the decision, who it affects, who shall direct victims, the collective as a whole retains a right pay, and pay for what? to the status of “victim”, although no individuals in the collective are victims. When speaking of justice against an immoral interaction it is important to identify the parties on both ends. The Hence, beyond the first generation from the time of the criminal is the one who has to compensate the victim. interaction, justice is dealt with respect to a phantom of We hence begin by identifying the criminal and victim. the past as the criminal and Collective β as the victim. It is clear that not much can be done by the presently non- A Collective α’s population or part of interacts under existent phantoms of the past, but actions in response the instruction of the governing body with another can nonetheless be taken by β to bring justice to the Collective β or part of in a certain way, such that the interaction. The governing body of β is hence both a interaction produced an unequal value exchange, a representative of the victim and the judicator. We move wrongdoing, in the perception of both Collective β and on to discuss said response. an external observer. β in this case is the victim, and α the criminal. To remember or forget? To forgive or not to forgive? Collective α’s governing body, as well as each individual participant involved in the wrongdoing, is morally In this section, we discuss the general appropriate responsible for the decision of the interaction. They response to historical wrongdoings, in which collectives collectively are the criminals, but not the population might remember, forget, and/or forgive. We will of α who did not participate in nor were informed of begin by discussing whether it is more appropriate to this interaction. Collective β is the victim, though once remember or forget a historical wrongdoing, for α and again, not the entirety of the collective. Only the part of β respectively. the population of β directly engaged in the interaction and the population directly related to them are the Firstly, it is important to distinguish remembering from victims. However, as the representative of the collective, forgetting in the sense that remembrance is active, while the governing body has the right to seek justice and forgetting is passive. It is impossible to tell a country to, compensation in place of the victims. This is because for example, forget their history of slave trading. Actively the moral compass which defines the population’s forgetting is impossible. In contrast, remembering

12 is consciously acted upon. Acts of disseminating example, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission true information, such as through education and (TRC) in South Africa seeks to reveal truths of historical commemoration, are efforts of a collective to remember wrongdoings and encourage reconciliation between their historical wrongdoings. With these distinctions victims and wrongdoers post-Apartheid. This had laid out, it can then be concluded that a collective’s way caused victims to involuntarily remember the horrors of forgetting is to not commemorate and educate, or, in committed, which might trigger anger and resentment a mitigated sense, to disseminate false information. amongst victims. This could lead to retaliation against the wrongdoers, resulting in greater damage done Clearly, Collective β should engage in such acts of overall. Furthermore, this is, in fact, a wrongdoing on remembrance. Should the victim itself forget such the part of the victim, as their retaliation would be a wrongdoing by not disseminating information or mistakenly directed at descendants of the criminals, watering it down, then there exists no perception of a which, as we have established, are not actually criminals. wrongdoing and hence the justice tied to it, for there Therefore, the act of remembrance itself is insufficient is no existence of an interaction from which to analyse to address historical wrongdoings. whether a wrong was done. On the other hand, if the victim inflates the wrongdoing by exaggerating, it is To prevent such retaliation, one possible action is immoral as it is attempting to seek a more than just forgiving. The population and the governing body who compensation for the wrongdoing. Hence, for β, it is have been directly impacted in the atrocities committed clearly appropriate to remember. against them hold the right to forgive. Forgiving is a source of empowerment for collectives to make peace On the side of the criminal, some collectives that have and move on regarding the matter, especially so that the committed historical wrongs have tried to forget about victim can focus on progress. In addition, the victim the past by erasing those events from their history. should not misdirect the forgiveness; it should be However, this response is inappropriate. Forgetting towards the presently non-existing collective of the past. does not help to serve justice to the victim; choosing to actively wipe out part of one’s history does not translate Yet it still seems inadequate. There seems yet to be a into the elimination of the event itself, as residue compensation offered to β. In a just process, the victim left from these events manifest in the descendants should only seek compensation from the criminal, that of victims. is, as established, no longer existent. The compensation, however, has been given. The elimination, or “death”, Although, as discussed above, the “criminal” collective α of such a governing and moral framework upheld by is no longer a criminal as time passes, the collective is still the past governing body of α is retributive justice akin distinguished from an external party. Collective α can to the death penalty acted on a human criminal. This is only lose its criminal status if it does not condone the the maximal and only compensation to be offered. If the actions, and by extension the supporting governing and present Collective α decides to support β such that the moral framework, of the past governing body which value deficit is filled, this is purely based on the goodwill made the decision. In order to do so, remembrance of α, and can strengthen α’s claim of not condoning the of the wrongdoing is necessary. Should α forget such past moral framework, but not doing so is not morally a interaction, it is unable to “not condone” such an wrong; they have no moral obligation towards β. interaction, and hence may once again be attributed as the criminal. On the contrary, the remembrance of Conclusion a historical event opens up possibilities of closure and forgiveness. It is the more appropriate response because We conclude that the most appropriate way to in order to engage in the active process of remembering, respond to historical wrongdoings is to remember importance needs to be accorded to the event deserving and forgive. In remembering, we recognise that the of such efforts. In remembering, α is recognising the damage inflicted is real, and cease to be in a state of impacts of the decision made by the past governing denial, at risk of repeating past mistakes. It is also body upon the victim. This recognition is a sign of insufficient to just remember, as remembrance does reflection, as seen in the legislation against denial of not mean closure, and victims may still inflict harm the Holocaust. upon the perceived wrongdoers out of hatred. Hence, forgiveness is necessary in an appropriate response to a One limitation of adopting remembrance is opening up historical wrongdoing; it provides the ultimate closure the option of retaliation on the part of the victims. For for collectives to be able to move on and focus on the

13 present and future. In forgiving, the victim should also recognise that compensation has been given in the form BEST WRITTEN PROPOSAL of the elimination of a governing and moral framework, Topic 2 — What is Truth? and should expect no more from the descendants of the criminal collective. However, the descendants can still by TEAM KRYPTONITE offer the victim further support, but this should be Koh Hui Ling (DHS), Allison Anne Samuel recognised purely as an act of goodwill. ∎ (NJC), Kristina Gweneth Ponce Simundo (SJI), Song Chenan (TJC) Bibliography 1. Amable, Bruno. “Holocaust, Genocide, and the Law.” Oxford The authors in this proposal assess the University Press. Last modified August 5, 2018. Accessed August 6, 2018. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/holocaust- definitions of truth based on various theories genocide-and-the-law-9780195395693. posited, highlighting the strengths and 2. Hughes, Paul M., and Warmke, Brandon. “Forgiveness.” Stanford limitations of each in turn. Subsequently, Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Last modified May 31, 2017. Accessed by exploring the role of social conventions August 6, 2018. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/forgiveness/. in influencing and propagating truth, they 3. Miller, David. “Justice.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Last conclude that balanced judgement with modified June 26, 2017. Accessed August 6, 2018. https://plato. stanford.edu/entries/justice/. healthy scepticism based on all available

4. Radzik, Linda and Murphy, Colleen. “Reconciliation.” Stanford evidence enables one to form provisional Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Last modified May 11, 2015. Accessed conclusions, from which truths may best August 6, 2018. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reconciliation/. be derived.

Introduction

“Truth” is something that everyone strives to find. Whether through scientific inquiry or an argument, truth is often the purpose to be achieved. However, the basis of truth, as a concept and its properties, needs to be defined.

How do we assess what truth is?

In the most basic definition, truth is a proposition that conforms to reality. This idea of reality is what differs between the theories.

The Correspondence Theory is popular for its simplicity and common sense appeal: “this proposition is true because that’s how the facts are in the scheme of things,” referring to external reality. While the Correspondence Theory works in theory, the ontological application of it in metaphysics can be awkward, and it falls flat in the explanation of mathematical truths.

