Shawn Cummings
theshawn8
12 Posts
Post 1 – Aristotle 7-5-07
Post 2- Epicurus and Epictetus 7-5-07
Post 3- Spinoza 7-08-07
Post 4- Right or Wrong 7-09-07
Post 5- Kierkegaard 7-09-07
Post 6- Marx 7-15-07
Post 7- Nietzsche 7-15-07
Post 8- Singer 07-23-07
Post 9- Abortion, Poverty, Euthanasia 7-23-07
Post 10- Cloning 7-30-07
Post 11- Evolutionary Psychology 7-30-07
Post12-Gandhi- 8-03-07
I have done both research projects, visited the Museum of Tolerance, and I did the second project on Capitol Punishment.
The grade that I received was a between an A- and B+
Reading for the term was all completed:
All ten theorist were read in the first three weeks
Read all material by Nietzsche and liked it
All Singer material was read
That was a lot of Gandhi material
Read all material for cloning and stem cell research
Read everything for Evolutionary Psychology
All of the reading was good although there was a lot of it and I felt as if it would never end but in the end it is well worth what I have learned. After looking back I can not think of much that you would need to take out or change I think that it is good the way it is. Worked out really well not having a book, saved a lot of money, and I liked the online reading for I was able to sit comfortably at home or at work, and read with out the book. I think you should stick with the online for it provided more information while a book can have chapters that would never be read. Online was able to cut to the meat of the information and was to me better to understand and comprehend. Over all don’t change anything I like it the way it is.
The extra credit that I completed is:
The first on What is Ethics
The second on Religion Roman Catholic
The one on where I think meat comes from
Ethics Final Examination
1. For Gandhi ethics were vital. He was raised in a stringent religion, where rules must be adhered to or the consequences would be severe. Gandhi new nothing else but to follow his religion, engrained in him since infancy was the practice of Vaishnava (vegetarianism) which proved to be one of the hardest things for Gandhi to remain faithful to. Lying was looked down upon most by Gandhi. Even as a young boy he couldn’t imagine telling untruths. Although he did falter from time to time, making more of omissions then lies, he always felt so much guilt the truth would always come out. Honoring his parents was also one of the main points he lived his life by. He looked up to them as icons, and wanted nothing more than to please them. This is why he found it so hard to lie; he couldn’t imagine doing something that would disappoint them in anyway. One way he honored his parents was by staying true to his religion. He wasn’t always perfect. He made his mistakes but regretted them fully and repented them often. When Gandhi went to school in England, eating meat, drinking, and smoking were the way of the world. Anyone unfamiliar with Gandhi’s background figured him mad when he refused to eat and drink with them. Many predicted that his heath would suffer without any sustenance in his diet. But he stayed true to his religion, and true to the vow that he had made to his mother to not stray from the practice of Vaishnava. He also considered it vital to always stay faithful to his wife. Gandhi was a jealous husband, and his wife tested him, but they were young. Even when temptation arose he was able to resist and return to his young bride. Helping friends, although valiant, turned out to be one of the downfalls of Gandhi’s ethics. In high school Gandhi befriended one of his older brother’s acquaintances, an acquaintance that was more often then not bad news. Although warned by his brother, mother, and wife that his new buddy was only going to get him into trouble, Gandhi persisted to help him. This friend challenged his religion, fidelity, and devotion to his parents, but no matter what Gandhi was pressured into doing his ethics still reined true. All of these traits encompassed Gandhi’s world views. Honoring your parents, religion, friends, and family at all costs were of up most importance to him. He believed that everyone should abide by those basic regulations, and practiced them staunchly himself. Gandhi always stood by his beliefs, never straying; he was a concrete, solid example of the way he believed life should be lived. This is why he is considered a moral hero because in the face of opposition and ridicule he remained faithful to his ideals where others would have faltered. Society today might want to take a good hard look at the way Gandhi lived his life. His concrete determination to live, as he believed, the way that life should be lived is something that most people would forsake at the first sign of temptation. Ask your self this question. If you were in that big fancy restaurant in England, half starving to death because of the lack of vegetarian cuisine, and that restricted soup was laid before you, would you take a bite? Or would you walk out and starve for the sake or your morals? The vast majority, including myself would gobble up that food barely thinking twice about the consequences, throwing inhibitions to the wind. Gandhi’s life is an inspiration for today, and time to come. No matter what the time period the values, morals, and ethics of Gandhi’s story will always apply to life. I could even apply Gandhi’s ethics to my life. His steadfast devotion to his values is something that I should incorporate in every aspect of my life. Now will I actually practice those values? Or will I give up when the road gets rough? That’s where the incredulity of Gandhi’s life comes in; I would falter where he would not.
2. I believe from what I read that Gandhi and Singer are very much alike. Both men are for the change and peace and unity, and both go about it in the same fashion for both men, Singer and Gandhi don’t fight or yell, but both have presented there arguments and ideas in a very peaceful, nonviolent, and a way for people to understand. Although both men had very different backgrounds and lifestyles both men have many of the same morals. As we can see both men are to a point have utilitarian views for they both see and want the best for the society, by having peaceful protest and nonviolence, for no once did Gandhi ever fight or break our yelling and the same for Singer he made many of his changes through peaceful ways and teachings. Both men are for the rights of people, as Gandhi demonstrated in his fight for the people of India, and even Singer showed it in his support in that if a woman wants to have an abortion it is her right to have it for you cant violate a woman’s rights. Both men even shared the same views on animal rights for Gandhi did not eat meat, while Singer is for animal rights and is a vegetarian and does not want to harm the animals for they have rights. It is surprising to see how both men grew up in different countries and different times and different cultures but yet they have both achieved great things by following peaceful nonviolent demonstrations and teachings. I think Singer learned much of his ways from Gandhi and I think that Gandhi would be very much proud of him and would help Singer with some of his view, but not all of them for I don’t think that Gandhi would totally agree with Singer on abortions, but the way that both men have taught and brought there message across has shown that they are very similar and very influential and very intelligent and we need to learn from there example of peace in order to obtain what needs to be obtained for the betterment of society.
3. I had never really occurred to me that Einstein was an ethical theorist. I had always thought and read until now that he was a physicist who brought many changes to the scientific community and to the world. After reading about him and his ethics it has really changed what you think and how you think about him, for he was really a brilliant man both in the lab and classroom, but also in the world as well. As seen Einstein was a refugee for he was a Jew, so Einstein knew about persecution for it had happened to him. In Einstein’s early years that was when he came up with his theory of relativity and his contribution to nuclear fission. It was later in his life where he made big impact ethically. When Einstein was approached by the government to confirm about nuclear fission he said he was faced with one of the biggest challenges of his life. Einstein was a very passive person much like Gandhi, however the difference between the two is that Gandhi was not promote any violence of any sort, and Einstein said that the only reason he confirmed his belief to Roosevelt was to protect people, for he thought Germany had and was going to use an atomic bomb, which they never did. Einstein was always on the look out for the betterment of people, even though he was looked down upon by some of the Jewish society he helped many of them come to live in America. While in America Einstein spook out about the discrimination and segregation that was going on in the country. He said that the time for discrimination was over for that was the past and it would only hurt the future, for no person is lower than any other person. As it is seen much of Einstein’s thought process that he used in his studies was also used in his ethics. I would have to say that all in all I had never thought about Einstein being an Ethical theorist, one of things that I now admire about him is, for I was taught he created the atomic bomb, that he regretted any thing to do with nuclear fission for it would hurt people, which shows that Einstein cared about everyone. I would say I admire how Einstein would stand up for those that no one else would stand up for; even thought people hated him for it. I believe that Einstein’s ethics can be brought into the twenty first century for I believe that Einstein cared about everyone and was out to help everyone in the best way possible. Einstein says no matter how intelligent or unintelligent rich or poor you are no one should be inferior everyone is equal. Einstein was out for the equality of people no matter the race or gender or ethnicity everyone was the same.
4. Singer said that he believes that animals are no different than humans for they have feelings and emotions just as we do. Singer said that the only difference is the species, but according to Darwin our species is an evolved species from others. So Darwin said that our species evolved and became humans and according to Singer how is it since we just an evolved species does that give us the right to kill animals. Singer says that animals are just as equal as we are for he said that there should not be a line between species. Singer says that the movement for animal rights will one day be fully fulfilled for he points out the recent movements that have happened, the women’s movement, black movement, and slave movement. And Singer says that animals are the same as us, just cause they don’t speak the same language as we do does not mean they are no different, for other cultures and people speak different languages, and that is why the slavery started. Singer says that animals can talk, hear, feel, and have the same emotions, pain, and pleasures as humans. So there is no need to treat them with cruelty and as if they are inferior. For we need to treat animals fairly with respect and the same way that we would want to be treated. Singer has a very good view on animal rights for they are living things to who feel pain and death and happiness just as humans. After seeing and reading about how people treat and abuse animals it is very sickening for the animals have no way to defend themselves and they need someone to do it and it will have to be humans. I believe that animals should have rights and that they should not be treated so harshly and badly. They need to be able to live a happy life just as humans do.
5. Peter Singer views abortion in a very different way than I had thought he would. At first I thought he would be against it and be for saving the baby. However when I read Signers views I realized that I was not correct. Singers position on abortion is not for or against it but rather he says that it is the woman’s right to choice to either have the baby or have an abortion. He says that you can not violate a woman’s right by telling her she can or cannot have an abortion. For rights are one thing that should not be taken away. So then where does the fetuses rights come in to being human. That has been a question that many people have been arguing for many years as to when a fetus has finally become human. Singer says that to kill a human being is wrong and a human fetus is a human being so to kill a human fetus is wrong. Those that are for abortion, say that a human fetus is not a human being yet so it is ok to kill fetus. That leaves the argument as to when does a human life being. Singer goes on to say that some have said that life beings when the child or fetus is a viable life form for you can’t say when the child is born for a premature child could be less developed than a fetus. So it is when a child is viable. However the viability is different to many people and many countries, so it is hard to say when a fetus is viable and when human life truly begins. Those that are for abortion says that a fetus is not a living being and those that are against abortion say when the child is viable which is hard to say. Signer points out that no person can command a woman to do anything for it is her right, he says, for the woman to decide whether to have the child or not, for you can not force her to have it or not for that violets her rights. Over all Singer says that a woman has to choose what she feels is right both morally and ethically and Singer also states that it is wrong to kill but the main question is when is a fetus a viable life form, and that is up to the persons morals and ethics.
