Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

psangela

TOK presentation related to death?

So, I was sort of interested in using "Is euthanasia considered a crime?" or "To what extent is euthanasia considered/justified as a crime?" since there's voluntary and involuntary euthanasia (which is similar to murder) and we plan to use kavorkian (mr.death or the angel of death as a real life issue)

I talked to my teachers about this; one said that it's an awesome topic and even helped me (my group). But one said that it's too cliche, that students from previously had probably used this topic.

I'm still really interested and into talking about "death," and i've read a few discussions in here that might have helped.

These are the topics I've currently thought off:

- "To what extent is euthanasia considered as a crime?"

- "Why is death considered important to human beings?"

- "To what extent is murder considered a crime?"

- "To what extent should a murderer be considered not guilty due to mental illness in the court?"

So far i think the best candidate is the last one, but I'm not sure. so, advice guys?

thanks muchmuch ><

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're last one seems the most specific, so you could go into a lot of depth with it. I really like the second one though. It's really vague (which is bad), but if you answered it correctly it could be a great presentation. I would still pick the last one, though, just to be safe. With that one you could define "murderer" and "mental illness" and then build off of that with ethics, social science, and natural science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem with your titles is that none of them lend themselves very specifically to TOK. Also, remember that 'to what extent' requires you to evaluate the area between a white and a black decision and then conclude at which shade of grey in between you are. Are you really going to decide the extent to which a murderer should be considered not guilty - should they be declared only 1/45th not guilty OR 1/83rd not guilty)?? I don't think 'to what extent' is an appropriate way to ask yourself the question. Also, you need to bring it back to TOK.

In light of these two things I would make your question something like:

"How do we determine the influence of mental illness on decision making?"

With your real life example being a case of a person who is blaming their crime on a mental illness in court and you need to decide if they are guilty or not guilty.

Then using Language, Emotion, Sense/Perception and Logic, talk about how we come to a conclusion about the situation. This is the really important part. You're not discussing ethics or law, you've got to make sure that at root you're discussing the 4 ways of knowing and how information gained through these helps us (or hinders us) in the real life situation you've found. Or you could just go straight with "How can mental illness affect the way we use the ways of knowing?". I think that would be an awesome presentation, myself.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem with your titles is that none of them lend themselves very specifically to TOK. Also, remember that 'to what extent' requires you to evaluate the area between a white and a black decision and then conclude at which shade of grey in between you are. Are you really going to decide the extent to which a murderer should be considered not guilty - should they be declared only 1/45th not guilty OR 1/83rd not guilty)?? I don't think 'to what extent' is an appropriate way to ask yourself the question. Also, you need to bring it back to TOK.

In light of these two things I would make your question something like:

"How do we determine the influence of mental illness on decision making?"

With your real life example being a case of a person who is blaming their crime on a mental illness in court and you need to decide if they are guilty or not guilty.

Then using Language, Emotion, Sense/Perception and Logic, talk about how we come to a conclusion about the situation. This is the really important part. You're not discussing ethics or law, you've got to make sure that at root you're discussing the 4 ways of knowing and how information gained through these helps us (or hinders us) in the real life situation you've found. Or you could just go straight with "How can mental illness affect the way we use the ways of knowing?". I think that would be an awesome presentation, myself.

Thank you so much for your reply, it helped a lot.

And yes, now that I think of it, it does seem complicated when using the term "to what extent," as you have to discuss it specifically.

And you mention that the presentation should not be discussing about 'ethics or law.' And from the topic you suggested, which is "How can mental illness affect the way we use the ways of knowing?" the Area Of Knowledge i should focus on is Human Science, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi! To be honest, i dont think that any of your new questions are as good as your euthanasia idea. My TOK question was: can torture ever be morally justified? and i got full marks even though this question is also 'cliche' i think it's just about how well you deal with the topic and you just have to be original when answering your question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem with your titles is that none of them lend themselves very specifically to TOK. Also, remember that 'to what extent' requires you to evaluate the area between a white and a black decision and then conclude at which shade of grey in between you are. Are you really going to decide the extent to which a murderer should be considered not guilty - should they be declared only 1/45th not guilty OR 1/83rd not guilty)?? I don't think 'to what extent' is an appropriate way to ask yourself the question. Also, you need to bring it back to TOK.

In light of these two things I would make your question something like:

"How do we determine the influence of mental illness on decision making?"

With your real life example being a case of a person who is blaming their crime on a mental illness in court and you need to decide if they are guilty or not guilty.

Then using Language, Emotion, Sense/Perception and Logic, talk about how we come to a conclusion about the situation. This is the really important part. You're not discussing ethics or law, you've got to make sure that at root you're discussing the 4 ways of knowing and how information gained through these helps us (or hinders us) in the real life situation you've found. Or you could just go straight with "How can mental illness affect the way we use the ways of knowing?". I think that would be an awesome presentation, myself.

Thank you so much for your reply, it helped a lot.

And yes, now that I think of it, it does seem complicated when using the term "to what extent," as you have to discuss it specifically.

And you mention that the presentation should not be discussing about 'ethics or law.' And from the topic you suggested, which is "How can mental illness affect the way we use the ways of knowing?" the Area Of Knowledge i should focus on is Human Science, correct?

I don't think you need to concentrate on an area of knowledge necessarily, just on the scenario you've picked. By saying that it shouldn't be discussing ethics and law I mean that you should primarily be discussing the ways of knowing. How can knowledge gained through language be affected by mental illness in [scenario]. The scenario you've picked inevitably involves ethics and law, but it's just about where the emphasis of the presentation falls, if that makes any sense :) Worry about the ways of knowing and the areas of knowledge will look after themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites