I Am Not

2nd post for final week of journals. 

I am not perfect.

I am not a perfectly moral being (duh, considering the ecological footprint I leave behind as a member of Western society).

I have no desire to be perfect.

I think I would go crazy if I were perfect in an imperfect world!

How, then, will I live my life to try to be moral? I suppose this question is one of the most essential for all who contemplate philosophy (which should be everyone...) I avoid the use of 'should' because that indicates what I should do--I should be perfectly moral! I should treat everyone equally--that's probably not what I will do. 

This is where civil disobedience comes in. I may not live my life advocating for vegetarianism and equal animal rights--but I can disengage myself from that industry to the best of my ability. I do not have to make a overtly public stand; I just have to make my decisions and stick with them. 

What will I try to change in my life? I haven't decided for sure but to consider these issues and think about making changes is a small step in the 'right' direction. (We'll completely leave out the prejudices associated with using the term 'right' to mean 'correct', which is itself immoral.)

Cutting down on meat consumption is something I'd definitely consider. I admit to a prejudice in which I would consider cutting down on: beef and pork (I rarely eat pork anyways). The prejudice stems from the fact that I like those the least--and the fowl in the video didn't come across as particularly intelligent... 

Ecological issues were something I'd already strongly considered. Limiting my consumer lifestyle and choosing ecologically friendly products is on my list of things to work on. 

Putting more effort into human rights (which is essential for my future career) is definitely something I care about. Racist institutions should not be allowed. People in positions of power should not be able to encourage people into the ordinariness of evil; even if the evil people are encouraged to is to accept the status quo of racism. 

Those three issues are the ones that jump out at me the most, as something that I would look into, or will change in my lifestyle. There are so many more issues, and so many of them are worthy causes and are moral causes. I'm not perfect though; I do not possess all of the virtues as habits. However if each time I come to a decision and make a choice that is better for more people involved, not just myself, if I display virtuous qualities I can make a difference, even if I do not take up every issue. 

Somehow I feel like I've mangled this, that it does not come across clearly. Yet, I think my thoughts are clear in the end: I am not perfect, I won't take up every issue that I care about, but I will make some changes and try to lead a more moral lifestyle. 

If everyone did just that, make a few changes for the betterment of society and the world...what would Earth be like now? What would Earth be like in two decades when I am a woman of forty?

World Population--at Marginal Utility?

Post 1 for the 10th/11th week of Philosophy 202

In my last entry I commented that few people would wish to follow a philosophy that the philosopher doesn't follow. I still find this to be true, but now, after learning that Singer does follow his own philosophy to some degree--how much does somebody need to follow a philosophy in order to be a leader? That question has no one answer that I can state myself--because there are many variables including--leader of how many, and what sort of pre-existing morals does the group follow, is there a better choice for leader--that play into the game. This initial line of thought, however, did lead me to ponder is it possible for us to fully live my Singer's strong argument, of giving until marginal utility is reached?

In America the answer is probably a resounding "No". We could give and give and give--but have we really reached marginal utility when the resources the government devotes for our use, and uses to protect us, already surpass/reach the amount of resources one individual should use? No matter how much we said we would cut back on the ecological footprint quiz, which we took earlier in the semester, we still learned that if everyone consumed that way--we would need three Earth's to support the human race. That is not a marginal utility! 

Then there seem too immediately obvious choices: go off the grid, renounce the government and live like you are in a third world country. That entails no job, which means not sending any money to those who are in need. You do less harm--but what good do you do? You don't contribute nearly as much to the destruction of the planet, but neither do you contribute to those suffering. 

A second option, if one is determined to live at marginal utility, would be to cut back a large amount on the amount of services and government facilities provided for an individual. This would severely limit the economy, as it would cut millions of jobs. That clearly won't work. 

Obviously if we as Americans are to live at marginal utility, somebody has to find a better road than the two that immediately popped into my mind, my premise that leaving such a large ecological footprint is equivalent to not living at marginal utility has to be rejected, or we just have to accept that we only live at a certain degree of marginal utility. 

Of course you can always reject Singer's argument that living at marginal utility and devoting extra resources to those who can benefit most, as an unsound argument. 