6. Singer’s stance on euthanasia has made some controversy in the world. Singer has three types of euthanasia the first is voluntary, which is were the person request to die, the second is involuntary where the person is able to give constant but does not or is not listened to, which some could say is murder if the person asked to keep living. The last form of euthanasia is non voluntary which is were the person is not able to tell the difference of life and death and some one else has to make the choice. Singer agrees with voluntary euthanasia for you have the choice to live or die and it is your own choice and if you are in extreme pain or terminal illness it does not classify as suicide. The involuntary euthanasia is as Singer says not ethical and moral for someone is making the choice for you when you are capable of making the choice and some say that it could be murder if you don’t want to die but they decide other wise. The third euthanasia is non voluntary and Singer says that is all comes down to a person choice and morals according to Singer if the person is terminally ill cant decide or is sick or and infant baby and is in much physical pain then if it is good then it is ok. Over all Singer says that euthanasia is both good and bad for it will take away much pain that a person has, but it has to be done willingly and both morally and ethically. I believe that if a person is in much pain and wants to die they should be at peace for it wont help to one see them in pain and two to let them live in pain for they should have a good after life. I think euthanasia can be used as long as people do it both ethically and morally, if they don’t want pain any more you need to honor there wish, and if they want to live that is there choice, as far as choosing to let them live or die, that would be a very hard situation to chose. I hope I am never faced with that for it will be hard morally to let someone die. As in the case with Terri Schiavo she had very bad brain damage and was sustaining respiratory and other problems was it ok to let her die, that was a long case for the family. It is hard to say weather it is justified or not for if she was alive she had to be in much pain, and if she was brain dead it was hurting many people for she would never be better. I would say that this case fell in the third type of euthanasia for it was up to the family to decide and the only the only thing I think Singer would say is can you live with it morally for the rest of your life, and I would have to agree.
7. Stem cell research is said not to be cloning but to copy certain cells in a body to recreate them. For example if you are infected with a disease or have a organ failure they will be able to take stem cells from other living things to be put on other living things to reproduce and grow. Some say this is a very good thing for it will help stop many diseases that we now face, while others say it is a form of cloning. There are three types of stem cell research embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells, and cord blood stem cells. Embryonic stem cell research is unliked by many people for you need an embryo in order to take the stem cells out, which some people would call killing. Adult stem cell research is as it say taking cell from grown living organism which already can multiply and divide. More people favor adult stem cell research for you do not need an embryo to die, in adult stem cell research the cells multiply and divide so if placed in a falling organ the stem cells will be able to give the organ new cells and make the organ more capable to survive. Cord blood research is very simple for it is just the umbilical cord of a new born baby that is stored in blood banks over the country to help with blood disease and bone marrow transplant. Although it can be costly at times it could be very helpful. With all of the stem cells research it is hard to say weather it would be good to have. In a religious point of view embryonic stem cell research is wrong for you are killing an embryo. Over all is stem cell research wrong. I believe that used right and properly stem cell research could eliminate many disease that has destroyed many lives and it could help make people better. But that being said people could use it to make them selves more than human. To a point stem cell research is good but then there is a line moral and ethic no longer matter. To me as long as stem cell research is used to help disease and people as a whole and not to create things and over use it, stem cell research could help out in the end.
8. This is the one question that I would say is the hardest one to answer. What had the most impact on my mind? That is hard to say. For in the whole scheme of things everything that I have read had an and probably will have an impact on me. Even thought the course was only six weeks long, it seemed a lot longer than that, it has really changed the way I am thinking. I have finally realized that after reading the first few ethical theorist what question I have been looking for, and they said it, everyone wants to be happy in life, for that is the ultimate goal of everyone, to be happy, now how you attain that happiness is a different story which is where some of the other theorist came in. For you have to use your morals and ethics in order to be happy as long as no one else is harmed in the process. After looking back I would have to say that surprisingly Nietzsche for after reviewing what he has said and talked about, I see that if I had to live the same life over and over again I would want it to be a good life and I would want to tell the demon he was a saint. Although there are many of the other people that we studied that have also made an impact on me. I believe that Singer’s works made an impact on how I look at certain issues now. I still favor a lot of Karl Marx’s writings for he was a very profound thinker, looking at the betterment of society I would have to say though after reading and looking at Nietzsche it has changed how I look at the world and I believe that if you apply a lot the theorist ideas together you could make a very good and very promising society. I have now thought what if the life that I am living is being relived for all eternity do I want to make a difference on the world good or bad. I have realized that what I thought I had known about issues and people turned out to be different, Einstein for instance he made a big impact on the world with his ethics, and I am surprised at how Gandhi lived and how he was able to still stay a strong and proud person for what he was fighting for. Those are people that have made a change in the world not by swords but words which is what I would have to say is the most powerful thing a person has. I have, since I was young wanted to help people and make a difference in the world, and I am very pleased that I was able to learn about not only the theorist themselves but also there impact that they have made, and how I can take what they said and apply it to my life and to society and the whole world, I like the idea of how can you live if you don’t make the world a better place.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Post 12- Gandhi
For Gandhi ethics were vital. He was raised in a stringent religion, where rules must be adhered to or the consequences would be severe. Gandhi new nothing else but to follow his religion, engrained in him since infancy was the practice of Vaishnava (vegetarianism) which proved to be one of the hardest things for Gandhi to remain faithful to.
Lying was looked down upon most by Gandhi. Even as a young boy he couldn’t imagine telling untruths. Although he did falter from time to time, making more of omissions then lies, he always felt so much guilt the truth would always come out.
Honoring his parents was also one of the main points he lived his life by. He looked up to them as icons, and wanted nothing more than to please them. This is why he found it so hard to lie; he couldn’t imagine doing something that would disappoint them in anyway.
One way he honored his parents was by staying true to his religion. He wasn’t always perfect. He made his mistakes but regretted them fully and repented them often. When Gandhi went to school in England, eating meat, drinking, and smoking were the way of the world. Anyone unfamiliar with Gandhi’s background figured him mad when he refused to eat and drink with them. Many predicted that his heath would suffer without any sustenance in his diet. But he stayed true to his religion, and true to the vow that he had made to his mother to not stray from the practice of Vaishnava.
He also considered it vital to always stay faithful to his wife. Gandhi was a jealous husband, and his wife tested him, but they were young. Even when temptation arose he was able to resist and return to his young bride.
Helping friends, although valiant, turned out to be one of the downfalls of Gandhi’s ethics. In high school Gandhi befriended one of his older brother’s acquaintances, an acquaintance that was more often then not bad news. Although warned by his brother, mother, and wife that his new buddy was only going to get him into trouble, Gandhi persisted to help him. This friend challenged his religion, fidelity, and devotion to his parents, but no matter what Gandhi was pressured into doing his ethics still reined true.
All of these traits encompassed Gandhi’s world views. Honoring your parents, religion, friends, and family at all costs were of up most importance to him. He believed that everyone should abide by those basic regulations, and practiced them staunchly himself.
Gandhi always stood by his beliefs, never straying; he was a concrete, solid example of the way he believed life should be lived. This is why he is considered a moral hero because in the face of opposition and ridicule he remained faithful to his ideals where others would have faltered.
Society today might want to take a good hard look at the way Gandhi lived his life. His concrete determination to live, as he believed, the way that life should be lived is something that most people would forsake at the first sign of temptation. Ask your self this question. If you were in that big fancy restaurant in England, half starving to death because of the lack of vegetarian cuisine, and that restricted soup was laid before you, would you take a bite? Or would you walk out and starve for the sake or your morals? The vast majority, including myself would gobble up that food barely thinking twice about the consequences, throwing inhibitions to the wind.
Gandhi’s life is an inspiration for today, and time to come. No matter what the time period the values, morals, and ethics of Gandhi’s story will always apply to life. I could even apply Gandhi’s ethics to my life. His steadfast devotion to his values is something that I should incorporate in every aspect of my life. Now will I actually practice those values? Or will I give up when the road gets rough? That’s where the incredulity of Gandhi’s life comes in; I would falter where he would not.
Lying was looked down upon most by Gandhi. Even as a young boy he couldn’t imagine telling untruths. Although he did falter from time to time, making more of omissions then lies, he always felt so much guilt the truth would always come out.
Honoring his parents was also one of the main points he lived his life by. He looked up to them as icons, and wanted nothing more than to please them. This is why he found it so hard to lie; he couldn’t imagine doing something that would disappoint them in anyway.
One way he honored his parents was by staying true to his religion. He wasn’t always perfect. He made his mistakes but regretted them fully and repented them often. When Gandhi went to school in England, eating meat, drinking, and smoking were the way of the world. Anyone unfamiliar with Gandhi’s background figured him mad when he refused to eat and drink with them. Many predicted that his heath would suffer without any sustenance in his diet. But he stayed true to his religion, and true to the vow that he had made to his mother to not stray from the practice of Vaishnava.
He also considered it vital to always stay faithful to his wife. Gandhi was a jealous husband, and his wife tested him, but they were young. Even when temptation arose he was able to resist and return to his young bride.
Helping friends, although valiant, turned out to be one of the downfalls of Gandhi’s ethics. In high school Gandhi befriended one of his older brother’s acquaintances, an acquaintance that was more often then not bad news. Although warned by his brother, mother, and wife that his new buddy was only going to get him into trouble, Gandhi persisted to help him. This friend challenged his religion, fidelity, and devotion to his parents, but no matter what Gandhi was pressured into doing his ethics still reined true.
All of these traits encompassed Gandhi’s world views. Honoring your parents, religion, friends, and family at all costs were of up most importance to him. He believed that everyone should abide by those basic regulations, and practiced them staunchly himself.
Gandhi always stood by his beliefs, never straying; he was a concrete, solid example of the way he believed life should be lived. This is why he is considered a moral hero because in the face of opposition and ridicule he remained faithful to his ideals where others would have faltered.
Society today might want to take a good hard look at the way Gandhi lived his life. His concrete determination to live, as he believed, the way that life should be lived is something that most people would forsake at the first sign of temptation. Ask your self this question. If you were in that big fancy restaurant in England, half starving to death because of the lack of vegetarian cuisine, and that restricted soup was laid before you, would you take a bite? Or would you walk out and starve for the sake or your morals? The vast majority, including myself would gobble up that food barely thinking twice about the consequences, throwing inhibitions to the wind.
Gandhi’s life is an inspiration for today, and time to come. No matter what the time period the values, morals, and ethics of Gandhi’s story will always apply to life. I could even apply Gandhi’s ethics to my life. His steadfast devotion to his values is something that I should incorporate in every aspect of my life. Now will I actually practice those values? Or will I give up when the road gets rough? That’s where the incredulity of Gandhi’s life comes in; I would falter where he would not.
