List of Plato Essay Titles

Homemade!

1. Describe and critically evaluate Plato's proposed system of government of the ideal polis.

2. In Plato's ideal polis, who are candidates selected to rule? How suitable is this method of selection?

3. What is meant by the 'Principle of Specialization'? How does Plato intent it to function within his society? To what extent do you believe that he is right?

4. What characteristics does the ruler of Plato's idea polis possess? Are these the most important traits for the leader of a state?

5. What model of philosophical activity is presented in Plato's 'Image of the Line'? How well does this model fit your experience of philosophy?

6. According to Plato, what can the Sun be considered a metaphor for? If this comparison effective?

7. Discuss the place happiness takes in Plato's idea polis.

8. Describe dikaiosyne in the ideal polis. Is it possible to be just and happy?

9. How does Plato believe the degradation of society takes place? Is this idea of a hierarchy necessarily true for all societies?

10. What is the place of women in Plato's ideal society?

And the mark scheme:

Expression: Organise ideas, use specific terminology. /5

Knowledge and Understanding: /5

Identify and Analyse: Understand the question, identify and analyse, examples, counter-arguments. /10

Development and Evaluation: Coherence, evaluating ideas, personal response. /10

Imagination

Whilst looking over my notes from last year on the question 'could a machine think?', the vry last question I've raised is 'what makes us different?'. The idea being that if we were gradually replaced be robotic parts, would we notice that we were different? (This has been the subject of many scifi films - the main character discovers that he's actually a robot.) If our brains worked in exactly the same wasy as they always had then I have to admit (grudgingly; I don't want to be the same as a robot!) that we probably could recreate a biological brain one day. This is years and years into the future, though, because even if we knew how, if we were to make a brain as complex as ours it would be absolutely massive and probably still not as fast as a human brain. But, you know, give the scientists a chance, we've had millinos of years of evolution to get this good.

However, this means that we are no better than a robot, really, and that if we say that a robot is simply a symbol-shuffler, we must also be the same. It's an interesting thought, just because I think I'm conscious, doesn't mean I actually am. Maybe a machine will think it's conscious.

But anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that there must be something that seperates humans from machines as we now know it. Or, at least, I would like to think there is. Maybe that thing is imagination?

We are assuming that it is possible to create a specific mind electronically. But all of the minds in the world are individual and unique. We wouldn't be able to make a new mind, it would have to be a copy of someone else's. This may be why we feel that we are different in some way to a robot. It can only be a copy whilst we are unique. And our uniqueness gives us something else that we consider a machine to be incapable of - imagiantion. They can only follow established rules whilst we, supposedly, think for ourselves. It is the uniqueness of our minds that allows this to take place.

Organic processes are funny things. I'm not sure that you can recreate every organic process with electronics because the results are so variable. Even in my limited experience, we have used enzymes as catalysts in experiments and we know that the results produce vary dramatically, even though we follow the same method each time.

In a similar way, a mind is formed by an organic process. So maybe machines can think like a human, but until we can recreate the biological process that goes into forming a mind, which I don't know is possible, machines will not be able to think creatively, as they will have to think in the same way as someone else. Imagination due to a unique mind sets us apart from machines.

***

In 50 words news, I fixed Machiavelli's entry and Margie pointed out that I had done Hume twice, so here's a condensed version of him:

Hume
Scottish, 18th Century. Atheist. Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions. Ethics based on passion, logic irrelevant. Is-ought distinction (Hume’s Law). Miracles explainable. Observable knowledge reliable. Self = illusion. Inductive reasoning bad, one example may prove it wrong (1000 swans are white =/= all swans are white).

More Philosophers in 50 Words

I can post from school!

Machiavelli
16th Century, Italian. He wrote ‘The Prince’. It is acceptable for leaders to use cunning and deceitful tactics in politics, giving rise to the phrase ‘Machiavellianism’. Most believe he promotes evil, others argue it is realistic. Some believe ‘The Prince’ was a satire, as it contrasts with his other work.

Hume
Scottish, 18th Century. Reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions. Only observed knowledge is reliable, the self is an illusion that we can’t know. Can’t ever use inductive reasoning as one example may prove it wrong (eg. 1000 swans are white therefore all swans are white).

Rousseau
18th Century, Swiss. Education should teach children to reason. Freedom and reason very important. The will of the general population is stronger than individuals. Obey the ruler, it is a social contract. Through this, one is forced to be free. Purportedly Catholic. Progress corrupts society, making people jealous and competitive.

Bentham
English, 19th Century. Considered as the father of utilitarianism. Wanted to create a complete ethical code. Proposed calculating the moral action by adding happiness using ‘felicific calculus’. We can work out if punishments are good for society. They can be good in the long run, if it reforms your character.

Kierkegaard
Danish, 19th Century. Christian Existentialist. Freedom is important, fought against the Danish National Church in his later years as it doesn’t embody true Christianity. You can’t prove God, you just have to believe. Accept the responsibility of choice. Create your own meaning to life, it doesn’t matter what it is.

"Fake Babies" - IVF

Ahhh, the sweet smell of revision! Full of learning and remembering things! Hooray! Wait a minute, what's this? A list of ethical arguments that we must learn and regurgitate? Urgh, Biology.

Yep, that's Biology. I know it's not a course in Philosophy but it is nevertheless frustrating that we get continually told that we ought to be critically thinking about the issues that are presented to us in all subjects, only to find that we just get told to learn a list. So here I am, retreating from the cold, hard world of facts, into the comforting fuzzy aporia that is Philosophy. I'd just like to have a little rant about a couple of the points raised about IVF.

Against IVF: "Embryologists select embryos to transer to the uterus, so humans are deciding whether new individuals survive or die."

The book is trying to make the point that we mere humans shouldn't be allowed to choose who lives and dies. How terrible is that?! But we do this all the time. What is medicine if not choosing who lives and who dies? Not everyone has access to the same medicine, so effectively we have already chosen who lives and who dies. By choosing who to treat we pick who lives and dies. This is not unusual! The downside to choosing who lives is also to sometimes have to decide who dies. But on balance, we can clearly save more lives than we have to choose to lose, as the hugely increased average lifespan shows.

Against IVF: "IVF is an unnatural process, carried out in laboratories, in contrast to natural conception occuring as a result of an act of love."

This one made me laugh. Whoa, naturalistic fallacy, much? Not everything that is nautral is good and you can't argue that just because something is nautral, it is also good. (Well, according to the textbook you can.) Starvation, death, violence; these things are all natural and very bad. As if that weren't enough, what about accidental teenage pregnancies? Was that as an act of love? Or rape? Definitely not. IVF has the moral high ground over both of these methods of conception.

Against IVF: "Infertility should be accepted as the will of God and it is wrong to try to circumvent it by using IVF to have a child."

You just had to bring religion into it, didn't you? Whenever I build a logical argument, I leave higher beings way out of it because even if you believe in them, if the other person doesn't then you are not going to get your point across. So, the will of God should always be accepted, should it? Then what about other medicines? In that case, if someone is born with cystic fibrosis this is also the will of God and we should just leave them to suffer. If I get a headache I can't take a paracetamol because it is against the will of God. Yes, having IVF to have a baby is a bigger thing than all of these. But the same principles still apply.

I think my biggest problem with religion is the inconsistencies. Some of the stuff that religion does for people is gret, but when it starts to set a bunch of rules made up by different people a really long time ago, you're going to have some issues. Which I think is a pity, because some kind of God isn't an impossibility but religion is just so offputting!

Anyway, I think the poor Biology textbook was struggling a little bit with finding arguments against IVF. Because of the nature of the thing, we have to present a balanced argument, with points on both sides. They had 5 points for IVF so they equally had to come up with 5 against it.

I used to be really against IVF. (Wow, that would be about 4 years ago now!) I used to be swayed by the above silly reasons. Now I understand logic a bit more, I suppose I have completely changed my mind. Which is a weird feeling, like having the floor completely pulled from beneath you. But IVF has the power to bring much happiness and create lives. It's got to be pretty alright, hasn't it?

Philosophers in 50 Words

Here's my revision activity for today: 8 philosophers in 50 words. There will probably be more exercises of this style to come. Like when I think of more philosophers.

John-Paul Sartre

French Existentialist. Used books and plays to communicate. To be moral is to choose. We are always free to make choices. If you deny your freedom, you are in mauvaise foi. Choose independently of others. Never blame others for what happens to you. There is no such thing as fate.

Plato (Republic)

Ancient Athens. Pupil of Socrates, teacher of Aristotle. Used Socrates as a figure in his dialogues. Democracy is terrible. Philosophers should rule. Outlined method of training philosopher kings to rule ideal polis. Forms. Form of Good most important. Art is bad; it’s merely a representation of Forms. Dikaiosyne gives happiness.

Peter Singer

Australian, vegetarian, atheist, utilitarian. We ought to share our wealth around. We should give to the poor until it would cause ourselves to be living in serious poverty. Sentient animals should be treated with respect. Some humans, newborn babies or the disabled, have less right to life than some animals.

John Stuart Mill (On Liberty)

Victorian English utilitarian. On Liberty written with his wife. Public opinion not always right. Stand up against the tyranny of the majority. Laws should not be established that restrict people from expressing their individuality. We are free to do anything, as long as we don’t interfere with other peoples’ freedom.

Immanuel Kant

German, 18^th Century. Categorical imperative. There are some things that are always wrong, in every situation. These can be determined by the golden rule to do only the things that you would wish as a universal law. Lying is always wrong. Never treat people as a means to an end.

David Hume

Scottish, 18^th Century. Atheist, people thought he would repent on his deathbed but he didn’t. Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions. We make ethical decisions based on passion. Logic is irrelevant. Discussed is-ought distinction (Hume’s Law). Miracles do not occur, they can be explained.

René Descartes

17^th Century, French mathematician and philosopher. I think, therefore I am. It’s the only thing you can know. Perception is unreliable, deduction is better. Wax example: wax is still wax when it’s melted but looks different. Dualist; the mind does not obey the laws of physics. Soul communicates with God.

Karl Popper

20^th Century. Falsification: a scientific conclusion can be proved false by a single example. Scientific theories can’t ever be proven to be true, they are continuous research, even though they may be valuable. We cannot prove the sun will rise tomorrow, induction is impossible. Believed in dualism and free will.

Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité: Part 1

Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité

These 3 words can be found plastered all over La Belle France. It seems to be the motto of the French. Where I'm staying, in a little town near Laon, it's on top of the Mayor's office and it can be seen on the Euro. It's quite catchy, but it also epitomises 3 values core to the French. There have been other mottos but this is the one that's survived. Why should this be so? What makes them any more special than the other mottos? Are they applicable to other nations? I therefore present to you, Part 1 of the LEF series:

Liberté

Liberté translates as freedom. (I don't know of any discrepancies in translation; I believe it means pretty much the same as in English.) What are they so keen to be free from? Oppression! This motto supposedly has its origins in the French revolution, which would make sense. Since then the French have been very keen to keep freedom as one of their core values.

It's also in the American Pledge of Allegiance. It seems to me to be pretty universal, as we in the UK also expect freedom of speech, amongst other things. It's something that many people have aspired to. JSM2's On Liberty describes how he believes we should be able to be free in all respects, up until we limit the other people's freedom. In these Western nations, I think freedom is expected like this.

But what about China? They don't seem so free. Some people would say that the one child policy stops the people from being free, but I don't think that's the case. They are still allowed to have more than one child, they just won't be paid child support for it. This means they are still free to have a second child. It's all about choices. Sartre would be screaming mauvaise foi if he heard that people were saying this policy rendered them not free. They are still able to choose; just because they don't like either of the choices presented to them doesn't mean they aren't free.

What about, then, the internet restrictions? Does this make people not free? (What is the opposite of freedom? Repressed? Oppressed?) They aren't free to access the information they might want to, which I would say makes them oppressed.

Sartre: But Alex, they are still free. People are always free, remember? They could move to a different country, if they don't like the rules of China.

Alex: Some of them don't have that option. Some of them might not even know there are more countries out there! Or they may not have the finances to move, as a lot of Chinese are very poor.

[The problem with having a mock dialogue with Mr S is that I have no idea how the Chinese can be considered free in this context. They are pretty much stuck.]

And blimey, what about Nick Griffin? Should we allow everyone to be free, regardless of what they might do? Well, no, because we do lock prisoners up. They still have some rights, but freedom isn't one of them. But this is because they might be a danger to others. This is coming back to JSM2's ideas about liberty. (I maybe ought to get into the habit of explaining these ideas more, but I know what I mean.) We have restricted their freedom in a relatively minor way so that they don't go on to restrict other people's freedom. They have, in a way, forfeited their human right to freedom of certain kinds.

I saw a film once which was about restricting freedom based on future events. (I'm reminded by my brother it was called 'Minority Report'.) Here the crime fighting system is so advanced that they have started to predict who will commit crimes about 36 hours before they happen. In this way, the police can catch the criminals before they commit the crime and imprison them so that they do not happen. (The point of the film was that a man was accused of a murder that he didn't think he was going to do.)

Eventually, in the film the system was discontinued as they found that it was flawed. But is this system 'liberté'? They were accusing people of doing something that they hadn't done yet and restricting their freedom for it, which sounds bad. But they were also saving lives. So is someone's freedom worth more than a life? And in the majority of cases, the prediction was completely accurate. I would say that it's a good system, if you can be completely sure. (Maybe one day we will be completely sure about something!)

On the Nature of Philosophical Activity

I have always wanted to write something with a title beginning with the word 'on'.

I try out philosophical ideas in a similar way to how I try on clothes.* If I come across a new philosophical concept that is interesting and logical, I'll adopt it for a little while. I walk around in it, pondering how it looks from every angle. Is it compatible with the rest of my views? (Can I wear this with my jeans?) Can it withstand the abuse the rest of philosophy can hurl at it? (Is it waterproof?) And, to a certain extent, I step back a little, asking what kind of person it makes me. (Do I really want to be seen in THIS??)

This approach is quite interesting. It means I don't have to sit down for hours at a time, thinking philosophical thoughts. It evolves more naturally and more realistically, as it comes into contact with my everyday life. I develop relevant ideas for my life, which is, I think, one of the reasons philosophy is so important.

Sometimes, though, I realise that I've bought two items of clothing that can't really go in the same wardrobe. Like today, I realised I'd bought a dualist shirt along with a pair of monist jeans. Sartre would have had a right go at me, with my mauvaise foi, believing in both at once. I'll have to take one of them back, but I have no idea which one yet. The rest of the philosophers lean towards dualism, but my gut reaction was monism. I would really like to be a dualist, I think, but I might be too skeptical now. Though I'm currently going through a complete overhaul; I think that I like utilitarianism because it offers a quiet life. But real life isn't like that. Perhaps I like monism for the same reasons; it offers clear-cut physics that works with all the scientific knowledge I have. (Not that I believe all (if any) of that is actually right, but it works with my world view at the moment.) I'll have to keep looking in the mirrors for now to see which one suits me better.

Maybe it makes me seem flighty, but thinking about things gradually works better for me than thinking about them all at once. And gradually, I will become more consistent and maybe one day develop a coherent set of philosophical ideas. Wouldn't that be something?

---------------------------------------

* The biggest weakness in this analogy is the fact that I don't like shopping for clothes much. Philosophy is far more exciting!

Feminism - My Official View/Rant

So, Hessie's talk today has prompted many thoughts about men and women and feminism. I have pretty strong opinions on this, which is surprising as I've never really philosophised about it before. So I'll have to do as Descartes suggests and tip my basket of feminism out, test them and put back the ones that are rotten. I only hope that I am left with some apples at the end!

The first thing to admit is that I don't really know what feminism is. Mostly because I was too busy doing a sensible subject at GCSE (yay for Classics!) instead of History. So all I know is it is basically about women chaining themselves to things and running out in front of horses. Somehow, from all of this madness, we women got the vote, which is a good thing. I would be very cross if I wasn't allowed to vote. So that is part of what I understand by feminism. The other part is women taking control of their own lives and doing things without men. Possibly burning bras, though that does seem a bit strange.

I'm all for empowering women by giving them the vote and the chance to live lives separate from men but I wouldn't call myself a feminist. In fact, I don't like (modern) feminists very much.

I don't have an ism for what I think (perhaps you do?) but I definitely am one. I believe in EQUALITY. So I don't mean giving women lots of power, as I see the modern feminists doing. We are equal now, guys. We have the vote, we have all the same rights as men; what more do you want? There is no place for the feminist in the modern world*. In fact, I often think we ought to be doing a bit more to help the men now. Feminism has just gone too far and now men keep getting discriminated against. But does anyone care? Nope! We would care if women were being discriminated against, sure. But men are just men, they have loads of rights, they can look after themselves, right? WRONG!

Take the phrase 'business dress', for example. For men, this means suit and tie. Simple. But women can get away with anything and still call it 'business dress'! Floofy tops, ridiculous shoes, a whole jeweler's shop around their necks... This makes me cross. When I wear business dress, I wear trousers, a jacket and a shirt. Like a man, but without a tie. It is perhaps hypocritical [but is there anything wrong with that?] of me to say we should wear the same as men but not wear a tie myself, but I think women wearing ties tend to look less formal, so I don't do it. Anyway, this is just one way in which women have it easier than men. I know how it evolved, as we filtered into the business sphere there were never any clear rules on what we should wear, unlike for men. But if I were a man, I would be saying, 'if you want to come and work in our cutthroat business world, you're gonna have to dress like a cutthroat business person!'.

The other thing that drives me nuts is women who expect the same rights as men in certain situations but still to be treated like princesses. For example! Someone, let's call her Lettie, wants to work in engineering because she enjoys the subject. Fair enough, I say, go for it, Lettie! But don't turn around and expect your boyfriend to pay for all your dinners out. The tradition of the man paying for dinner originated because men earned more than women. If you earn the same (or worse, if Lettie was earning more, it would be horrifically unjust!) you should split the bill equally. You can't play the weaker sex card just when it suits you!

Also, the same goes for holding doors open for women. I hold doors open for people. But that's PEOPLE. I never even thought, until it was pointed out to me, that it was traditionally men that did it for women. I thought it was just politeness and that we really ought to be polite to everyone.

So, in conclusion, we should treat women and men equally. You may thing that this is the end of the story but, oh no! I have another (some would argue contradictory, but I'll try and be clear) point to make.

Nope, we shouldn't be discriminating against women OR men. But there is one thing we can discriminate on: ability.** Which means, in reality, I do discriminate against women in a way for certain things.

If you're a builder you need strong muscles to be lugging things around all day. You need to be able to withstand the elements, be it sun, wind or rain. You also need to have an infinite capacity for cups of tea. Anyway. Men, as a general rule, have stronger muscles than women which means that men, as a general rule, are more qualified to be builders than women. [There is uproar from the feminists in the background.] Hold your handbags, ladies, let me explain. Individuals are individual and should be assessed as such. I, a girl, am stronger than Wan, a boy. In this case, I am more qualified to be a builder than Wan. I am not saying that no women can be builders, simply that more men are suited to be builders than women, which results in more men being builders than women. (Echoes of Plato's PS here!)

