French

This event is 2:30 - 4 pm Sunday. Conversation tends toward intermediate/advanced, but everybody is welcome. If you come and don't see us right away, keep looking. We could be anywhere in the restaurant.

Bienvenue! Columbus French Conversation group invites you to our Saturday morning French conversation club. Expect a casual and welcoming atmosphere in which to learn french! I will bring my laptop so we can look up new vocabulary as needed! The venue is a beautiful French restaurant so you can really get into the zone :)

**Optional movie afterwards**

Let’s meet Sunday morning for coffee/tea at La Chatelaine in Worthington, OH at 9am. 7 La Chatelaine French Bakery & Bistro in Worthington, OH, located at 627 High St, is a charming, locally owned eatery offering authentic French cuisine, pastries, and bread in a rustic,, cozy atmosphere. Open daily, it is popular for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and brunch, featuring a popular patio, counter service, and a frequently lauded bakery section

Private Group. Closed to the Public Knowing ourselves and understanding our abilities is the first step toward wielding our gifts with control and accuracy. In subsequent classes we will verify and hone our talents with activities and discussion. These are hands-on workshops and participation is expected. The goal of our series will be to develop expertise in areas of particular interest such as mediumship, channeling, divination, healing and, etc.. Our ultimate directions will be determined by class members as we evolve. I look forward to sharing and discovering with you. - Cynthia

When judging morality, should we prioritize **intentions/duty** or **outcomes/results**? It introduces two influential philosophers as representatives of these approaches. * **Immanuel Kant (deontology):** An action is moral when it is done from **duty** and follows rational, universal principles (the **categorical imperative**). Certain acts—like lying—are wrong regardless of the consequences; you can’t do a wrong thing for a right reason. * **John Stuart Mill (utilitarian consequentialism):** The morality of an action is determined by its **effects**, specifically how much **happiness/well-being** it produces. Mill argues that some pleasures are “higher” than others, and that good intentions don’t redeem harmful outcomes. ## Discussion Questions 1. **The lying dilemma:** A murderer comes to your door and asks if your friend is hiding inside. Kant would say you must not lie. 2. **Can good intentions rescue a bad outcome?** 3. **The organ harvest problem:** A surgeon has five patients dying of organ failure and one healthy patient in for a checkup. Killing the one to harvest organs would save five lives, and the math works out for the utilitarian. Why does this feel so deeply wrong? Is that feeling a point in Kant's favor, or just a bias we should overcome? 4. **Do rules need exceptions?** Kant insists moral rules must be universal, with no exceptions. But most of us can imagine extreme scenarios where any rule seems like it should bend. Does the need for exceptions fatally undermine deontology, or is the strength of the system precisely that it refuses to bend? 5. **Who gets to calculate the consequences?** Utilitarianism asks us to maximize good outcomes, but we're notoriously bad at predicting consequences. If we can't reliably know the results of our actions, is it practical to base our entire moral system on outcomes? Does this uncertainty push us back toward rules and principles? 6. **Everyday morality:** Think about a real moral decision you've made recently, even a small one. Did you reason more like a Kantian (what's the right thing to do in principle?) or more like a utilitarian (what will produce the best result?)? Do most people naturally lean one way? 7. **Justice vs. the greater good:** A town can prevent a deadly plague by sacrificing one innocent person. The greater good is clearly served. But is it just? Can an action be morally right and deeply unjust at the same time? 8. **The big synthesis question:** Are these two systems actually opposed, or do they often arrive at the same answers by different paths? Is it possible that we need both: rules to guide us in the moment and consequences to evaluate systems and policies over time?