Research project # 2 – Capitol Punishment
I chose to write about capitol punishment. Capitol punishment is also known as the death penalty. The reason for my choosing is that it has some very strong ethical reasons on both sides, and it is a major topic in the news in our lives. I have talked to many people both for and against it, but for the most part most of the people base most of there concerns, from what I have heard, on emotions and there life. After reasserting and learning more than what I had already known it had opened up new lights of thinking.
The first part I will be telling of the reasons that are against capitol punishment and reason that we would not need it. One of the main reasons that people are against capital punishment is that it kills people. Many people say that we should not murder people and is that not what capital punishment is murder, for what is the definition of murder but to kill. And for most people if not all people in the world killing is wrong and harmful, for it not only takes someone’s life, but it can have a devastating effect on family member’s friends and communities, even counties. To a point killing is wrong, for we have seen that in many of our ethical theorists that kill in bad, even in a utilitarian society for the number on thing that the philosophers are looking for is happiness, and when people kill it hurts others which takes away there happiness. So why should we have the death penalty when it kills people and it hurts others for happiness is lost and that is what people are looking for. Another reason that the death penalty is bad for the amount of money that is spent on it thousand and thousands of dollars even up to a million dollars are spent to kill someone when that money could be used for other purposes. Religion also plays a big role in capital punishment for much of the religions out there see that the death penalty is killing and killing is a sin. As we see in Christianity for that is one of the commandments. So there are many reasons that capitol punishment is not only bad but also wrong. There is not justification for killing someone for example, if you kill someone you will have a trial and will be convicted of murder. If you are put on death row you are going to fight not to be killed, much money will be spent and much time wasted, only 53 people were killed in 2006, so for all the people set to be executed all that money wasted on only to see 53 people killed. There is also a moral and sense, if you kill someone are you are killed what punishment is that for if you have to sit in prison for the rest of your life, that would be a worse fate than being killed for you will be killed in time anyway. For you will have to live the rest of your life in a cell and think about what you did that is a worse punishment. So why should we have capital punishment for it waste money and is not a full punishment.
There are also reasons for having capital punishment. Many would argue that capital punishment needs to be made legal and used more often. In some research capital punishment has been around for many years, back to the roman times to the middle ages to the industrial revolution. We have seen many different types of punishment machines and techniques. The rack, the guillotine, beheading, and hanging are just a few techniques. There are so many out there. So is it good to have capital punishment. People say crime is getting worse and that the prisons and jails are becoming over crowded. If people were to be killed the jails would not be over crowded and crime would start to drop off for if you start to see people being killed for various crimes, it would affect everyone for people would not commit crimes for you could be killed. So if you commit a crime and you are killed, crime would drop. People say it cost money to kill people, because we allow it to cost money. In an interview someone said to have two trials your initial trial and if you are found guilty you get one appeal and if you are found guilty of that then off with your head, it should not take or cost that much, for a bullet is not that expensive to make and to keep someone alive, could be costly. Some say that if you kill them that is not a good punishment. Others say it should be done, for you have hurt others, you have taken there human rights and destroyed there happiness. And according to the ethical theorist everyone wants to be happy. And in a utilitarian society it is against the rules, basically to harm others happiness. The death penalty has been around for many years. If you are on death row what is the point of keeping you alive if you are going to die anyway, you are just taking up space and wasting time and tax payer’s money. Many people said that they are irritated for they have money going to these criminals, who just sit there and do nothing and get many things that the normal person has to work had for.
I would have to say after looking at both sides of the arguments now it is a hard decision to make, for is capital punishment murder or is it a good thing to do. All in all I would have to say that after you look at it, it would come down to a personal and ethical level. Is it right to kill someone, who has violated the norms of society. It would be a very hard decision to make for anyone. On a personal level after all is said I would still have to say that they should use capital punishment for it would help to change so many things, the jails would not be a crowded and not as much tax payers money is used, if they were to make the legal system move faster. I believe that it all comes to down to what a person what’s morally and ethically, for now I see some reason why we should not have capital punishment but in the end it would be better as a society.
The first part I will be telling of the reasons that are against capitol punishment and reason that we would not need it. One of the main reasons that people are against capital punishment is that it kills people. Many people say that we should not murder people and is that not what capital punishment is murder, for what is the definition of murder but to kill. And for most people if not all people in the world killing is wrong and harmful, for it not only takes someone’s life, but it can have a devastating effect on family member’s friends and communities, even counties. To a point killing is wrong, for we have seen that in many of our ethical theorists that kill in bad, even in a utilitarian society for the number on thing that the philosophers are looking for is happiness, and when people kill it hurts others which takes away there happiness. So why should we have the death penalty when it kills people and it hurts others for happiness is lost and that is what people are looking for. Another reason that the death penalty is bad for the amount of money that is spent on it thousand and thousands of dollars even up to a million dollars are spent to kill someone when that money could be used for other purposes. Religion also plays a big role in capital punishment for much of the religions out there see that the death penalty is killing and killing is a sin. As we see in Christianity for that is one of the commandments. So there are many reasons that capitol punishment is not only bad but also wrong. There is not justification for killing someone for example, if you kill someone you will have a trial and will be convicted of murder. If you are put on death row you are going to fight not to be killed, much money will be spent and much time wasted, only 53 people were killed in 2006, so for all the people set to be executed all that money wasted on only to see 53 people killed. There is also a moral and sense, if you kill someone are you are killed what punishment is that for if you have to sit in prison for the rest of your life, that would be a worse fate than being killed for you will be killed in time anyway. For you will have to live the rest of your life in a cell and think about what you did that is a worse punishment. So why should we have capital punishment for it waste money and is not a full punishment.
There are also reasons for having capital punishment. Many would argue that capital punishment needs to be made legal and used more often. In some research capital punishment has been around for many years, back to the roman times to the middle ages to the industrial revolution. We have seen many different types of punishment machines and techniques. The rack, the guillotine, beheading, and hanging are just a few techniques. There are so many out there. So is it good to have capital punishment. People say crime is getting worse and that the prisons and jails are becoming over crowded. If people were to be killed the jails would not be over crowded and crime would start to drop off for if you start to see people being killed for various crimes, it would affect everyone for people would not commit crimes for you could be killed. So if you commit a crime and you are killed, crime would drop. People say it cost money to kill people, because we allow it to cost money. In an interview someone said to have two trials your initial trial and if you are found guilty you get one appeal and if you are found guilty of that then off with your head, it should not take or cost that much, for a bullet is not that expensive to make and to keep someone alive, could be costly. Some say that if you kill them that is not a good punishment. Others say it should be done, for you have hurt others, you have taken there human rights and destroyed there happiness. And according to the ethical theorist everyone wants to be happy. And in a utilitarian society it is against the rules, basically to harm others happiness. The death penalty has been around for many years. If you are on death row what is the point of keeping you alive if you are going to die anyway, you are just taking up space and wasting time and tax payer’s money. Many people said that they are irritated for they have money going to these criminals, who just sit there and do nothing and get many things that the normal person has to work had for.
I would have to say after looking at both sides of the arguments now it is a hard decision to make, for is capital punishment murder or is it a good thing to do. All in all I would have to say that after you look at it, it would come down to a personal and ethical level. Is it right to kill someone, who has violated the norms of society. It would be a very hard decision to make for anyone. On a personal level after all is said I would still have to say that they should use capital punishment for it would help to change so many things, the jails would not be a crowded and not as much tax payers money is used, if they were to make the legal system move faster. I believe that it all comes to down to what a person what’s morally and ethically, for now I see some reason why we should not have capital punishment but in the end it would be better as a society.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Post 11- Evolutionary psychology
In the field of Evolutionary psychology one of the first scientists to be in the field was Charles Darwin. Evolutionary psychology is the study of which humans are shaped and molded by the way we evolve. Darwin had the idea of natural selection, which is saying that as we evolve we develop certain traits and characteristics in a us that become stronger and weaker, for example the pancreases, in today’s world we don’t need it for we have evolved to overcome it, while back in time it was essential for them to live. In Evolutionary psychology what we see, or what is looked at, is how our minds, thoughts and abilities are shaped as we have evolved. It focuses on how through time we have come to think morally and ethically. Evolutionary psychology is applied to ethics for it shows that as we have evolved we have developed morals and ethics within us is it taught through society of just by human nature. One thing is that every society is different when you look at Evolutionary psychology for the Middle East differs in there ethical view than say china or Central America and the USA. So looking at Evolutionary psychology would be a little difficult for certain societies. One of the basic theories is the pursuit of happiness as we have seen many theorists say before happiness is what people want. And as humans have evolved though time people wanted to be happy and that is how much of society was formed by people evolved sense of attaining to be happy and hat is were Darwin showed his social Darwinism, which some would say is an utilitarian view for people want to be happy without hurting others and hence that is where the ethics and morals come in which also is the decision for right and wrong, which is a big part of Evolutionary psychology in that is helped shape peoples view of ethics by choosing the right or wrong choice. In the second part Greene tells of how he views right and wrong. He asks us if we would kill a person to save five. The point that Greene is coming across is that he believes that many people who like to judge by right and wrong are also judging by there emotions. Greene says that emotions play a big part in deciding as to what is right and wrong. Then Greene said that the way we form our emotions is also a big factor, has it been from growing up in our lives or is it a part of Evolutionary psychology per say. Have we formed our emotions through time? In the end Greene says much of what we choice is by right and wrong but also on or emotions that drive us. In the end I believe that we have evolved through time and through the evolution process we have formed what we call right and wrong and which helped to shape our ethics and morals. I believe and agree with Greene in saying that much of what we decide is more from our emotions that anything else.