This is why it is a ridiculous notion that we should be aiming to have 50% of our MPs as women. (I think I heard some rumblings of this a while ago.) In doing this, we ARE discriminating, but against men. Women are getting a cushier ride because they don't have to be as good as the men, because they are guaranteed half the places anyway. It also means that we are going to end up with a bunch of rubbish MPs, which is bad for the country in the long run. Going back to the builder example, we wouldn't want to be giving half of our building jobs to women for 'equality', it would be terrible! What difference does changing the profession to politicians make?***

However much we bewail that it isn't fair, the fact remains that men and women are not equal. (Earlier, I said I believe in equality. I think the previous view and this one are compatible, it's just that I haven't quite got the right words sorted out yet. They're all just strong feelings in my head.) Therefore they shouldn't be treated as such! Eleanor has a quote that sums this up neatly: "there is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people". (I have no idea where it comes from, so I'll just accredit it to her, eh?) Eleanor is right.

I would actually take this argument further than is possibly conventional by saying that we should discriminate against women in the world of careers. (Oh yeah, feminists! I said it! Bring it on!) Yes, we should, because women are way more likely to run off and have babies than men. It's not their fault, it is just a biological fact that for a while women can't work while they're having babies but men still can. If you're an employer, you don't want to employ a woman and then suddenly have her run away off to maternity land. You have to pay her salary and find someone else to fill in for her. You can't make a woman sign a contract saying that she won't do this. (I don't think.) So what are you going to do? Employ a man, it makes sense!

No, not all women are going to run off and have babies. But lots of them will. Loads! It's biologically programmed into women to spend time with their babies.**** It is quite unfortunate for women who have no intention of having babies, I will admit. But they are very much in the minority. Sorry, ladies, I know life isn't fair. But, as far as I can see, this is as fair as I can make it.

---------------------------------------

* This wonderfully sweeping generalisation does actually need a modifier or two. It should really read: 'There is mostly no place for a feminist in the modern world,' but that doesn't sound nearly so persuasive. What I mean by that is sometimes women are still discriminated against for no other reason than that they are women. That's bad. I'm also only talking about the UK, as it's the only sphere I have experience of. I know there is lots of mistreatment of women in other countries but I don't know enough about it (especially as we have to think about culture and relativism) to pass any judgements.

** I think this is just about the only thing we can discriminate against, though this thought is relatively new and so hasn't been tested against very many real situations. I can't currently think of anything else that we can discriminate against but I might think of something later.

*** I reject the notion that women and men are equally capable of being politicians. I've been to debates, I know that men are generally better at speaking than women. Men are also funnier than women; comediennes are largely terrible. I don't know what it is, though. Charisma, perhaps? I understand that I might sound very much like a chauvinist pig right now but I'm just trying to be objective. It's what I've observed. It is my fond hope that I am one day just as good as a good man at public speaking and telling jokes. Is it sad that I think I have to be a man to do this? Not really, because I'm not trying to be a man, just be as good as a good one. To balance the terribleness of this argument, of course there are loads of things that women are better at than men. I think it's more difficult for a man to be a carer, for example.

**** This note is so that I can explain the evolutionary biology behind this statement without detracting from the philosophy, because it's about the only thing that I know about biological anthropology and it makes me happy to think about it. So! A women has a bigger vested interest in any child from the beginning, so she has a tendency to look after it more, to pass on her genes. (Yes, this is Dawkins, R. 'The Selfish Gene' [2006 edition]) Eggs are a lot bigger than sperm so the woman has already spent more energy in the child than the man, right from conception. Then the woman has to carry it, which means that she puts even more energy into the child. So she wants to look after it as best she can because if the child dies, it is a lot of wasted energy for her and comparatively little for the man. The man doesn't care as much, he can start again much more easily than the woman. This is why women are generally more maternal than men. It's not completely certain how it works with us today, though I think this kind of thing probably affects us more than we realise.