Its closely related theory, the Coherence Theory, asserts truth if the proposition fits into a larger system of beliefs. In this theory, truth can be derived through reason and logical consistency. This method of defining truth might be more reliable than others, due to its relative objectivity. However, in practical application, what does it mean to “cohere” with the system? How do you know if it really does “cohere”, or just appears

14 to? People are incapable of being inherently objective Social conventions are the accepted standards of even in their reasoning; it is subject to too many fallacies behaviour that individuals tend to conform to in and thus perfectly abstract reason is out of the question. order to fit in with a group. Informational influence Also, it is impossible to presume the truth of the system. happens when people change their behaviour in order Since it is an idealistic theory, this system can be virtual, to be correct, hence people simply go along with so the Coherence Theory is insufficient to prove truth. popular beliefs and deem such beliefs to be the truth, However, it is necessary, for if the proposition does since they believe that popular beliefs have undergone not cohere with the larger system, there would be no plenty of rounds of validation checks. Other cases logical consistency, and the truth would have to be such as normative influence stems from a desire to proven independently, which is possible only by means avoid punishments and gain rewards, incentivising of Correspondence. individuals to subscribe to popular beliefs to assure themselves that they would achieve the best outcomes. The Pragmatic Theory asserts that utility is the essential However, truth is subjective in this way as it changes mark of truth. This can be applied to religion as well. If according to an individual’s environment where as an religion helps someone in any way, they can subscribe to individual moves from one group to another, their idea this religious truth that helps them, be it a “real truth” of truth changes accordingly due to pressures from or not. their new environment to adopt certain beliefs. “No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth”. This Another factor which shapes truth is Religion. Religion seems to appeal to the fact that people would rather can perhaps be defined as a set of truths a group of believe in what they want, what is convenient for them. people subscribe to and abide by. However, the basis Is “the truth” just an inconvenience then? Something of which these truths are agreed upon has its roots in that prevents us from getting what we want? Or is it faith, based solely on the belief people have in the truths something we must accept and face up to? that they are presented with. It can be argued that one’s fundamental system of beliefs can be attributed How do we know if a truth is truly true? to faith. However, faith also has numerous avenues of limitations regarding its basis in truth as what one All methods of attaining truth has its own limitations, person might believe in another might call delusional and in adhering to the philosophy behind the question or superstition. of “what is truth?”, we also need to consider: once we have subscribed to a set of truths, how do we know that There also exist innate truths — truths derived from they are truly true and beyond reasonable doubt? intuition. Through a myriad of experiences, one collects data and evidence to form a system of personal beliefs This can be done through exercising the use of upon which they base their personal truths. However, Judgement. Judgement requires the balance of one’s sense perception can also be subject to deceit, such scepticism and open-mindedness when presented with as through cherry-picking certain details from a whole a truth to be considered. This can be done through system, forming incomplete or warped perceptions, assessing evidence presented in support of a truth and hiding the truth. coming to a provisional conclusion based on that. However, with poorly balanced judgement comes the Additionally, a truth that might seem obvious to one dangers of gullibility and radical doubt. person might not be obvious to another with different experiences and perspectives. Such are the cases in moral Another important aspect to consider when questioning and religious disagreements. It is impossible to arrive at truths is exercising scepticism. For instance, for the a consensus, an “ultimate truth” for these controversial Coherence Theory, some scepticals argue that this topics. The only “truth” is what you believe in. theory cannot guarantee truth because the Coherence theory requires people to have knowledge of a coherent Truth may not only be personal, for it can be shared system of the world. However, by radical scepticism through language. However, these truths can be subject view, we are unable to claim we have any knowledge to the question of the credibility of the source. How do claims because our epistemological equipment is not we know that the source of these truths comes from a reliable, thus we are unable to justify our beliefs, and place of truth? This harkens back to the limitations of hence cannot say we have knowledge of this world. the theory of Coherence. One cannot state that a truth Thus, we cannot claim we have the knowledge to without questioning the system of beliefs. construct this coherent system of the external world.