~Jessica

Self Analysis

9nth/10th week

I have here chosen to analyze whether or not I would show the ordinariness of evil in Milgram's experiment. I'd probably sign the papers--why wouldn't I? I acknowledge rarely reading those releases: too many big words that I don't understand, or care to. When it comes to important things--like signing away money (note what is important is rather shallow, but essential to pay attention to)--however, I do tend to read it to make sure I understand. 

Upon walking into the situation it would be a very different situation however. To some extent I acknowledge myself to be a coward. For myself I do not stand up and fight; indeed I haven't been in any sort of physical fight since I was about 8--and that with my sister. I lost--in one blow. I will however stand up for others. Entering into the room with the other participants I would likely have been fairly shy, and quiet while waiting. I would smile at the other person (the person I end up being told to electrocute) but not engage in much conversation unless they seemed to welcome my overtures of friendship. 

Meeting the overseer of the situation I would be just as quiet. I tend to be so, on first meetings. I would be shocked at my partner being tied up and taken to another room, told to electrocute them. I might ask them if it was okay, if they were sure. I also might insist on finding out how much it hurt to be electrocuted--but then again, maybe not. I dislike pain. 

It's possible that I might electrocute the 'learner' once or twice. I know myself though: I do not believe that I would continue, as soon as pain was expressed. I was incapable of pulling out my own teeth, and needles bother me but not because of the pain--I mentally cringe away from the idea of hurting a person on purpose. Self-defense and rough play are fine--but sharp objects callously I've never been able to handle. Whenever I get electrocuted the slightest bit I wonder whether the reaction will last in my body and stop my heart a week later, as I once read. Anything that was enough to cause significant pain--there is NO way I'd continue it. 

Even if it wasn't about morals--I just wouldn't have the stomach to hurt another person for a study--even if some goon was standing over me telling me its for the best. I do have a rebellious streak: he would lose in a contest of wills. His telling me that "I must continue"...well, that's likely to encourage me to disobey.

(I'm not a conformist, at times. I rebelled against fashion for years as a child--because I didn't want my older sister using me as her doll. For about two years--no shirts that were in the popular style, none of the popular pants... to tell you the truth, I probably hindered my social development doing so. Through seventh grade I had no idea what was fashionable...oops?)

Whether or not I'd electrocute the other participant even once, I don't know. I can say, for sure, that there is no way on earth, even in a room of other people who were going along with the experiment, that I would continue on after even the first scream and plea for the experiment to conclude.

Jessica

Ikeda: Religions and Philosophy

Week 9 or 10 (depending on how you count)

To some extent many religions are their own philosophy--especially some of the Eastern religions which have no set God, as the Western world would see it. Confuscianism and Buddhism are quite different from Western thought--yet much of their philosophies are not against what Christianity professes to believe in. (The term professes is used to differentiate what we believe, and how we live.)

We both claim to desire to take responsibility for our actions, we both supposedly value life and justice, and courage. It is interesting that Ikeda lives his philosophy, rather than just preaching it. In America, those states that have the most people claiming to be Christian also are the states with the most executions by means of 'justice'. Is justice served by executing a person? Really??

Ikeda, apparently, lives his philosophy, which is remarkable. A philosophy, in order to have any efficacy, must be livable. Ikeda's following the Middle Way, a way better than the measly compromise that the West HASN'T even done (we go by majority, not compromises--here you are 'for' or 'against') is something that makes him stand out. A philosopher, I feel, ought to be a leader advocating for a moral system, a system of determining what is 'right' and 'wrong'. 

Who wants to follow a hypocrite's philosophy?

Jessica

Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action is, as many will recall, a program in which minorities are helped to go to college. When a college is faced with accepting one of two applicants, one of which associates their identity with a minority group--one that is not a dominant class (i.e. white), and the two applicants have equal qualifications, affirmative action prescribes the acceptance of the person belonging to the minority group. My group of four, in class today, did not agree on this topic. 

I feel that the affirmative action policy is flawed. It has a good ideal, and is trying to even out discrimination based upon slavery, but I believe it has not been successful. Is not the point to bring groups with less access to higher education a greater chance of reaching that education? Is that goal really best served by supporting minority groups? 

Much of the minority population lives close to the poverty line (which really, for much of the states, is actually higher than it probably should be, I believe) or below it. They thus tend to go to public schools, which are funded by property taxes--which do not bring in as much revenue in poorer locales--and thus do not receive a quality education. Anybody, be they minority or not, who has not had the benefit of a quality education should be treated equally by affirmative action. 

Affirmative action is encouraged on the basis of somehow making up for slavery. It doesn't seem to have been terribly successful when so much of the minority classes who have been treated with racism are poor. If affirmative action is to continue, I feel, it should offer some sort of benefit of acceptance and scholarships towards those who have been impoverished. Better yet, fix the school-funding system. 

I believe that there are several virtues which support this view. There are also virtues which support the view that the affirmative action policy should be kept functioning as it currently does. 

My virtues are:

Fairness

Thoughtfulness

Conscientiousness

Cooperativeness

Generosity

The support of industriousness---they clearly worked hard to get to college, all impoverished students

Justice

Tactfulness

Thoughtfulness

Unfortunately many of these virtues can also be used to argue against my personal opinion on affirmative action. Justice, for example, could be said to argue for the current system, since the poor whites were not discriminated against, historically, to nearly the extent of minorities. Furthermore I am not completely unreserved in my own judgement of this situation: I am selfish and do not want more people to have to advantage over me, based merely upon what social class they originated from--I don't want to risk NOT being accepted because I was held in equal esteem with a poorer person, and only one of us could be accepted. 

I think the truly virtuous solution would probably be to fix the schooling system so that poverty does not effect schooling. However that wasn't our argument: our group argued over the functionality and how the affirmative system should be run, if at all. 

Virtue of Moderation

Perhaps the ultimate virtue, of the Virtue theory originated by Aristotle, is moderation. Yes, yes there is a long list of virtues, and each of them is very important. Each of those virtues is a moderation between two extremes. Every virtue requires moderation, so moderation must be present before other virtues. 

Each of the virtues are equally important, but for a behavior to be virtuous it requires moderation. Moderation between frugality and throwing ___blank____ out of an airplane. Moderation between being walked all over and being belligerent in demanding your own way be followed by others. 

Moderation has always been something I've agreed with. I will exhibit tolerance towards things I don't necessarily agree with, so long as they don't go too far. Cultural and Subjective Relativism didn't seem to agree with that particular virtue. The virtue theory agrees with me, I believe, on this point because the other virtues all disagree with tolerance in the case of genocide, for example. 

It is not benevolent to commit genocide. It's not civil behavior to say "I'm going to kill your whole 'race'." It's not compassionate, it's certainly not conscientious, and it does not exhibit cooperation between two groups. Genocide could be seen as courageous--but is courage always a good thing? It's not particularly courteous to kill. Dependability has a rather ambiguous relationship to genocide, but it is certainly not fair or friendly to commit genocide. Generosity could potentially be argued to be served by genocide, but I don't necessarily see how. Honesty--well, if you SAY you're committing genocide, then I guess it's honest, and it could be industrious. It's not just, it's not showing moderation, patience, prudence, reasonableness, tactfulness, thoughtfulness or tolerance. Self-discipline and reliance could be argued for, potentially, as could loyalty. 1/3 of the virtues could be in favor of genocide--most of those are only NOT automatically in disagreement, and would require more than a moments' thought. 

I will exhibit tolerance in moderation. I will not tolerate genocide. The wisdom of choosing a course of action is in moderating a virtue. That virtue may be moderated by assessing how the other virtues interact with that particular act: then you moderate your virtue, and your according action in the prescribed manner.

I'm sure that I've probably left out some aspects, but to my mind that is one way to help determine the moderation of a virtue. Each of these virtues is the center of an extreme: to follow the virtues you must show some discernment as to how to moderate each virtue in order to honor the most virtues.

Speaking of honor--should that be on the list of virtues? 

~Jessica

Water, Water, Everywhere

I like water: swimming, water sports, baths, showers, clean hands. There is no replacement for the feel of water on my skin, and I don't care if I go wrinkly. I like water to use on my vegetable garden in the summer (but don't bother with watering the grass---too much work, and it ends up dying anyways--besides then you have to mow more often. Not that I'm allowed to...my family expects me to mow myself over....) Drinking water isn't something I do as often as I should, I'm pretty much perpetually dehydrated, yet I love water. 

I can't imagine life without water. Life wouldn't exist without water, water is essential. It's also a somewhat limited resource. We can make more water---through chemical reactions that also release harmful gases into the atmosphere. We'd release too much CO2, O3, and CO, as well as other chemicals into the air, in order to make water out of other substances. Furthermore is there not a limited amount of Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms? Sure, you could use atomic energy to split atoms down into hydrogen and oxygen, perhaps, but you would still create pollutions. Simply put we have limited resources of water, in a realistic sense. 

