Meta-Ethics #2

I think that moral sense is more natural and culture. There are certain morals that are completely universal - such as the idea of pain being evil and pleasure being good - due to biological factors that apply to everyone. However, depending on the culture you are a part of, moral sense can be very different. For example, certain cultures think that it is morally wrong for woman to show their hair, and other cultures think it is morally right. This can be also seen through examples such as eating meat and wearing certain types of clothing/acting a certain way. These culturally morals are generally formed through the lense of religion, and therefore differ depending on each culture's beliefs. Because there ar both univeral and relative morals in the world, I think that moral sense is both subjective and objective. Choosing only one would limit the amount of different cultural beliefs we have in the world, and would disregard the biological factors that connect us.

Meta-Ethics #1

I think that moral principles do exist - but that to be completely universal they must be vague and pertain to all of humanity. In general I think moral principles that are universal is the idea that pain is evil and pleasure is good. This is true to everyone, despite culture or circumstance, because of biological factors that make us responsive to pain in a negative way and pleasure in a positive way. I think that this is the only kind of universal moral principle that exists - any other kind of moral principle will end up being specific to a certain culture or group of circumstances. For example, in one culture certain cultural things such as eating certain types of meat are deemed moral good, but in other cultures eating meat is deemed morally wrong. Additionally, if someone is considered a bad person, killing them would be deemed morally right, but if someone is consider a good person, killing them would be deemed morally wrong. This is an example of how circumstances can affect moral principles

Ethics Reflection

The ethical philosophy that most deeply resonated with me was probably virtue ethics. This is because it aligns most closely with the kind of ethics that I have been taught my whole life and am most familiar with. I believe that if something is not moral, it is not morally right. Virtue ethics states that everything that you do must be virtuous, and morally good. I think that this makes sense, and is the most simple theory for me to be able to follow. I agreed with the example discussed in the presentation, where they said that if someone had scratched your car and you couldn't hear them, would you still curse them out? I agreed that I wouldn't curse them out, because even though they couldn't hear, it was still rude and was not virtuous. I think that everyone should strive to be the best person that they can be -- even when they know that nobody is watching. To me this seems like the most simplistic way of governign your behavior and your ethics.

Singer's Ethics Response

What I found interesting about Singer's ethics was it's relation to utilitarianism. He follows the general ideology that an action is either right or wrong depending on how much respective pleasure of pain they produce. Although his idea of ethics can be considered somewhat controlversial, I agree with his sentiment. I think the conclusions he comes to are questionable, I agree with the way he got there. Singer also emphasizes the difference between an ethical case being subjective and individual - I think that this makes a lot of sense. When a group of people are arguing about a hard case, everyone's perspective is going to be different, and their individual opinions will reflect that. Therefore there is going to be a difference between a subjective observation of a hard case and someone's individual opinion. Singer also discusses whether or not eating meat is ethical. In my opinion, I think that it is ethical because by using the ultilitarian method of addition and subtraction of pain and pleasure, the pain of the meat being produced is outweight but the pleasure that meat brings to people, and it's importance to providing nutrition and helping with starvation.

Techne Update!

In the weeks after I originally posted about my techne, I changed my mind about what I wanted it to be. It was originally to become better with technologoy, but I quickly hit a wall with that idea because it is a very difficult thing to practice. I wasn't sure how to practice my skills with technology without having specific instruction or some kind of specific goal in mind, which I didn't have. Therefore, I changed my techne to something easier for me to physically practice -- working out. The specific goal of my techne was to improve my physical strength by going to the gym at least four times a week for one hour. This specific goal made practicing my techne much easier for me, because I was able to take it one day at a time and I felt less overwhelmed. I have been practicing this techne for the past few months, and I have seen lots of improvement. I am a lot stronger than I was before, and I feel that I have gained arrete through frequently practicing my techne. I can understand why a techne is important to feeling peaceful and confident in yourself. Having a goal in mind to bring yourself peace is very effective -- especially if it is something you can easily enjoy doing! I feel very accomplished and improved because of my schedule with working out.

The Hardest Choice I've Ever Made

The hardest choice i've ever had to make was deciding which colleges to apply to. This was a difficult choice for me to make because I felt like there were so many possible options, and was afraid to make the right choice. With the presence of so many options that were not technically good or evil, I became very indecisive. This choice did not cary a lot of moral weight. Hoqever, I think it that the choice I made could effect morals because it would cause either pleasure or pain for me and people in my life. This is because the cost of said college could cause less pleasure for my parents and me in the future. Additionally, if I applied to colleges where I wouldn't be happy, that could harm my own pleasure in the future. Thinking about it under the utilitarian system would have helped be make this decision because it is a more simple way of thinking about things -- whether they cause pleasure or pain instead of good or evil. Therefore with every college that I was considering applying to, I could use the addition of pleasure and subtracting of pain to decide which decision would be the most moral choice. This system would be better for me that Kant's

Unexpected Merits!

In today's debates, I was especially surprised by the unexpected weakness of the Republic, as demonstrated in our team's closing statement. It was revealed that the Republic is more evil than it seems - hiding behind their platonic analogies and class separation - instead enforcing eugenics and child kidnapping in a way that promotes an absolute absence of human happiness. In comparison to a tyranny, it was argued that a republic is more oppresive and soul-crushing in it's absolute power. It occured to me that I had never considered this to be true, mostly because of the semantic relations with the word tyranny being mostly negative, and republic being more positive. With this in mind, it was difficult to grasp that the republic could be more oppresive than a tyranny. With these news definitions in mind, I realized that under these conditions I would prefer to live under a tyranny rather than a republic. An unexpected merit that was revealed during today's debates was the argument that a timarchy could produce more stability than a republic because the people who are considered competent are not forced to act in the role of a guardian, but are instead willing to possess their power.

Unexpectedly Spicy Arguments!

One unexpected downside of democracy that I did not see coming was that it is unstable due to conflict and people who value person greed over the good of the polis. In modern media I typically conseive demcoracy with a positive connotation, and ever never thought to think any further than that. In The Republic, Plato argues that democracy is unstable and gives unfit people the right to rule. This made me realize the unexpected positives of a tyrannical government, which is that there is one ruler with one opinion, and therefore there is stability. However, this made me wonder how to determine if someone is fit to ruler or not, and how the laws might be abused if only certain people were given the right to rule. An unexpected negative of Oligarchy was that the importance of money could cause economic corruption and a biased government. I was not aware before this debate that America is considered an oligarchy, but now that I know this I can understand why oligarchys have a negative connotation. This caused me to consider the faults of our own American government more indepth, and I was able to come up with multiple examples of economic corruption in our government - times where politicians were tempted to stray from prioritiing the good of the people and instead "following the money". However, an unexpected positive to oligarchy is that people are more highly motivated to practice and perfect their techne to the highest degree, due to the promise of financial compensation.

Ken Taylor on Plato

After watching Ken Taylor's Ted Talk about Plato, I have a few thoughts about his conclusion. Taylor says that he thinks everyone should be a philosopher king, instead of just those who are in charge. I think that it will be difficult to make everyone a philosopher king through education. For everyone to be gifted this knowledge "as a fundamental human right" as Taylor says, there will have to be lots of educational reforms within our government. In order for everyone to be taught at an equal level, citizens need to be equally born into circumstances where they can all get the same level of education. I also think that it makes sense why everyone would be more equal if everyone is a philosopher king, but i'm not sure if it's realistic that everyone would be able to be one. If everyone were a philosopher, no one would have the incentive to develop crucial techne and no work would be able to get done. However, I found the video very interesting and think it's a cool concept!

Thoughts on Plato's "The Apology"

After reading "The Apology" by Plato, I think that I have been given further insight into Plato's perspective and beliefs throughout different platforms. I was particularly striken by the quote "the unexamined life is not worth living." I somewhat agree with this statement, because I think there is value in being aware of the condiditons of you life - be that existential or otherwisie - but I also think that there is value in a blissful ignorance. I think that not everyone on the earth is meant to be a philosopher king, and although this is a lifestyle that seems to fit Plato's persepctive, it's not for everyone. This can be seen through the dialogue on levels of society in The Republic, where society is divided into classes where each class has their own priorities and ways of life. For example, for one particular tier of society their techne is the important thing in their life, and that is enough to git it meaning. In this quote it feels like to me that Plato is saying that any life which is not that of a philosopher king is not worth living, which I do not agree with. I think there is still meaning to the lower tiers of society, and that being a philosopher king is not the end-all-be-all of existence. This demonstrates how in The Republic, Plato portrays the philosopher king as the most just, and furthers this argument in The Apology by saying that any other life that is not that of the philosopher king is not worth living.

What is my Techne?

The first thing that comes to mind when I consider a techne that I could develop is improving my technological literacy. This could function as a skill, and also as a hobby that I could practice in my free time. Through developing this skill to it's highest capacity, I will not only feel more fulfilled in my day to day life (due to the importance of technological literacy for personal benefit) but also within the confounds of my workplace. For example, what started out as learning more about how to use a computer for person enjoyment could end up greatly benefitting my career. Employers value someone who knows how to use, understand, and fix technology. Addtitionally, I think that this is an area where I currently lack skill, so practicing this techne every day could be very important towards improving my general knowledge.

Defying the Cave

Something in history that is similar to the story of the cave could be someone in a very oppressed country such as North Korea (where public opinion is a crime) who suddenly is transported to a less oppressive country such as America. The silencing of public opinion in Korea represents the shelter of the cave, where the outside society is withheld. The sun, which represents knowledge, is unable to be fully viewed, and shadows are all they are capable of seeing. If this person were to exit the cave - or for example be transported suddenly to America - the change would be so drastic that it would overwhelm them. To better understand the similes of the sun (knowledge, truth), I compared these to the truth that might be found in comparison to the oppression in North Korea. The knowledge and truth that is compared with the sun is warm and is the center of all life, just like the sun. Therefore, this knowledge and truth is essential for just life, so the oppression in North Korea is not just. Without the essential knowledge and truth, life can never be just, and would will live in a cave surrounded by shadows.

TechNAY or TechYAY?

Although there are a multitude of arguments throughout the book that I find intriguing, I find the arguments including techne as justification to be particularly engaging. In book one, Socrates uses techne to further his belief that someone who is just would not try to be unjust. He specifically states that for example, a music teacher would not strive for their student to be unmusical, and a horse-riding instructor would not want their student to be unsatifactory in riding. He uses these examples of techne to justify his argument. In my opinion I find in to be very sucessful, because he uses relatable, every-day situations (through his usage of techne) to help the citizens to further comprehend and relate to the argument he is making. Additionally, techne is used again by Socrates to argue that the goal in building a city is not to make one group more happy than another, but to promote happiness for collective. He describes the construction of a building to further explain his argument. This use of techne helps to make it easier to comprehend his stance. I think that this usage of techne is still incredibely important. There is a lot of media that distributes news that is biased, or unintentionally complex, which isolates many of it's possible consumers. I think that if techne was used more in modern news, more peiple would be able to understand different perspectives. Much likes Socrates is doing with the townspeople in The Republic, using techne to provide everyday, relatable, and digestable examples of arguments could help more people comprehend standpoints.

Is Life Meaningless???

One of the philosophers that I found to be the most meaningful was Albert Camus. He believed that life was essentially meaningless, comparing it to rolling a ball up a hill only for it to eventually fall down the hill. However, he thought that although life was meaningless by these standards, that by absurdist beliefs you shouldn't let that fact bring you down. You can still live a meaningful life even if existence is in it's nature meaningless. I think these concepts are very relevant and valuable today, because I think many people get caught up in the depressing "life is meaningless" aspect of existentialism. In reality, I think people should listen to Camus, and try to make your life meaningful to yourself even if it is technically meaningless.

Invictus - Kierkegaard Approved?

This poem is existential in nature. The first stanza demonstrates a questioning of gods, as the narrator of the poem is question whatever god may be, thanking them for their "unconquerable soul." The narrator believes that they are not fully responsible for their ambitious soul, instead thinking a greater power is in charge. In the second stanza, the narrator states that the reason they still prevail is because of the "bludgeoning of chance". This is existential because they are pointing to chance as the reason for their circumstance, rather than something though out and pointed. The third stanza starts of in an existential light, saying "beyond this place", insiunating an unknown world beyond their own. It looms in the dark because it is unknown and mysterious. The final stanza is existential because the narrator states that they are the master of fate, and the captain of their soul. They state that if they are in charge of their soul, they can also be in charge of their fate. This is unknown, an somewhat existential.

The Failure of Crowds

"Wherever there is a crowd there is untruth. The more people who believe something, the more apt it is to be wrong. The person who's right often has to stand alone." -Soren Kierkegaard This quote is describing the inconsistancies accompanied with group-think. When people are in a group, they are less inclined to speak out, instead choosing to align their beliefs with that of the majority. This means that the group's ideas are never challenged, giving them less opportunity to be thoroughly thought out. Therefore, if someone does happen to disagree with the majority, they have to speak as an individual rather than being backed by the rest of the group. Think quote ties into Kierkegaard's existential believes, and his idea of a split between reason and believe, which he used to disprove the existence of god. When people must all believe something, it instills doubt and suffering into those who happen to disagree. Considering Kierkegaard was the first known existential philosopher of his time, he probably said this with himself in mind. During his time, his beliefs were incredibly radically, and were critized heavily for being outlandish and even blasphemous. With my own experience in mind, I think that this quote is very accurate. It is a lot easier to form an opinion you believe in when you are asked individually rather than as a group. Often times during group projects at school I find myself going along with the group rather than speaking out. While sometimes this can help by providing different perspectives, it can also be limiting if everyone believes the same thing.

Existentialism --- God is causing me GRIEF!!

One opinion about our existence that I found very compelling was Kierkegaard's idea of existentialism. Existentialism is the philosophical doctrine stating tha our being as subjective individuals are more important than what we have in common objectively with all other human beings. Kierkegaard was especially concerned about his relationship to God. His doubts and fears concerned the validity of his very existence as an individual, longing to believe in God's promise. He didn't find peace in the abstract, impersonal logical relationships among diembodied forms. Because of this, he was very tortured and tormented about himself and his relationship with God. This doubt, and way of thinking was established by Kierkegaard as existentialism. Kirkegaard is acknowledged as the first existentialist philosopher. This idea of existentialism when faced with existence and God made me realize how little proof and connection we have with high powers when thinking about it existentially. I came to the conclusion that the answer to this existential problem can be answered by Descartes' logic, and is backed by rationalism. I think that even if you don't believe in god, you can still assume that a universe exists. This is because if there wasn't a universe, than you wouldn't be alive or exist yourself. According to Descartes, the only thing we can be one hundred percent sure of is our own existence. Therefore, you must know that a universe exists for you to exist in. This is a more rational, materialistic approach that I think Kirkegaard would doubt.

Social Contract - A Classroom Anarchy??

I was unfortunately not present for the social contract activity we did during class, but I was able to be here while our groups finished our slideshows and presented them. The project seemed very compelling, and putting it together with my group helped me to understand the different example of social contract in our school. One of my favorite examples we used in our presentation was a picture of students in the cafeteria. All of the students were sitting down quietly, and behaving in a normal fashion. No one was misbehaving in any way, or acting in a way that they shouldn't. This behavior demonstrated social contract, and how unspoken rules control how we behave in public. The idea that no one is enforcing you to act a certain way, and yet everyone does was very interesting to me. It got me thinking about how simple it would to hypothetically ignight the school into anarchy, much like a real country and government. All it would take is knowing that nothing is technically stopping you.

Unlocking John Locke

John Locke's philosophical ideas are extremely prominent in todays society. For starters, most of the American consitution and ideological of the founding fathers were based off of John Locke's ideas. Therefore, most of our government and the way the United States is governed is inspired by the ideas of John Locke, and his ideas of inalienable rights. For example, John Locke famously state that all men have the right to persue "Life, liberty, and the persuit of property." In the declaration of independence, that famous quote is adopted after being slightly altered by Thomas Jefferson to read "Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness." Therefore, many controversial problems in today's society might be further argued using the logic of John Locke. John Locke's tabula rasa, or "blank slate" idea states that every person is born a blank slate, and anything added is gained only through experience. This logic could be used to argue for the right of abortions. For example, one could argue that a fetus is simply a blank slate, something that has no experience and therefore is not a person. Therefore, abortion should be a right because the fetus lacks any experience, making it something sub-human. No morals would come into play, because this fetus is not alive in John Locke's terms.

Goin' Back to the 'Hood

The idea and understanding of the word "personhood" has changed immensely through our class activity and discussion, particularly due to the "Coco" activity. While reading the description of Coco, before knowing she was a monkey, I was convinced she was not only a person, but a human. I was shocked to discover shortly thereafter that she in fact was a monkey. After learning this, and listening to my classmates speak on the subject, I defined the word human to myself as a strictly biological term; something that I am, and Coco is not. Therefore, I realized that there must be some kind of shared traits that humans and non humans can exhibit that do not inherently imply humanity. This is where the idea of personhood came up. Before this class discussion, I considered the words person and human to be synonyms. However, after the discussion I was beginning realize an important distinction. I came to believe that personhood is is trait that is human-like, but does not guarantee humanity. Some examples that came up in class were caring and sympathic elephants, language-comprehending monkeys, and particularly prideful ant colonies. These animals are not humans biologically, but express traits of humanity, therefore possessing personhood.In general, all humans have personhood, but not things with personhood are human. Additionally, I think personhood is measurable. For example, a younger child is less cognitively devloped, so it expresses less personhood than a fully grown adult might. Nonetheless, they are still both biologically human. I think the idea of personhood is a very important philosophical issue in our present time. Personhood is often comparably with a sense of self consiousness and identity, and therefore is how humans differentiate and express themselves as individuals. With our science knowledge rapidly advancing, I think it is important to consider how some animals might display personhood, and whether that makes them an individual. With that idea, it might make certain practices or treatmeant of animals considered morally wrong. I think it would be worth our time to look into personhood displayed in animals, and how that effects our perseption of them.