15 Thus, the Coherence Theory becomes problematic. BEST WRITTEN RESPONSE Conclusion Topic 1 — Ethics and Justice in History: Remembering, Forgetting, Forgiving The only truth about the truth of truth is that truth is relative to its axioms. Since perception shapes truth by TEAM INFINITE REGRESS to a large extent and truth is subjective, we can say Boh Jie Qi (DHS), Amelia Ding Yinuo (RI), that perhaps, truth does not truly exist and cannot be Maximillian Lim Sheng Lee (SJI), defined. One must simply subscribe to truths based Feng Yu Xin (HCI) on their own perceptions and beliefs which shape how they perceive knowledge and derive truth. ∎ A response to TEAM CARDIAC ARREST’s Bibliography proposal on the same topic.

1. Lagemaat, Richard van de. Theory of Knowledge for the IB Diploma (second edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Education, The authors’ argument is as follows. 2014. P5: One must remember in order not to condone. 2. Lynch, Michael P. The Nature of Truth: Classic and Contemporary Perspectives. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2002. P6: Therefore, forgetting on the part of the 3. Russell, Bertrand. The Pr‑oblems of Philosophy: Bertrand Russell. perpetrators is equivalent to an erasing of London: Oxford University Press, 1959. history. P3: The victims should not forget as forgetting on the part of the victims would result in the perception of wrongdoing disappearing in which case the “victim” collective would no longer have a moral claim to compensation. P4: It is as well immoral for the “victim” collective to exaggerate the impact of wrongdoings. IC: We should not forget. P2: Therefore, if one does not actively remember, one passively forgets. P1: One can either remember or forget. C: We should remember.

P6P5 P1

P4 CP2IC

P3

P1 is sound, as it is certainly true that remembering and forgetting are mutually exclusive activities and cannot be performed at once. However, the validity of P2 is questionable, especially given the fact that the authors recognise that it is entirely possible for the “criminal’” collective to deny the occurrence of historical events and halt the dissemination of information to remove