Slumdog Millionaire

It was on tv the other night, so my family decided to record it and watch it. It's especially relevant to us now because in February my brother is going to Rajasthan with his school to teach some underprivileged children. He's going to teach them about the organs inside their body and they're planning to put on a music show as well.

Anyway, I think Slumdog Millionaire was a great film because it showed you so vividly what life is still like in some parts of the world. It helps with the moral distance problem by bringing it closer to home. But at the same time it's entertaining, so you do not feel like you are being directly told to help the poor. It was brilliantly eye-opening.

However. Oh, there's always a however. I feel quite callous thinking of this however, actually. But, you know, follow the argument wherever it leads and all that. One thing that did strike me was their lack of planning for the future. Whenever they had any money, they spent it immediately. For example, when the kids stole a whole load of money from a rich guy, they immediately went and booked themselves into a posh hotel and drank all of the alcohol in the fridge. This resulted in them having nothing all over again. It seems like they are themselves perpetuating the cycle of poverty.

I know, how can I even think this? These people are poor, we are super rich, how can it possibly be their fault? But perhaps it is. Of course, I can't possibly judge a whole country by what three kids did in a film. I just mean to suggest that perhaps instead of our money, what they really need is an education of a different kind.

There is always lots of talk about how much better it is for us to help people by education, rather than just giving them money. For a start, a lot of the aid we have so far given has gone straight into the pockets of the leaders of the country. Apparently, according to my dad, who usually gets his information from somewhere reasonably reliable, if all the aid we had given to Africa had gone to the right places, instead of the government, they would no longer be in poverty.

Maybe this explains why mum doesn't believe in giving to charity. She argues that they were giving money to Africa when she was a little girl and it hasn't made a difference yet.*

So education is the right way to go, perhaps? We could then teach these people that it is wise to save for the future, when fortune may not be so sweet. Then they may not have to fight so hard to survive and might be able to begin to build a real life. This may take several generations, but it would be worth it.

I also like the idea of microfinance, which I have just seen an advert for on this website. The very lovely baby-hugging Peter Singer introduced me to the idea in his book, "The Life You Can Save". It's like money lending on a tiny scale. The company lends a very small amount of money, in most cases less than $5, which the family are obligated to pay back eventually. This amount of money may seem very small but it is often enough to buy just one batch of really good seeds, for example, which enables the family to then continue to produce quality goods that are both nourishing and fetch high prices. It also means that they don't have to get involved in the corrupt money-lending business in their countries, with impossibly high interest rates. A very good idea all round, I think.

But really, all the money and education in the world will not actually help the poorest countries as they are. The systems of government are just too corrupt and they will always find a way to suck the things that they want out of their people. They need checks and balances, like we have. (Again, apparently, as I don't understand much about politics in the UK. I just know that I like Boris [BoJo] because he is funny and rescues people on his bicycle, like a superhero crossed with a postman and I don't like Gordon [GoBo] because he is a silly idiot who thinks that if he talks about Susan Boyle enough, rather than actually doing politics, he will get some votes. I also know there is no point in voting for the LibDems.)

The problem is, sorting out governments usually involves going to war, which is also bad. It is startling, though, how bad politicians can be. I mean, we thought the expenses scandal was bad. At least we can afford to eat in spite of it. Somebody said that the people that who want to be in charge should never be, for this reason. (I don't know who, but they are famous.) And I think it's true! I think you, B/P JAM, would make a fantastic prime minister.

*She is correcting me now, saying that she doesn't think we should be giving to animals either. She's not a pet person.