Post 10- Cloning
Cloning, I would have to say is one of the most controversial topics that people talk about in today’s society. You have people that are opposed to it and those that are for it. Cloning is where you will take a cell and to a sense copy it genetically. You will now have a cell the same as the one you cloned. As we see you can take cloning to many different levels of achievement, but then again you can also take advantage of cloning. When Dolly the sheep was cloned it took over two hundred time to create Dolly. When Dolly was discussed publicly the uproar it created was immense. Many people were happy for know, as some people said you can use cloning to produce livestock to help feed third world countries. Then you had people yelling for Dolly was created in a test tube and it violated all of the animal rights that she had. In the end the biggest factor in cloning would have to be the ethical and religious view. Many religions oppose it for it is copying life, it is controlling life, and it is false life as some people say. For religions say that god gave us life as a gift of love. When two people love each other that love bring a child. Some religions say that cloning is to a point becoming god for you will know have the ability to control life and create and destroy it. In the ethical point of view, it is very much divided for cloning will bring about many achievements and will be able to cure deadly diseases. So how could we not go for cloning for if you have a loved one who is going to die slowly and probably painfully and you had the chance to ride the disease within that person would you not do it. Cloning can cure and help people and many say it will help humans over come many obstacles that we have come across in the scientific world. On the other hand you are able to cure a dieses and make someone better, a question will arise can you be kept alive for ever by cloning. As we have seen it takes research to come up with the right results. To make the research possible you need to make copies of the cells to test on. Another question comes out as to when it that cell a human for if you copy a cell and give it a disease you are killing it, so are you killing a human. That will be a question that has different views for some say you are living but are not human others say you human for you can become human. And in another ethical sense could you take cloning and use it and become empowered with it, to copy people and produce an army to rule the world, to make a “perfect” person, to live forever, to a point you can take cloning to become god and become a powerful person. Over all cloning is a big question and issue that needs to be discussed. Humans have become so evolved over time with out cloning, so why would we need it know is there a point to it, two things are certain in life taxes and death. You know you are going to die one day, at time it is hard for a disease will come but life is to be cherished and loved not controlled and used. Cloning is not a good idea for the human species has lived many years and battled many things and if we are still around then we would not need cloning.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Where does meat come from
I have never really thought about were my meat comes from when I eat it. I will go with what I had for lunch a few days ago. I had a Big Mac from McDonalds, and I have to say it doesn’t help to know that I also worked there. But if I were to imagine where the meat came from it would all start out with a male cow and a female cow doing nature’s thing to produce a baby cow. That baby cow will then crow up to either becomes a milk cow or a meat cow, not since I am talking about meat it will become a meat cow. Well seeing some slaughter houses and dairy farms it sure changed on how I think about eating. Well the cow will eat what it is given either corn and hay and such. Then when this fine cow has reached a good age and good weight it is soon led into a dark room, probably thinking “were is the food…” then a club knocks the cow out, for they say the meat is better when the cow is knocked out rather then straight dead. Now that the cow is knocked out they soon send the poor animal down a dark hallway on a cloths line thing except with cows and soon the cow is no longer head strong and on to the body, the hide goes to cloths an and shoes and the meat gets separated into t bone steaks and other various meats. Now that our lovely animal is in many different pieces the meat by law gets checked by FDA to make sure that it is packed well and no bacteria or mold or disease is in the meat. It has now passed the FDA inspection and goes to get packed out meat, talking about hamburgers at McDonalds get put in plastic and put in a box with McDonalds on the side to the box get put on a truck and delivered to the store. The box is then put in the freezer to keep it in good condition and when time comes when more meet is needed the box is removed and put in the grill area and the meat then goes down on to the grill for thirty two seconds and then you season the meat put in on the tray take it over to the assembly area and then the meat is placed on the Big Mac bun and the box is closed thrown down to the front were it is put in a bag and given to you. You now take you freshly made Big Mac out of the box and eat it not knowing what the cow was thinking or doing before being knocked out for you to enjoy your food. Enjoy the meat that you eat.
Post 9 - Abortion, Poverty, Euthanasia
Peter Singer is a very controversial philosopher and writer. He has made many points to poverty, abortion, and euthanasia. Singer’s stance on abortion has put a twist on the way you may now think about abortion, for it made me think about it at least. Singer says that every woman has her own rights and in the end choices what she thinks is best. Singer also points out that it is wrong to kill a human being, and it is wrong to kill a human fetus. But Singer says that it all comes down to a person views and morals and definition as to when a fetus is human or not and to what is human. Ultimately Singer says it all comes down to what a women believes and what she wants to do for it is her rights and no one else’s to chose what to do. Singer’s position on poverty is close to, well in my view, what a lot of people think. Singer says that the richer more advanced and wealthier countries need to help those that are less advanced and that don’t have much wealth. Singer also says it is also with in the country for poverty is in all countries and cities. Singer says this for much of the wealthy people they tend to always buy materialistic items and commodities, much of the wealthy tend to spend much on themselves such as food and drink and luxuries, will the poverty stricken people scrap by with what they have hoping for the best. Singer says that peoples don’t seem to have good morals for the rich should not always be spending on themselves for they already have they should instead be giving to the more needy, in a sense this goes back to Singers positions on Utilitarianism for giving now help everyone as a whole. Singer’s stance on euthanasia has made some controversy in the world. Singer has three types of euthanasia the first is voluntary, which is were the person request to die, the second is involuntary where the person is able to give constant but does not or is not listened to, which some could say is murder if the person asked to keep living. The last form of euthanasia is non voluntary which is were the person is not able to tell the difference of life and death and some one else has to make the choice. Singer agrees with voluntary euthanasia for you have the choice to live or die and it is your own choice and if you are in extreme pain or terminal illness it does not classify as suicide. The involuntary euthanasia is as Singer says not ethical and moral for someone is making the choice for you when you are capable of making the choice and some say that it could be murder if you don’t want to die but they decide other wise. The third euthanasia is non voluntary and Singer says that is all comes down to a person choice and morals according to Singer if the person is terminally ill cant decide or is sick or and infant baby and is in much physical pain then if it is good then it is ok. After reading Singers work it has opened much of what I have not thought about for I have thought about poverty and how the rich need to give to the poor more but then I have to look at my own life and see what I am doing. On abortion it is a very controversial issue for most anyone and being Catholic I am pro life for you made that choice to sex and a baby as we all know will follow, now there is certain circumstances if you are raped or something on that nature, but to me it all comes down to the choice of the person, that person is capable of choosing what to do or not do and that cant be changed. On euthanasia which I have never really thought of it has changed what I think about killing the terminally ill and infants born with problems, but it is a choice that a person has to make. And if you choice to die then you have to abide by that persons wish and if they choice to live and someone kills them to me that is murder and if they cant decides at all then if you can make that choice to kill them. In the end in a non voluntary euthanasia case it is the choice of the person, to me can you live with that choice, but if they are in much pain and there is no better life to live then it has to be for the best. After reading much of Singers works it has opened my mind and my thinking and I hope that I can start making changes not only in my life but those around me.
Post Eight- Singer
Peter Singer is one of the most interesting and controversial people on the planet, after reading him and talking to others about him it seems that people either love him for what he is trying to do or they hate him for his views and writings. Although every person has different views and opinions about certain issues, after reading Singers work it has really opened my eyes to issues that I had always pushed aside. Singer defines ethics as an utilitarian view saying that we need to look at the choices we make to see that they help everyone and that no pain is caused to others, he also says that in making these choices you have to look at it from the other people point of view, in other words is the choice that I am making going to harm or help others and if I make this choice is it the choice that I would want others to make. Singer said that he believes that animals are no different than humans for they have feelings and emotions just as we do. Singer said that the only difference is the species, but according to Darwin our species is an evolved species from others. So Darwin said that our species evolved and became humans and according to Singer how is it since we just an evolved species does that give us the right to kill animals. Singer says that animals are just as equal as we are for he said that there should not be a line between species. Singer says that the movement for animal rights will one day be fully fulfilled for he points out the recent movements that have happened, the women’s movement, black movement, and slave movement. And Singer says that animals are the same as us, just cause they don’t speak the same language as we do does not mean they are no different, for other cultures and people speak different languages, and that is why the slavery started. Singer says that animals can talk, hear, feel, and have the same emotions, pain, and pleasures as humans. So there is no need to treat them with cruelty and as if they are inferior. For we need to treat animals fairly with respect and the same way that we would want to be treated. Lane’s argument on animal rights is close to Singer’s in saying that animals are the same as humans for they can feel pain and emotions as humans do. Lanes also says that we don’t need to rely on animals anymore for food and work for we have means of living with out animals by becoming vegetarian or vegan. From both Singer and Lanes arguments both are saying that animals have the same rights that we do and that they don’t need to be treated cruelly and they don’t need to be used for entertainment. They both also say that there are other means of living a healthy life with out animal meat. Overall animals have the same rights as humans and it’s getting people to realize this and joining the movement. After reading these arguments it has opened my eyes to this for I have never realized the major impact humans cause to animals, it sure has changed my views.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Midterm
Shawn Cummings
theshawn8
theshawn8@yahoo.com
7 post total. Post 1: 7-5-07, post 2: 7-5-07, post 3: 7-8-07, post 4: 7-9-07, post 5: 7-9-07, post 6: 7-15-07, post 7: 7-15-07
Museum of Tolerance was visited on 7-12-07, but the Hollocost exhibit was closed and I saw Finding our Families Finding out selves, I got a blue sticker. :)
I have read the readings requied but it is very hard to understand and interpret so some of my writings might be off but I did my best to try and answer with what I got out of the readings, but over all it has been good learned a lot, but I might need some new eyes if I have to read this much again, and I think I fell asleep quite a few times on the keyboard. :)
I have completed two of the extra credit assainments the first of our definition of ethics and our religon.
Midterm Questions:
1. If I had to live the same life over and over again that would be very weird, but if it was a good life then I would not mind, however if it was a bad life then that really would suck. And according to Nietzsche if you had to live the same life over and over you should make it a good one that way you can call the demon a god instead of having to curse him. Nietzsche ethical views are criticized for he is said to not have a system for his writings. Nietzsche says that god is dead for man has killed god with our thinking and science, and we will need to over come our reliance on religion by become what he calls the Overman. He also goes on to critique Christianity in saying that god sacrificed his only son so that Jesus would be able to show us not a new religion but a new way to live life, and he says that St. Paul ruined that idea by “selling” Christianity and saying you will go to heaven. Nietzsche says that man is reliant on religion and only the free spirits can over come that. Nietzsche basically says to live life so that if you had to live it over in eternity that you were to follow the way that Jesus lived, a good life worth living, however without the dependence on religion. Nietzsche loves Jesus for he lived life to show how to live a better live and not to show us a religion, which is why he hates Paul for he destroyed the idea of Jesus by saying he is a religion and basically Paul sold religion and the idea of Jesus for Christianity promises everything but fulfils nothing. And that is why he is offended by Christian morality for it has been tainted over the years and it has even tainted history, by saying Jesus rose from the dead so we have to live a certain way, and Nietzsche say Jesus did die for us but all he was doing was showing us a new way to live. Overall Nietzsche ideas are scattered but when you think about it and put them together they make sense for the way I see it if you had to live life over for eternity you would want to thank the demon, if you had a good life, and followed Jesus example on how to live a good life. So live a good fulfilling life and make it happy.