16 knowledge of those events from public consciousness — a change in the moral and governing framework hence actively “forget” history. P3 presupposes an of a country which would quell fears of history extreme social constructivist view of history, that repeating itself and the removal and discontinuation of history is entirely socially constructed, since the discriminatory policies, et cetera. “victim” collective forgetting about a certain historical event does not change the fact that it undoubtedly What exactly, then is a historical wrongdoing? occurred, unless history can only exist in the public consciousness, and is entirely shaped by and dependent The authors define a wrongdoing as the interaction on public perceptions. Perhaps it is precisely because of a collective A’s population or part of it under of P3 that the authors previously suggested that an the instruction of its governing body with another “external observer” has to be present in determining collective B or part of it in a manner which produces whether a certain interaction is a wrongdoing. For an an unequal value exchange in the perception of both “external observer” to fairly and justly achieve this, collective B and an external observer. Such a definition though, one would need to be able to access historical is problematic in two main ways. events impartially, suggesting history is mind and context independent, contradicting the presupposition Firstly, the authors offer neither a valid definition of of P3. For P4, the “victim” collective is not so much “value” nor a detailed description of its nature and forgetting history as remembering it incorrectly. Hence properties. What exactly does “value” in this context the authors assert that it is only moral to remember entail? Is it economic value? Is it political value? Or is it accurately. Here, the authors once again presuppose a combination of multiple different forms of values? If that history consists not of narratives but objective the amount of compensation B deserves to receive from facts, contradicting the metaphysical framework they A is proportional to the magnitude of inequality of the have established with P3. P5 and P6 are valid. value exchange, a valid method for measuring “value” is imperative to evaluating whether the demands of B are The authors in the proposal argue that it is the most just or A has paid its due. Moreover, by suggesting that ethical for the “victim” community to remember and the issue of whether a wrongdoing has been committed forgive a historical wrongdoing, and the “criminal” could be resolved with comparisons of value, the collective to remember, and “not condone” it. authors reduce moral decisions to simple mathematical calculations involving arbitrary quantities. This The fundamental premise of the authors’ argument is certainly does not do justice to the inherent complexity that the guilty has to compensate the victim for justice of moral issues and systems. The word “exchange” also to be served. By most prevailing systems of morality signifies participation ofn both sides, yet a wrongdoing and conceptions of justice, this is an acceptable notion. does not necessarily actively involve both sides. In the When a crime is committed, punishing the criminal case of a genocide committed by collective A against alone is oftentimes insufficient. Realistic compensations collective B, for instance, collective B passively suffers have to be made to the victims for the losses they have and there is no “exchange” rather a one-sided loss of suffered. In the case of a crime which results in a loss value. If a wrongdoing is an unequal value exchange, of material property, material compensations including could, then, the losing side of an armed conflict claim which includes the return of items or possessions not the winning side to be guilty of wrongdoing, despite belonging to the criminal or the provision of financial the fact that both sides are equally responsible for resources to victims, usually in the form of a monetary the outbreak of the conflict, since an unequal value fine, are given to victims who have been unrightfully exchange occurred? stripped of them. In the case of a crime which results in a loss of human life, since it is impossible with Secondly, the authors also claim that the both the current technology to resurrect a clinically dead human perception of the “victim” collective and that of being, the punishment serves not just the singular an “external observer” are necessary in determining purpose of ensuring that the law is upheld, but also as whether a certain interaction is a wrongdoing. It is clear a psychological form of compensation for the victims. why the perception of the “victim” collective that a When a historical wrongdoing occurs, for justice to be wrongdoing has been committed is required. However, properly served and enforced, the ‘victim’ community who qualifies as an “external observer”? Is not being has to be properly compensated, both in terms of directly involved in the interaction between collective A material resources — compensation for the direct loss of and B sufficient justification for an “external observer” economic value has to be provided, and psychologically to pass judgement regarding the issue, even when it is

17 highly probable for any external entity to have agendas antagonising the US on the basis of seeking justice for and motives of its own? Is it, then, also necessary for perceived crimes to foster stability and garner support), an “external observer” to be impartial? Is it possible, it becomes unclear whether it is still just. however, for an “external observer” to be impartial? The authors, hence, assume that historical events could Should we remember or forget? be interpreted objectively, and that there exists a unifying moral theory which transcends cultural and The author asserts that we should remember because individual differences. (1) one can either remember or forget, and (2) if one does not actively remember one passively forgets. Who should be punished? Forgetting (3) on the part of the victims would result in the perception of wrongdoing disappearing in The authors establish that collective A’s governing body, which case the ‘victim’ collective would no longer as well as each individual participant involved in the have a moral claim to compensation. (4) It is as well decision-making process or perpetuation of injustices, immoral for the ‘victim’ collective to exaggerate the should be responsible. The general population of A impact of wrongdoings. Forgetting (5) on the part of who did not participate in nor were informed of the the perpetrators is equivalent to an erasing of history, interactions are not guilty. Historically, however, it since (6) one must remember in order not to condone. has seldom been the case that the general population of a certain collective would be completely ignorant (1) is sound, as it is certainly true that remembering and of or oblivious to atrocities being committed on a forgetting are mutually exclusive activities and cannot massive scale, and there have been instances of general be performed at once. However, the validity of (2) is populations perpetuating crimes with little to no questionable, especially given the fact that the authors instruction from their respective governing bodies (e.g. recognise that it is entirely possible for the ‘criminal’ the radical Serbian nationalists’ massacre of Muslim collective to deny the occurrence of historical events Bosniaks in the Republika Srpska which was not even and halt the dissemination of information to remove an independent political entity during the Yugoslav knowledge of those events from public consciousness War). Moreover, the authors later claim that by not hence actively “forget” history. (3) presupposes an consciously condemning a certain action, a collective extreme social constructivist view of history, that indirectly condones it. Hence, the population of A who history is entirely socially constructed, since the ‘victim’ did not participate in the interaction but were aware collective forgetting about a certain historical event does of it occurring, yet did not question its morality hence not change the fact that it undoubtedly occurred, unless actively detach from it or attempt to stop it, are as well history can only exist in the public consciousness, and is morally responsible, contrary to what the authors assert entirely shaped by and dependent on public perceptions. here. Hence, the authors seem rather inconsistent in Perhaps it is precisely because of (3) that the authors their arguments. previously suggested that an “external observer” has to be present in determining whether a certain interaction Who should seek is a wrongdoing. For an “external observer” to fairly vengeance/compensation/justice? and justly achieve this, though, one would need to be able to access historical events impartially, suggesting The authors believe it should be the governing body of history is mind and context independent, contradicting collective B, or the ‘victim’ collective, since the moral the presupposition of (3). For (4), the ‘victim’ collective compass of a certain population is a “social construct” is not so much forgetting history as remembering it that the “governing body is responsible for”. While it is incorrectly. Hence the authors assert that it is only true that the moral compass of a society or population is moral to remember accurately. Here, the authors once directly influenced by the governing body’s conceptions again presuppose that history consists not of narratives of right and wrong and policies implemented by a but objective facts, contradicting the metaphysical governing body to impose or enforce a certain narrative framework they have established with (3). (5) and (6) could restrict and shape knowledge hence people’s are valid. thinking in a certain manner, the governing body is hardly solely responsible for the construction of Should we forgive? a prevailing set of moral codes. Moreover, in the case of a governing body pursuing compensation for its The authors claim that the “victim” collective holds own political interests (e.g. the Iranian Islamist regime the right to forgive, and to prevent direct victims

18 from seeking vengeance and retaliating against the descendents of the perpetrators of wrongdoings, the BEST WRITTEN RESPONSE “victim” collective should forgive, hence making peace Topic 2 — What is Truth? and moving on. We agree that forgiveness is necessary, though not for the reasons the authors have offered. by TEAM DETERMINANT Rather, we subscribe to the Hegelian view that history Lok Wai Cheng (UWCSEA), is ultimately a process of socio-cultural evolution. As Hoh Zheng Feng Sean (HCI), Pan Yue (RI), long as changes to the moral and governing framework Zhou Zitong (VJC) which provided the conditions for wrongdoings to be committed have been proposed and implemented, such A response to TEAM HUME’s proposal on the that under no circumstance could those historical events same topic. recur, forgiveness could be granted. For instance, the German nation and people have mostly been forgiven for the Holocaust, due in no small part to the post- Reasoning and structure war regime’s commitment to the upholding of human rights and democratic ideals. It should as well be noted This proposal endeavours to answer one of the most that forgiveness and remembrance are not mutually debated questions in philosophy — “What is truth?” exclusive. In fact, forgiveness is only possible with — which revolves around the existence of truth, remembrance, since forgiveness is a conscious decision defining truth, and the characteristics of truth such as that could only be made after an individual or party has its objectivity, consistency and timelessness. thoroughly understood the details of a wrongdoing and its implications. ∎ Team Hume attempts to use Vedung and Toss Hansen’s model in order to clarify the nature of Truth, and uses Bibliography Language and Science as two criteria, leading to the 1. Bazyler, M. J. Holocaust, genocide, and the law: A quest for justice in a conclusion that due to the constraints of those two post-Holocaust world. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017. criteria, truth is inherently unattainable. 2. Hughes, Paul M. and Warmke, Brandon. “Forgiveness.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Last modified May 31, 2017. Accessed The proposal begins with an engaging introduction July 20, 2018. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/forgiveness/. examining the implications of pursuing truth in today’s 3. Little, Daniel. “Philosophy of History.” Stanford Encyclopedia of context. Nonetheless, limiting the word Truth in Philosophy. Last modified October 13, 2016. Accessed July 21, 2018. alliance with only political narrative and news reporting https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/history/. accuracy defeats the purpose of discussing the truth in 4. Miller, David. “Justice.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. the larger context as in the rest of the proposal. Last modified June 26, 2017. Accessed July 21, 2018.https://plato. stanford.edu/entries/justice/. At the start of the proposal, Team Hume presents 5. “Myanmar Rohingya: What You Need to Know about the Crisis.” BBC News. Last modified April 24, 2018. Accessed July 20, 2018. some essential questions to address. The first question https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41566561. was “Does truth exist?”. The evaluation model fails to give a clarification of truth. In our response, we 6. Radzik, Linda and Murphy, Colleen. “Reconciliation.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Last modified May 11, 2015. Accessed provide alternative theories of truth to supplement July 21, 2018. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reconciliation/. the justification of the truth. The subsequent question 7. “The Bosnian War and Srebrenica Genocide.” United to End was “What criteria use to define truth?”. Without Genocide. Accessed July 21, 2018. http://endgenocide.org/learn/ establishing a clear model of truth or a clear justification past-genocides/the-bosnian-war-and-srebrenica-genocide/. of why not establishing a theory of Truth, it is hard to follow the train of thoughts.