"This House believes prostitution in all forms should be made illegal" - Speech opposing the motion

The current UK law on prostitution states that selling sex is not illegal. However, advertising that you are selling it is, as is any form of brothel. This legal grey area ought to be resolved.

I advocate the legalisation of prostitution. I do not in any way endorse the illegal trafficking of immigrant women to work as prostitutes against their will. This should not ever be legalised, as it goes against so many of their basic human rights. What I mean by saying that prostitution should be legalised is that women who have chosen to do this should be supported by the law, rather than hiding from it for fear of being persecuted.

You can look at this issue in two ways: morally and practically. Morally, I don’t see much of a problem with prostitution. We are not puritans, sex has become a large part of our society now. Young women wandering around blitzed out of their minds late on a Saturday night in tiny dresses frequently give themselves away for free. The only difference between one of these girls and a prostitute is that the prostitute is getting paid. She is probably more aware of what she is doing, as well. We don’t by and large go around pointing the finger at these women, yet prostitutes come under criticism for doing the same thing. What moral difference does money make?

So to practicalities, then. It makes a lot of sense to legalise prostitution fully, rather than to illegalise it. For example, it is currently illegal to run a brothel. Fair enough, you may think, this will stop women being viciously exploited by pimps. True. But what it also means is that two women are not allowed to work together. This means prostitutes are often forced to work alone so they cannot look after each other. The legalisation of brothels would enable women to stick together and look after each other more effectively, reducing cases of violence.

But prostitution is not just a case of stereotypes, where drug-addled women are beaten up. Sure, there are many women who have turned to prostitution to feed a drug habit. But there are also those who have chosen it for financial reasons, such as the blogger Belle de Jour. She was a girl with a PHD who took the decision with a clear mind. It helped her to get out of debt and she has not suffered any dramatic changes in self-esteem as a result of it. There are women out there who positively benefit from prostitution.

Not only that, but the clients of these women are often unfairly stereotyped. Not every client is a married man seeking further gratification. What about the disabled man with no family? He is constantly in and out of hospital with no physical contact other than that which he receives from the nurses. Is it right to deny companionship to this man, who may be disabled through no fault of his own?

These groups may be in the minority now, but this would change with legalisation. Once accepted, more women would be able to explore the possibility of doing this out of choice. It would also reduce the number of women who have been forced into the trade or because they believe they have no other choice. These women would no longer be afraid to speak out about their situations for fear of being prosecuted themselves. We would then be in a better position to help them.

We could also then help their drug-riddled companions. I believe the legalisation of prostitution would drastically reduce the problems that it is currently associated with. Firstly, the drug addicts would be able to get help. This may involve rehabilitation and getting out of the trade but it would help them.

Then, we would make it safer for those who have suffered violence when working as a prostitute. Currently, if a woman gets into trouble, she has nowhere to turn to. Soliciting is illegal in this country, so if the woman went to the police she may go to jail. Consequently, most women keep quiet about their situations and go on to suffer further abuse. Legalisation would bring this kind of practice to an end, as the women would be much better protected.

Furthermore, prostitution is not simply the objectification of women gone mad. With money, women do not have to rely on men as they have done in the past. They become independent and self-sufficient. It also stops the objectification of everyday women, as sex is readily available.

I'm not saying that all women should become prostitutes. You do have to be able to cope with it emotionally, and some women can't. It shouldn't become the only solution for women in financial crisis but it would work for some of them. This is not a reason to ban it, it is just another skill that they must have. Not every man is suited to being a doctor but that doesn't stop that trade. You have to have the relevant skills.

Prostitution has always happened, it's the oldest trade in the world. This means that it is likely to continue to happen, whatever the legal circumstances. Banning it only serves to drive it deeper underground, where the girls face more abuse. To protect these women, we must first acknowledge their situation.

Prostitution is a service just like any other, like an osteopath or a hairdresser. Let’s accept it, legalise it, make it safer, tax it and help those currently involved in it against their will get out of it.