2. In the ethical system of Epictetus he is saying that we are to achieve the ultimate goal of happiness, but in order to do that we should not let our desires or pleasure in the way of that for we need to control our desires and pleasures which is a virtue and our virtues are what makes a person ethical and good, for if we let our desires in the way then we have vices instead of virtues.
Spinoza on the other hand says that we need god for god is everywhere and everything and god is good. He says that we need god in order to be happy, and in order to have god we need to have knowledge of god and an inadequate knowledge of god will result in evil.
Even though both of these theorist have very different views of obtaining happiness in the world they both have the same type of theory that brings them together, stoicism. Stoicism is basically were we control our desires emotions pleasures in order to become a clear thinker. This is important in both philosophers writings for Epictetus says we need to control our desires to have good virtues to have happiness, while Spinoza says that when we control our emotions and pleasures we are now clear thinkers and are able to become knowledgeable of god and since god is good and god is everything then we will obtain happiness. So they may have very different view to obtain happiness but if you can control what you want and can think clearly you will be happy, which is what everyone wants in life.
3. The Communist Manifesto is called a book that changed the world. I would have to agree. The book was written by Karl Marx, who believed that communism was the only true moral way to live. Many argue that he was right. The Communist Manifesto, as some people say is also an ethical text. It is an ethical text because it tells of how capitalism is degrading and immoral to people by having the class struggle in it, and the class struggle is wrong for as we see today we have the upper middle and lower class and as the saying goes the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, which is true for the upper class don’t work much and the lower class people may have two jobs trying to make ends meet and it does not seem fair for that is the way the class system is. As Marx said the bourgeois will use the laborers and pay them the bare minimum to live while they keep all that is made. He then goes on to say how communism is very moral and a true society for everyone is equal there is no more class struggle to worry about for instead of gaining for your self you now gain for society and everyone is equal in a communist view with the same education same values and same everything. In the first chapter of the Communist Manifesto Marx is showing how the bourgeois came into power through out history and he tells of how class struggle has been around for years and years. Marx then goes on to tell how the bourgeois came to destroy them selves and how they created there enemy, the proletarians, who are the laborers and do the work for the bourgeois and get paid little for there work. Soon the proletarian’s revolt against the bourgeois to help out there needs. However he says that there needs to be away with a society with personal gain and classes and that is communism. He says in chapter two how communism is the true form of a society for now there is no class struggle there is no more individual only society he says that everyone is equal, even women for they are apart of society, and he says that everyone will have the same formal education and there is no more private lands and inheritance for that will all show personal gain which is not a form of communism but to help society for when you need help society will help you and vice versa. Marx vision of communism was very effective and could help everyone for instead of your self it is now everyone and everyone will help. However Marx vision of his Utopia failed because of man and by that I mean man is very greedy and power hungry and, when you give a mouse a cookie he is going to want a glass of milk. By that I mean that when man is given a little power he will want more and now you have a dictator and that is the one reason that communism cant work for someone will rule good then become a dictator and kill everyone, other than that if you could have a good person rule in a communist society it will work according to Mark.
4. The first three philosophers that we studied, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Epictetus were some of the earliest philosophers that have strong ethical theories. The connection that all three philosophers have is that they all say that the final thing that humans seek in life is to be happy. For they say that happiness is what every person seeks to have in life and that our ethics morals and choices reflect that and help us in our search for happiness. However each philosopher had different takes on happiness. Aristotle says that we need good ethics and morals and need to go after what would make us happy as long as the virtues that we have are good and the person has good ethics. Epicurus says that a person achieves happiness by pursuing his pleasures for it is our pleasures that we form our virtues and ethics and if they are good we will achieve the ultimate goal of happiness. Epictetus had the opposite view of saying that our pleasures should not be used to achieve happiness, for our desires will over come our virtues and will turn to vices, so according to Epictetus our pleasures will turn us evil and result us to have bad choices. However all three philosophers say that we need good ethics and we need to have a balance of virtues so that they don’t turn to vices for vices are bad a ruin people, and the end result, according to them, is that every person wants to be happy.
5. Jean Paul Sartre was an atheist existentialist, who was criticized and harassed for his writings on existentialism. Existentialism as Sartre defines it is that we as humans are in charge of our actions and we chose the meaning of our life. For according to Sartre existence precedes essence. In other words we are here for a reason. But in a religious sense we are here because god put us here. But according to an atheist view we chose why we are here. And the reason that the Christians chose to say that God put us here, according to Sartre was because they did not have an answer to that question except god. But according to an atheist man is what he chooses himself to be. According to Sartre an atheist can be moral for he will chose what he wants him self to be and there is nothing immoral about it for man defines himself and man was the one who invented the idea of religion according to Sartre. Sartre says that the Christian view is unacceptable in that we are here because god put us here so in other words god is the artisan who created man and god knows what he is creating, and to Sartre that is not possible for is existence precedes essence we had to be here before we knew why. Existentialism is an ethical view for it shows that we chose why who we are and the meaning of why we are here and we will try to make the best of why we are here.
6. Kants view on ethics is what is referred to as the categorical imperative, in other words all the decisions that you make should be good decisions to help society as a whole and they should not be made for any personal fame of gain for then it would not be a good decision. Kierkegaard is said to follow the existentialist view is saying that you chose who you are and what life you live and why you are here, for and existentialist view is existence before essence so you create the meaning of your life. Kierkegaard says that you are your own person and are capable of making your own decisions in life. And he says that any decision that you make in life should affect only you and no one else around you, or if you make a wrong decision it should not hurt others but only you. Both philosophers are both saying the ultimate goal is to attain happiness and to be a good moral person in the process. These theorists are very different in that Kant says you have to make your choices and decision so that they help society as a whole and so you don’t achieve any personal gain or fame, while Kierkegaard says that any choice you make should affect you and not society.
7. Utilitarianism is a theory of attaining happiness for yourself and helping society, hedonism is pursuing your pleasure to achieve happiness. John Stuart Mill’s philosophy of utilitarianism is said to be that you are looking for the greatest happiness in life. In other words Mill’s utilitarianism is saying that you can do what makes you happy in society as long as it does not hurt or harm other people, for now you have interrupted there happiness, but you also have to look at does it help society as a whole, for if it does not then is your action good, for it may be good for you but not for society. Epicurus hedonism is said that our pleasure form our happiness and we should purse out pleasures in order to be happy. Both theorists say that we need to be happy in life by going after what we want in life, these pleasure can be both physical, but the ultimate form of happiness is your intellect and your ethics. However Mills theory contradicts Epicurus in saying that your actions need to be good so they can make you happy and as long as they don’t harm or hurt others and if it helps society, for if your actions don’t help society and only you then you could be hurting others which goes against the Mills theory. While Epicurus says happiness is your own desires not that of society, and if everyone in society was to go for what would make them happy you would live in tranquility.
8. Through out the three weeks there has been a lot of reading and I feel as if my eyeballs are going to fall out. But it has been well worth it for I have been able to learn a lot about many of the philosophers their lives and how they lived and came to there theories. Through the ten theorists that we have studied I would have to say my favorite would be Karl Marx for most of his theories are good for everyone and help the whole world. I believe that if you were able to find a good person who had good values morals and ethics, they could take Marx’s ideas and integrate them into society and then society would be able to run very efficiently and very well. I like Marx for when he wrote his theories he was, to me, thinking about everyone as a whole, unlike some of the other theorist who were thinking about the individual before society. For when you think of society first society will take care of you. I like Marx for he had one of the theories for a perfect society and that is an ultimate goal for people to live in harmony and peace, and Marx had that idea. I see Marx ideas in today’s world for if people were to live by his theories then there would not be terrorism and hatred in the world, there would not be killing, death and crime, but everyone would work together to help society and to become better people and to live great and wonderful lives, but it will never happen for humans are greedy selfish people who care only about there needs and wants, before thinking about anyone else. I see that Marx theories apply to me in that if I ever had the chance to change something or ability to I would follow some of his ideas and hope that I can make a difference, for I hope that I can help others in society and in return society will help me. For as I explained before I find happiness in seeing others being happy and glad with what they have and I see that in Marx’s ideas when you help society and society is happy then you will be happy for you know that you are helping everyone and not just yourselves.
If anything turns up let me know I hope you enjoyed my thoughts for I have really learned a lot about these philosiphers.
theshawn8
theshawn8@yahoo.com
7 post total. Post 1: 7-5-07, post 2: 7-5-07, post 3: 7-8-07, post 4: 7-9-07, post 5: 7-9-07, post 6: 7-15-07, post 7: 7-15-07
Museum of Tolerance was visited on 7-12-07, but the Hollocost exhibit was closed and I saw Finding our Families Finding out selves, I got a blue sticker. :)
I have read the readings requied but it is very hard to understand and interpret so some of my writings might be off but I did my best to try and answer with what I got out of the readings, but over all it has been good learned a lot, but I might need some new eyes if I have to read this much again, and I think I fell asleep quite a few times on the keyboard. :)
I have completed two of the extra credit assainments the first of our definition of ethics and our religon.
Midterm Questions:
1. If I had to live the same life over and over again that would be very weird, but if it was a good life then I would not mind, however if it was a bad life then that really would suck. And according to Nietzsche if you had to live the same life over and over you should make it a good one that way you can call the demon a god instead of having to curse him. Nietzsche ethical views are criticized for he is said to not have a system for his writings. Nietzsche says that god is dead for man has killed god with our thinking and science, and we will need to over come our reliance on religion by become what he calls the Overman. He also goes on to critique Christianity in saying that god sacrificed his only son so that Jesus would be able to show us not a new religion but a new way to live life, and he says that St. Paul ruined that idea by “selling” Christianity and saying you will go to heaven. Nietzsche says that man is reliant on religion and only the free spirits can over come that. Nietzsche basically says to live life so that if you had to live it over in eternity that you were to follow the way that Jesus lived, a good life worth living, however without the dependence on religion. Nietzsche loves Jesus for he lived life to show how to live a better live and not to show us a religion, which is why he hates Paul for he destroyed the idea of Jesus by saying he is a religion and basically Paul sold religion and the idea of Jesus for Christianity promises everything but fulfils nothing. And that is why he is offended by Christian morality for it has been tainted over the years and it has even tainted history, by saying Jesus rose from the dead so we have to live a certain way, and Nietzsche say Jesus did die for us but all he was doing was showing us a new way to live. Overall Nietzsche ideas are scattered but when you think about it and put them together they make sense for the way I see it if you had to live life over for eternity you would want to thank the demon, if you had a good life, and followed Jesus example on how to live a good life. So live a good fulfilling life and make it happy.