The last key question “Is truth objective and consistent?” is briefly answered throughout the proposal. However, there is no explicit connection between the question and the answers. What seemed to be suggested in the comprehensive arguments given is that language and science restrict us from grasping truth in its ultimate state. Merits are given for the extensive scope that Team

19 Hume is attempting to cover, however they did not despite introducing the models from the start. necessarily justify the approach of assessing Language and Science exclusively. By proceeding with such an Language approach, this proposal left several presumptions about Language and Science unstated, leading to the logically Team Hume proceeds to examine how language limits flawed arguments which will be expounded in the our access to truth. Despite introducing some relevant following sections. ideas, their argument largely relies on unjustified assumptions and questionable logic. In all, the proposal focuses solely on the attainability of truth. Limited links are drawn between the attainability Firstly, Team Hume leaves their own question “Is truth and the existence of truth, which undermines the real or a product of language?” unexplored, instead relevance to the overarching question. assigning ‘an abstract and independent existence’ to truth without justification. Decoupling truth and Evaluation models and models of truth language as thus allowed for the possibility of distortion by language and shaped the subsequent discussion, Team Hume begins their proposal by pursuing three while plausible, alternative assumptions were not at all evaluation models (Result, Action and Economic) “in considered. which truth clarification can be done”. However, these evaluation models have no inherent or explicit link to Team Hume then argues that distortion is inevitable the nature of truth; instead, they are models used to due to linguistic determinism (that language decisively analyse success or effectiveness. Team Hume does not influences thought) without justifying the credibility of make clear what they are measuring the success of. this model. Research on the topic reveals that linguistic Additionally, Team Hume does not make clear the determinism is actually beset by substantial evidence purpose of introducing the evaluation models. We can against it: for example, speakers of a language are able to therefore only infer that they are evaluating models distinguish between things where their language makes of truth. no distinction, suggesting that concepts are not entirely grasped through language. Team Hume hence recruits Throughout their proposal, Team Hume does a premise generally considered refuted, making their not commit to any single model of truth — while argument potentially unsound. discussing the action model, they lean towards Social Constructivism, which states that truth is a man- Finally, even granting the truth of all implicit and made construct decided and affected by society; while explicit assumptions, the thesis that language restricts discussing language, they do not lean towards any our access to truth might not logically follow. Note that specific model of truth; while discussing science, they the argument apparently culminates in “attempting to lean towards the Correspondence Theory of Truth, define truth in the English language is impossible”: if which states that a proposition is true if and only if it this were to imply the thesis, it is denying the antecedent corresponds to a known fact. While we acknowledge since accessing truth (perceiving its nature) is logically that this allows for wider scope of analysis, we note that prior to defining it (describing its nature exactly), hence Team Hume neither justifies why they chose to omit failing the latter does not interfere with the former; explicit mention of any theory of truth, nor why they if implication was not intended, then the claim is chose certain theories of truth to address the respective irrelevant to the argument. The logical structure of the domains — which is ineffably crucial given that these argument should hence be better clarified. are the foundations and assumptions on which the rest of the proposal is built on, these anchors are what decide Given the findings above, we hope to improve the the direction the proposal takes and will ultimately discussion in two ways. To begin with, assumptions affect the team’s answer vis-a-vis what truth is. about the nature of truth should be justified: either explain why truth is independent of language, or consider Ultimately, the evaluation models serve no purpose that it is not. A possibility for the latter approach is to in the proposal. Team Hume evaluates the evaluation examine connections between truth and meaning, as models but does not apply the evaluation models to proposed by philosophers such as Davidson. Secondly, assess the different approaches through which they we also aspire for deeper insight into different types of attempt to access truth, and does not link the models languages and how they specifically affect our access back to the overarching question of “What is truth?”, to truth. For example, we may distinguish between

20 natural and formal languages, and investigate problems Hence, although this section has some valid justification of ambiguity and inconsistency in the former as well for the unattainability of scientific truths, it is answering as those of capturing intuitive understanding and the wrong question and the implication of its points preventing deflationism in the latter. Notably, Tarski’s seems to refute its own assumption. theory of truth may be helpful for both directions. Conclusion Science Team Hume’s attempt to answer such a thwarting The proposal then attempts to discuss whether truth question is applaudable. However, the proposed is scientific. However, the points that follow instead questions remain unanswered, the main arguments justify the unattainability of scientific truth. This is a lack theoretical and empirical support, and there is no misinterpretation of the term “scientific truth” which recognisable unifying thesis or conclusion. Nonetheless, refers to ideas from Frege, Russell and Wittgenstein, who the proposal is generally educational and provides some unanimously characterise truth as a correspondence of insights into the nature and attainability of truth. ∎ propositions to objective facts. Thus, the question of whether truth is scientific translates to whether truth Bibliography is a correspondence to objective facts. As the argument 1. Blackburn, S. Truth: A guide for the perplexed. London: Penguin, presented adopts scientific realism while assuming the 2006. correspondence theory, it misses the main point of the 2. Davidson, Donald. “Language and Thought.”, accessed August 6, original question. 2018. Retrieved from https://www.linguisticsociety.org/resource/ language-and-thought.

While the example regarding the shape of the earth 3. Davidson, Donald. “The Folly of Trying to Define Truth,” The justifies that scientific inquiry is provisional, that such Journal of Philosophy 93, no. 6 (1996): 19–38. inquiry brings us closer to truth is unjustified unless the 4. Kirkham, R. L. Theories of truth: A critical introduction. Cambridge: reliability of the scientific method can be established. In MIT Press, 2007. fact, our inherent limitation in perception entails that 5. Lynch, M. P. The Nature of Truth: Classic and Contemporary we can never obtain the complete scientific truths. For Perspectives. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2002. instance, theories that hinges on higher dimensions are, by definition, empirically unverifiable.

The lack of logical justification for the uniformity of nature indeed entails that we can never be sure of our scientific generalisations — and consequently whether we have attained scientific truth. Therefore, the proposal is justified in remaining skeptical about the attainability of truth due to the problem of induction.

The stated difficulty in proving the superiority of one theory over another does cast doubt on the attainment of truth. However, this can be expanded to refute the assumption of the correspondence theory of truth and scientific realism. The fact that we can devise theories that are equally consistent with empirical observations seems to imply that scientific theories are only models that approximate the results of natural occurrences but are never logically justified as the de facto underlying mechanism of the nature. To explain gravity, we might invent concepts such as forces, the curvature of space or vibration of strings in higher dimensions, but it is illogical to infer from their predictive power that they explain the true cause of such phenomena. Therefore, this suggests that scientific theories may not correspond to reality.

21