2. In the ethical system of Epictetus he is saying that we are to achieve the ultimate goal of happiness, but in order to do that we should not let our desires or pleasure in the way of that for we need to control our desires and pleasures which is a virtue and our virtues are what makes a person ethical and good, for if we let our desires in the way then we have vices instead of virtues.
Spinoza on the other hand says that we need god for god is everywhere and everything and god is good. He says that we need god in order to be happy, and in order to have god we need to have knowledge of god and an inadequate knowledge of god will result in evil.
Even though both of these theorist have very different views of obtaining happiness in the world they both have the same type of theory that brings them together, stoicism. Stoicism is basically were we control our desires emotions pleasures in order to become a clear thinker. This is important in both philosophers writings for Epictetus says we need to control our desires to have good virtues to have happiness, while Spinoza says that when we control our emotions and pleasures we are now clear thinkers and are able to become knowledgeable of god and since god is good and god is everything then we will obtain happiness. So they may have very different view to obtain happiness but if you can control what you want and can think clearly you will be happy, which is what everyone wants in life.
3. The Communist Manifesto is called a book that changed the world. I would have to agree. The book was written by Karl Marx, who believed that communism was the only true moral way to live. Many argue that he was right. The Communist Manifesto, as some people say is also an ethical text. It is an ethical text because it tells of how capitalism is degrading and immoral to people by having the class struggle in it, and the class struggle is wrong for as we see today we have the upper middle and lower class and as the saying goes the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, which is true for the upper class don’t work much and the lower class people may have two jobs trying to make ends meet and it does not seem fair for that is the way the class system is. As Marx said the bourgeois will use the laborers and pay them the bare minimum to live while they keep all that is made. He then goes on to say how communism is very moral and a true society for everyone is equal there is no more class struggle to worry about for instead of gaining for your self you now gain for society and everyone is equal in a communist view with the same education same values and same everything. In the first chapter of the Communist Manifesto Marx is showing how the bourgeois came into power through out history and he tells of how class struggle has been around for years and years. Marx then goes on to tell how the bourgeois came to destroy them selves and how they created there enemy, the proletarians, who are the laborers and do the work for the bourgeois and get paid little for there work. Soon the proletarian’s revolt against the bourgeois to help out there needs. However he says that there needs to be away with a society with personal gain and classes and that is communism. He says in chapter two how communism is the true form of a society for now there is no class struggle there is no more individual only society he says that everyone is equal, even women for they are apart of society, and he says that everyone will have the same formal education and there is no more private lands and inheritance for that will all show personal gain which is not a form of communism but to help society for when you need help society will help you and vice versa. Marx vision of communism was very effective and could help everyone for instead of your self it is now everyone and everyone will help. However Marx vision of his Utopia failed because of man and by that I mean man is very greedy and power hungry and, when you give a mouse a cookie he is going to want a glass of milk. By that I mean that when man is given a little power he will want more and now you have a dictator and that is the one reason that communism cant work for someone will rule good then become a dictator and kill everyone, other than that if you could have a good person rule in a communist society it will work according to Mark.
4. The first three philosophers that we studied, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Epictetus were some of the earliest philosophers that have strong ethical theories. The connection that all three philosophers have is that they all say that the final thing that humans seek in life is to be happy. For they say that happiness is what every person seeks to have in life and that our ethics morals and choices reflect that and help us in our search for happiness. However each philosopher had different takes on happiness. Aristotle says that we need good ethics and morals and need to go after what would make us happy as long as the virtues that we have are good and the person has good ethics. Epicurus says that a person achieves happiness by pursuing his pleasures for it is our pleasures that we form our virtues and ethics and if they are good we will achieve the ultimate goal of happiness. Epictetus had the opposite view of saying that our pleasures should not be used to achieve happiness, for our desires will over come our virtues and will turn to vices, so according to Epictetus our pleasures will turn us evil and result us to have bad choices. However all three philosophers say that we need good ethics and we need to have a balance of virtues so that they don’t turn to vices for vices are bad a ruin people, and the end result, according to them, is that every person wants to be happy.
5. Jean Paul Sartre was an atheist existentialist, who was criticized and harassed for his writings on existentialism. Existentialism as Sartre defines it is that we as humans are in charge of our actions and we chose the meaning of our life. For according to Sartre existence precedes essence. In other words we are here for a reason. But in a religious sense we are here because god put us here. But according to an atheist view we chose why we are here. And the reason that the Christians chose to say that God put us here, according to Sartre was because they did not have an answer to that question except god. But according to an atheist man is what he chooses himself to be. According to Sartre an atheist can be moral for he will chose what he wants him self to be and there is nothing immoral about it for man defines himself and man was the one who invented the idea of religion according to Sartre. Sartre says that the Christian view is unacceptable in that we are here because god put us here so in other words god is the artisan who created man and god knows what he is creating, and to Sartre that is not possible for is existence precedes essence we had to be here before we knew why. Existentialism is an ethical view for it shows that we chose why who we are and the meaning of why we are here and we will try to make the best of why we are here.
6. Kants view on ethics is what is referred to as the categorical imperative, in other words all the decisions that you make should be good decisions to help society as a whole and they should not be made for any personal fame of gain for then it would not be a good decision. Kierkegaard is said to follow the existentialist view is saying that you chose who you are and what life you live and why you are here, for and existentialist view is existence before essence so you create the meaning of your life. Kierkegaard says that you are your own person and are capable of making your own decisions in life. And he says that any decision that you make in life should affect only you and no one else around you, or if you make a wrong decision it should not hurt others but only you. Both philosophers are both saying the ultimate goal is to attain happiness and to be a good moral person in the process. These theorists are very different in that Kant says you have to make your choices and decision so that they help society as a whole and so you don’t achieve any personal gain or fame, while Kierkegaard says that any choice you make should affect you and not society.
7. Utilitarianism is a theory of attaining happiness for yourself and helping society, hedonism is pursuing your pleasure to achieve happiness. John Stuart Mill’s philosophy of utilitarianism is said to be that you are looking for the greatest happiness in life. In other words Mill’s utilitarianism is saying that you can do what makes you happy in society as long as it does not hurt or harm other people, for now you have interrupted there happiness, but you also have to look at does it help society as a whole, for if it does not then is your action good, for it may be good for you but not for society. Epicurus hedonism is said that our pleasure form our happiness and we should purse out pleasures in order to be happy. Both theorists say that we need to be happy in life by going after what we want in life, these pleasure can be both physical, but the ultimate form of happiness is your intellect and your ethics. However Mills theory contradicts Epicurus in saying that your actions need to be good so they can make you happy and as long as they don’t harm or hurt others and if it helps society, for if your actions don’t help society and only you then you could be hurting others which goes against the Mills theory. While Epicurus says happiness is your own desires not that of society, and if everyone in society was to go for what would make them happy you would live in tranquility.
8. Through out the three weeks there has been a lot of reading and I feel as if my eyeballs are going to fall out. But it has been well worth it for I have been able to learn a lot about many of the philosophers their lives and how they lived and came to there theories. Through the ten theorists that we have studied I would have to say my favorite would be Karl Marx for most of his theories are good for everyone and help the whole world. I believe that if you were able to find a good person who had good values morals and ethics, they could take Marx’s ideas and integrate them into society and then society would be able to run very efficiently and very well. I like Marx for when he wrote his theories he was, to me, thinking about everyone as a whole, unlike some of the other theorist who were thinking about the individual before society. For when you think of society first society will take care of you. I like Marx for he had one of the theories for a perfect society and that is an ultimate goal for people to live in harmony and peace, and Marx had that idea. I see Marx ideas in today’s world for if people were to live by his theories then there would not be terrorism and hatred in the world, there would not be killing, death and crime, but everyone would work together to help society and to become better people and to live great and wonderful lives, but it will never happen for humans are greedy selfish people who care only about there needs and wants, before thinking about anyone else. I see that Marx theories apply to me in that if I ever had the chance to change something or ability to I would follow some of his ideas and hope that I can make a difference, for I hope that I can help others in society and in return society will help me. For as I explained before I find happiness in seeing others being happy and glad with what they have and I see that in Marx’s ideas when you help society and society is happy then you will be happy for you know that you are helping everyone and not just yourselves.
If anything turns up let me know I hope you enjoyed my thoughts for I have really learned a lot about these philosiphers.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
I hate traffic
I hate traffic, for I had to sit in traffic for two hours. On 07-12-07 I went to the Museum of Tolerance, which opened in 1993 and has very heavy security for it is the only museum in the world of its kind, and no pictures or recording are allowed. When I got to the museum they told me that the exhibit was closed, even though I have been there before it was a real disappointment for I wanted to see and experience it again. However, I did go to the “Finding our Family, Finding our selves”. At first I did not want to go see the exhibit for, one I did not know what it was, and second I just didn’t want to see it. However when they told me what it was and all the information about it I decided to see it. Over all I was very impressed by the whole exhibit. As I went through the beginning tour I was met by an introduction by Billy Crystal. It was very interesting for it showed what our ancestors had to go through to get to America. Some of the exhibits were of some well known Americans, and they were telling us of there stories and why it is important to know our ancestry. Maya Angelou told us of her story of when she was growing up, and how she went to go live with her grandmother and uncle, and that was when her imagination started to go in places that give us her great work. In the next exhibit we saw Joe Torre’s apartment in New York when he was growing up. He told us, along with his brother and sisters, how most of there if not all of there strength, courage, and wisdom came from there mother, who was Italian and came to America when she was eight years old. And that was when Torre realized how important family was and that family could not be forgotten. Next we went to go to Billy Crystal’s water color apartment, even though Crystals father died at a young age Crystal wanted to find out about him and what he was like. Crystal says that he became very attached to his uncle who would tell him stories about his father and when they were growing up and about there family history. I was very impressed and moved by Crystal for he is one of the most fascinating people to me his life and his work. In the next exhibit we saw Carlos Santana and how his music was influenced by much of his family and his heritage. He said that when he went back to Mexico he was reminded of when he was growing up and that family was and is the most important thing to have in life. Through out the whole exhibit I was very impressed by the whole thing and was very glad that I went to the Museum and saw “Finding our Family Finding our Selves”. However I would have also liked to see the Holocaust exhibit. All in all it was well worth going for I know hope to see and continue the family tree book that my grandfather had started and it did help me to see how important family history is for it is us it shapes who we are and will be.
Post 7- Nietzsche
God is dead: Nietzsche says that God is dead. He begins this by saying a man is running around saying were god were is god, he says that god is dead and he is dead for man has killed god. And the man asks people don’t they feel empty with out god. Nietzsche says that man killed god by the science that is coming around and by mans rationalism and thinking. Nietzsche says that without god there is no more Christianity and no more morals. He says that with out morals man will become a bad society, and he says that man will have to over come this just as humans overcame the apes, for apes are the laughing stock of humans and humans will become the laughing stock of what Nietzsche calls the Overman. The Overman is what is above man and will conquer what man could not. To a point Nietzsche is correct in saying that god is dead for as the science and human thinking and rationalism has grown over time more and more people don’t believe in god. For many questions have been answered during Nietzsche time that were not answered before. I see it that Nietzsche saw that religion was diminishing and science was growing along with philosophy and the world was built on religion and on religion morals and with out religion what would happen to those morals that people follow, so man would have to over come that by becoming the Overman. To a point yes but I don’t think that the Overman thing will happen for we still have religion today and in my opinion religion will be around for ever.
Truth: In Nietzsche writing On Truth and Lie he starts off to say of a great star that had knowledge and it soon grew cold and did not exist. He goes on to say how humans have knowledge and how we take advantage of our existence for humans don’t have a care in the world for any of the other beings in the world, for the mosquito feels the same as humans do. Nietzsche says that a man by Johann Joachim says that his son only lived a short time for he saw what the earth was left at the first opportunity, for in the earth we have deception lies and thievery. Nietzsche says that liars always make the unreal seem real while a person who is telling the truth always wants the truth but is afraid of the consequence. So Nietzsche says how are we knowledgeable if truth is not very important in humans but lying is. Nietzsche says that humans are very oblivious to what we have around us and that humans don’t care about our fellow things, for if we did we would not lie but would tell the truth. And since the truth brings consequences people would rather lie to appear better than they really are. And how are humans knowledgeable when lying is what we do.
Morality as Anti-Nature: Nietzsche says that passion brings about stupidity in humans at times and he says that the church has always fought intellect for true intellect is moral while most of the churches teachings are immoral for examples if you are offended by my eye pluck it out. For he says passion is what is in humans and the church is always attacking the passions of people and he says an attack on passion is an attack on life. He says the same for cravings and when humans crave they tend to be hostile and a radical cure is need to calm the devil as he calls it.
Jesus: Nietzsche says that in the gospel the mentioning of punishment and reward are lacking. And the only reality after life is eternal bliss. And these teaching make people act differently, and that is the way Jesus was, he acted differently to everyone, he was never angry or hated any one. He said that Jesus denied the Jewish doctrine for the only way a person could be blessed is to live life and to live by the gospel not by Judaism or repentance. He says that Jesus did not give a new faith but a new way of life to live in order to feel immortal. For Jesus died showing us how to live, as the Jews did not live this way for they killed him he died showing us how to live a loving good life.
Paul: Nietzsche says that God gave his only son to die on the cross for mans sins. The innocent for the guilty and he are angered by this for the Savior has been corrupted bit by bit. St. Paul say that if Jesus did not rise up from the dead then out faith is in vain making everyone believe that Jesus died for us and saying that Paul preached Jesus as a reward to go to heaven. He says that Christianity offers everything but fulfils nothing while Buddhism offers nothing but it fulfills. Nietzsche says that Paul represents hatred for he changed what Jesus was teaching and said that and started a new Christian beginning and so did the whole church change history for the sake of Christianity. He says that Paul lied about Jesus rising and that Paul did not speak any truths but everyone around him, the idiots, took in every word that Paul preached.
Myth of Eternal Recurrence: Nietzsche starts off by saying what if you had to live your live over and over for eternity; every pain and pleasure would be the same for ever. Nietzsche says that you would throw yourselves on the floor cursing the demon for making you live life over and over, but that is if you have lived a bad life. Or you can take it as a good thing, if you have lived a good live. For Nietzsche says live life so that it is worth living for escape is impossible for everything recurs eternally so live life to the fullest.
Free Spirit: Nietzsche says that his writing about God is Dead has been spreading around Europe and has caused some talk among people for he says even though people don’t follow their religion to a t, they don’t want change and it would cause distress for people. However the philosophers, or free spirits as he calls them, would have no trouble with that idea, for there mind he says is like an open sea.
Truth: In Nietzsche writing On Truth and Lie he starts off to say of a great star that had knowledge and it soon grew cold and did not exist. He goes on to say how humans have knowledge and how we take advantage of our existence for humans don’t have a care in the world for any of the other beings in the world, for the mosquito feels the same as humans do. Nietzsche says that a man by Johann Joachim says that his son only lived a short time for he saw what the earth was left at the first opportunity, for in the earth we have deception lies and thievery. Nietzsche says that liars always make the unreal seem real while a person who is telling the truth always wants the truth but is afraid of the consequence. So Nietzsche says how are we knowledgeable if truth is not very important in humans but lying is. Nietzsche says that humans are very oblivious to what we have around us and that humans don’t care about our fellow things, for if we did we would not lie but would tell the truth. And since the truth brings consequences people would rather lie to appear better than they really are. And how are humans knowledgeable when lying is what we do.
Morality as Anti-Nature: Nietzsche says that passion brings about stupidity in humans at times and he says that the church has always fought intellect for true intellect is moral while most of the churches teachings are immoral for examples if you are offended by my eye pluck it out. For he says passion is what is in humans and the church is always attacking the passions of people and he says an attack on passion is an attack on life. He says the same for cravings and when humans crave they tend to be hostile and a radical cure is need to calm the devil as he calls it.
Jesus: Nietzsche says that in the gospel the mentioning of punishment and reward are lacking. And the only reality after life is eternal bliss. And these teaching make people act differently, and that is the way Jesus was, he acted differently to everyone, he was never angry or hated any one. He said that Jesus denied the Jewish doctrine for the only way a person could be blessed is to live life and to live by the gospel not by Judaism or repentance. He says that Jesus did not give a new faith but a new way of life to live in order to feel immortal. For Jesus died showing us how to live, as the Jews did not live this way for they killed him he died showing us how to live a loving good life.
Paul: Nietzsche says that God gave his only son to die on the cross for mans sins. The innocent for the guilty and he are angered by this for the Savior has been corrupted bit by bit. St. Paul say that if Jesus did not rise up from the dead then out faith is in vain making everyone believe that Jesus died for us and saying that Paul preached Jesus as a reward to go to heaven. He says that Christianity offers everything but fulfils nothing while Buddhism offers nothing but it fulfills. Nietzsche says that Paul represents hatred for he changed what Jesus was teaching and said that and started a new Christian beginning and so did the whole church change history for the sake of Christianity. He says that Paul lied about Jesus rising and that Paul did not speak any truths but everyone around him, the idiots, took in every word that Paul preached.
Myth of Eternal Recurrence: Nietzsche starts off by saying what if you had to live your live over and over for eternity; every pain and pleasure would be the same for ever. Nietzsche says that you would throw yourselves on the floor cursing the demon for making you live life over and over, but that is if you have lived a bad life. Or you can take it as a good thing, if you have lived a good live. For Nietzsche says live life so that it is worth living for escape is impossible for everything recurs eternally so live life to the fullest.
Free Spirit: Nietzsche says that his writing about God is Dead has been spreading around Europe and has caused some talk among people for he says even though people don’t follow their religion to a t, they don’t want change and it would cause distress for people. However the philosophers, or free spirits as he calls them, would have no trouble with that idea, for there mind he says is like an open sea.
Post 6-Marx
Karl Marx is said to have revolutionized the world politically socially and morally. Marx believed that communism was the only way to live. Marx believed that capitalism was immoral and wrong due to what has been around for years and years which is referred to as class struggle. Class struggle as Marx says in the Communist Manifesto has always been around even in the Middle Ages with peasant’s knights and nobles it is, as he says the same, you have the poor class or laborers the middle class or the shopkeepers and land owners and then the upper class. Marx says that capitalism is immoral because of the class struggle that it involves for you have the laborers who are the ones that work the hardest and receives little for the output that they have then you have, what is referred to as the bourgeois who grew through out history and gaining social and political power. Marx says that the bourgeois grew drastically from the industrial revolution and gaining capital and money, while the true workers, the laborers, worked for the bourgeois only to receive little for there work. So the laborers started there revolution, being called the proletarians. The communist were the leaders per say of the proletarians. Marx says that communism is the only true moral society for all private land has been taken away everyone is taxed fairly there is no more of any class struggle or any class at all for everyone is equal. Everyone works in the same society, women included which Marx said was a good thing for, as Marx said in a bourgeois view women were for staying at home and having children, and Marx said women were part of society as any person is part of society. Marx also stated that everyone will receive the same formal education so there that everyone is equal. Overall Marx had a very good vision of an equal class less society for no one person will be better or worse than any one else and you don’t work for personal gain, which is a capitalist view, instead you work to gain for society, which helps to benefit all in the end. The only problem that there is as we have seen in history is that people become to power hungry. Marx idea and view of communism could work very well and efficiently if there were to be good leaders. In a side note as we know through history the USSR, Russia, used communism for years, and for many of the people it was a good thing, yes Stalin did kill millions of his own people but he was a dictator. But I had the opportunity to talk to a man who lived under Stalin’s rule and he said that even though Stalin was a dictator, he said that they had a job when they woke up the next day and they had food to feed their family for he said that communism worked for society for everyone helped everyone. That conversation with him is something that has always stuck with me and always will. So is communism a good type of system to have, according to Marx it is the only true system to have.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Roman Catholic
I am a Roman Catholic I have been raised Catholic since I was born and still I still am a Catholic. People say that I am a Christian, which is true, but in my view I believe in more than a Christian, for Christians don’t believe in the Saints and don’t have Jesus on the crucifix, while if you are Catholic you do. And it is different for a Catholic for we have the Pope, priest, Sisters and Brothers, and a few years ago when there were scandals going around about the priest molestations it was hard for Catholics for we were ridiculed looked down upon and shunned by other religions and I lost friends for it for during that time I was made fun of for being Catholic and I took the jokes and remarks but to me they can say what they want it would not affect me, yes some priest may have molested people but they are human as is everyone else, the one thing that hurt the most was how everyone was able to attack the Catholics for sinning but they could not look and see what they had done. Catholics are very forgiving and will willing to do almost anything for people, if you are another religion I will never down grade you or lecture you on how you are wrong and you are sinning if you don’t believe in what I do, as what most other religions do, I will listen to what you have to say, I have been raised to respect everyone whether they believe in something other than I do, and I find that a lot of what I hear form other religions is rather interesting and there is not reason to say what they believe is wrong. I have been taught to love God and love everyone and I do or try to, for the most part, and I have been always followed the bible and have been attacked for having the bible, for example one person said I had and do commit blasphemy for praying to Jesus and the Saints, which is true but I had to explain to them we don’t pray to them we ask them to pray for us in times of need and distress.
But I will never say my religion is better or worse than any other religion for what a person believes is what a person believes and I will never demote or destroy a person for it for I have been taught to love respect everyone and I try to, except when you kill my fellow Americans that does make me a little mad, yet they believe that and from a religious stand point what a person believes is what they believe. Although Islam’s would love to kill me for my believes because they have Koran and that is what they are taught, while a Buddhist believe in finding nirvana they have very different views than me for they don’t exactly pray to a “god” they try to reach there inner self, a Hindu believes in reincarnation while a Catholic believes in your soul after death a Hindu see that you will come back to life on Earth while I don’t, one of the last major religions is Judaism most Jews believe in the Torah and follow what Catholics call the Old Testament, for Jews don’t see that Jesus was the Son of God but a prophet. An atheist says that all religion is bad and doesn’t really believe in anything.
Over all religion has been fought over from literally the beginning of time, and for the rest of time it will be fought over I can guarantee it. Instead of fighting we should just respect what others have to say and listen to there beliefs an let people believe in what they want.
But I will never say my religion is better or worse than any other religion for what a person believes is what a person believes and I will never demote or destroy a person for it for I have been taught to love respect everyone and I try to, except when you kill my fellow Americans that does make me a little mad, yet they believe that and from a religious stand point what a person believes is what they believe. Although Islam’s would love to kill me for my believes because they have Koran and that is what they are taught, while a Buddhist believe in finding nirvana they have very different views than me for they don’t exactly pray to a “god” they try to reach there inner self, a Hindu believes in reincarnation while a Catholic believes in your soul after death a Hindu see that you will come back to life on Earth while I don’t, one of the last major religions is Judaism most Jews believe in the Torah and follow what Catholics call the Old Testament, for Jews don’t see that Jesus was the Son of God but a prophet. An atheist says that all religion is bad and doesn’t really believe in anything.
Over all religion has been fought over from literally the beginning of time, and for the rest of time it will be fought over I can guarantee it. Instead of fighting we should just respect what others have to say and listen to there beliefs an let people believe in what they want.
Post 4- Right or Wrong
Right or wrong, that is something that we have been taught since we were young. For as long as I can remember I have been taught the difference from right and wrong. But what is right and what is wrong. We have all been taught that stealing, killing and hurting people is wrong, and right is helping others, saying sorry, and giving to people. To me wrong is when you do some type of action that in turn hurts some person or thing. And doing something right is when you help someone or something and either you or they have a glimpse of happiness. To me when you do something right I am happy for doing something for someone. Doing something wrong, as from what I see, for I work in a police station, I see people that make bad decision that hurt others physically mentally and emotionally. To me they are doing wrong decisions were they hurt others. But I have always been taught from a young age that right is to help others and choose the more difficult path or decision while a wrong choice hurts people and at times yourself. And I see people that make wrong decisions everyday and I wonder how they can be like this for they know the difference of right and wrong, and then a while ago it finally hit me, yes they are raised to know the difference of right and wrong, but the reason they commit acts that are wrong is because of the ethics that they have and been taught. For they have been taught the difference of right and wrong but in order for it to work you need it to be shown to you as well. If you don’t have someone to follow and lead and teach you the difference of right and wrong then you wont know, even though you have been told the difference. And that is one reason why we have laws to follow for some people need to know the difference of right and wrong and need guidelines to follow. So to me in order to know the difference of right and wrong you need to know the difference and have someone to follow and teach you. Right actions help people and to me give you and them happiness while wrong actions hurt people and at times you.
Kant’s philosophy on ethics follows what he called the categorical Imperative, meaning that your actions need to be good actions that you don’t do to benefit you but to help everyone and to make your actions become and universal end meaning they will help everyone. However, Kant said that you should not have your intentions or actions to have you gain a reward and fame, but to help society. Kant says that your actions are more like your duty to help society, so if you see someone there who needs help then it is your duty to help them and you should help them not to gain a reward or fame but to help them for they are a part of society and it’s your duty to help. In a way My views agree with Kant for that is the point of police officers in order to help society for it is a police officers duty, and most of the officers that I know they are officers to help society and better society not them selves so a lot of officers follow Kant’s view of helping society because it is there duty not to obtain personal gain. But I agree for if you are in need you would like help and vice versa if someone else is in need then they need help to.
John Stuart Mills however was little different than Kant, actually he was a lot different. For Mills had a very different upbringing than Kant, Mill’s was schooled from a young age and drilled about utilitarianism. Mills ethical theory though says, unlike Kant that if you want to help society you need to do what makes you happy first for if you are happy and people do what makes them happy then society will be happy. However Mills does say that you are able to do what makes you happy as long as it does not hurt someone else for then they are not happy and society is not balanced. Mills brings out an interesting point about suicide or harming oneself saying that a person able to do what they want to themselves as long as it does not affect another person, and he says society can not intervene as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. So far I agree with Mill’s ethics saying that a person has to do what they want in order to be happy as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else. Even on the point of harming ones self if someone want to hurt themselves to me if they want to do that let them as long as no one else gets hurt, for they are dumb enough and I guess it makes them happy so if a person want to be happy we have to let them be as long as no one else is hurt. Mills says in his Utilitarianism that if we were to make a choice we have to way the good consequences of society an the bad consequences of society and if the good over come the bad then that action is good for society and if the bad prevailed then that action should not be done. To a point I agree with a lot of Mills philosophies and I would say that I have incorporated some of his ethics into my own.
Kant’s philosophy on ethics follows what he called the categorical Imperative, meaning that your actions need to be good actions that you don’t do to benefit you but to help everyone and to make your actions become and universal end meaning they will help everyone. However, Kant said that you should not have your intentions or actions to have you gain a reward and fame, but to help society. Kant says that your actions are more like your duty to help society, so if you see someone there who needs help then it is your duty to help them and you should help them not to gain a reward or fame but to help them for they are a part of society and it’s your duty to help. In a way My views agree with Kant for that is the point of police officers in order to help society for it is a police officers duty, and most of the officers that I know they are officers to help society and better society not them selves so a lot of officers follow Kant’s view of helping society because it is there duty not to obtain personal gain. But I agree for if you are in need you would like help and vice versa if someone else is in need then they need help to.
John Stuart Mills however was little different than Kant, actually he was a lot different. For Mills had a very different upbringing than Kant, Mill’s was schooled from a young age and drilled about utilitarianism. Mills ethical theory though says, unlike Kant that if you want to help society you need to do what makes you happy first for if you are happy and people do what makes them happy then society will be happy. However Mills does say that you are able to do what makes you happy as long as it does not hurt someone else for then they are not happy and society is not balanced. Mills brings out an interesting point about suicide or harming oneself saying that a person able to do what they want to themselves as long as it does not affect another person, and he says society can not intervene as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. So far I agree with Mill’s ethics saying that a person has to do what they want in order to be happy as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else. Even on the point of harming ones self if someone want to hurt themselves to me if they want to do that let them as long as no one else gets hurt, for they are dumb enough and I guess it makes them happy so if a person want to be happy we have to let them be as long as no one else is hurt. Mills says in his Utilitarianism that if we were to make a choice we have to way the good consequences of society an the bad consequences of society and if the good over come the bad then that action is good for society and if the bad prevailed then that action should not be done. To a point I agree with a lot of Mills philosophies and I would say that I have incorporated some of his ethics into my own.
Post 5 Kierkegaard
Existentialism, as put by Soren Kierkegaard is a type of philosophy that says that people are responsible and in full control of any and all decision that they make. Every decision that a person makes in life shapes them and every choice helps you to form who you are what you are what you believe and what you do in life. Kierkegaard says that in order to follow the existentialist view you have more of your own ideas, or in other words you don’t follow the crowd the whole time and you are capable of making your own decision, you don’t have the same brain, per say, as everyone else, you are capable of making your own decisions. Kierkegaard had a very unusual upbringing for his father was a very devote Christian and Kierkegaard was never close to any of his family which some say is why he became the father of existentialism, for he believed that a person should be capable of making there own decision, whether right or wrong and that one persons should pay for them if they are wrong decisions. In a way that is a Christen view for when you sin you are only hurting your self and Kierkegaard says the same thing if you make a wrong decision in life you should be the one to pay not other people. Kierkegaard believed in God and the only time you would meet him would be when you die, except for suicide, for then everyone would do it and then it would not be a reward. Kierkegaard says that it is a reward for if you make it through life with good a choice, which is a very Christen view for Christens believe you will see god when you die and only if you have a good life. Kierkegaard believed in living a good life with good choices, ethics, and values and then you will be rewarded if you are good and doomed if you are bad, and that no one else should pay for your mistakes, as is the Christian view of a good life you go to heaven and a bad life you go to hell.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Post 3-Spinoza
Benedict Spinoza also known as Baruch Spinoza was born a Jew, he was a brilliant person who excelled in his school, however some of his views and writings were looked down upon for being controversial to what was being taught so he was banned from his homeland. Spinoza however was rather upset and crushed that he was excommunicated for his views for he was a very big believer in god and he was never opposed to his religion as they said he was. Spinoza’s writing were however very different to what everyone was use to and as we see people don’t like change very much and that could be a reason people did not like Spinoza’s writings. Spinoza’s writings, teachings, and thoughts were inspired by Descartes and one of his teachers Van den Eden. Spinoza had many works from his Theological Political Treaties to his masterpiece the Ethics. In his works Spinoza promotes god and says that god not only exists but god is everything and everything is god. Spinoza says that in order to obtain happiness, which is what everyone seeks to have in life, the knowledge of god is the is the best way to live. Spinoza’s works and writings have been called a pantheistic view in other words it means that Gods presence is in all things that exist. Although Spinoza’s pantheistic theory is talks about god it is an ethical theory for Spinoza says that god is everything and everthing is god and nothing can exist without god. He goes on to say that everything also includes the ideas, thoughts and actions that a person has and does. Spinoza says that god is good and since everything is god then everything has to be good, however there are times when there is a lack good. Spinoza explains that the lack of good is a lack of knowledge of god, hence evil is the lack of good. Ethics, as Spinoza states is the good that a person has in them and there actions and thoughts as well as ideas, he says that in order to have adiquite ideas and thoughts you need reason and reason is also knowledge, however if you have inadequate ideas you don’t have reason, but a lack of knowledge and if you have knowledge you have god with you, which is what Spinoza says everyone needs, everyone needs good ethics, and the knowledge of god in order to be happy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