And we're wasting water: pollution, fertilizer in the water. Have humans ever done anything GOOD to water? The likely answer is yes, we learned how to clean it. And then we abuse that knowledge, as it gives us an escape from the arguments of pollution. We can pollute the water if we clean it: it all comes out the same in the end, right? 

That doesn't excuse polluting the water in the first place, and does the water really end up completely clean? Probably not. And Americans probably use more than our fair share of water---just like we do all the other resources on the planet. 

What can we do? Low-flow fixtures for the toilet, the shower, the sinks. Is handwashing clothing any better, or do we just need to stop sorting clothing by color ranges and just stick to 'lights'  and 'darks'? 

Ethically should any given human only use their fair portion of the planet? Utilitarianism might lead us to say yes: that by only using a small portion of the resources currently used by a single American, we would enable greater happiness for a vast amount of other people. The point is moot: American society has already passed the point where that is possible, each of us can only minimize how much we consume. 

Sometimes living ethically isn't completely possible---even if we avoid every store and do our best to have nothing to do with society, there are still government institutions designed to protect us that account for a huge portion of resources. At this time we are only capable of minimizing our footprint to protect others in our world, and the future.

~Jessica

Cup of Noodle

I am going to make a very poor attempt to figure out just where my cup of noodle, which is very enjoyable for a lunch on a cold winter/fall day, came from and where it is going. The product was manufactured in Gardena, CA. I did a mapquest search and discovered precisely how far away Gardena is from my current location: 995. 27 miles. It is estimated to take more than 15 hours of drive-time to arrive there. That entails a large quantity of gasoline to transfer my cup of noodles from California to Oregon. 

Furthermore the packaging for the cup of noodles is only partially recyclable. The outside paper/light cardboard is recyclable. I will do so. The plastic wrapping around the styrofoam container is not recyclable; furthermore plastic is creating using a small amount of fossil fuels. Therefore by eating this cup of noodles I will contribute to fossil fuel use, and the damage done in oil fields upon the planet. 

Worse yet the plastic wraps around a nice layer of styrofoam. The styrofoam has a recycling symbol on the bottom of it, a #6. According to Wikipedia the product commonly known as styrofoam IS recyclable, but not to be used in more styrofoam--it can be put into other plastic products, which they aren't recyclable later. The problem? Not many places have the facilities to recycle styrofoam. If styrofoam is NOT recycled it ends up in landfills...pretty much, forever. Styrofoam does not degrade.

Luckily Oregon actually does have a place that will accept clean styrofoam, to recycle, for FREE. I think I've got that address down lower...but here it is: 4044 N. Suttle Rd. Portland, OR 97217 

I'd love to go into where the ingredients for the ramen inside my styrofoam cup came from, but I can imagine many of the ingredients came from asia, as well as from America, and many of those will be trucked long distances. 

I think that the environmental club here on campus ought to add new boxes to the recycling bins---clean your styrofoam, then get it all recycled. It would be a great project to initiate here on campus, especially considering styrofoam is sold in the bistro---and how easy is it to clean something before you recycle it? 

Hey, Man, The World is ALL Subjective!

Subjective relativism, a loosely defined theory that, with the way the argument currently stands, is unsound. Subjective relativism, with all it's flaws, still gets attention. What person whose morals do NOT fit the norm, or who in some other way is a 'radical' --druggie, hippie, criminal, a tad rebellious, or even a lot normal everyday individuals get tempted by this theory; does not want to believe that morality changes for every person? 

People can believe the following:

If I wanna lie, it's okay for me to lie, doesn't matter if you don't disagree. 

If I wanna have lots of sex with women/men I don't know, doesn't mean you can't think it's immoral--doesn't matter to me, since it's right for me. 

If I wanna pretend to be Captain Jack and behave like him--lie, have lots of women, booze, thieving, robbing, impersonating a priest, kidnap--well hey, if it's moral for me, it's moral for me. Don't go telling me it's wrong. 

If I want to murder every blonde I see, it's okay. 

If I want to get my pilot's license and a crop spraying plane and fill it with chemicals toxic to humans, say leading to blindness, and spray them over a city, hey it's MORAL if I believe it is. Doesn't matter how many people I hurt, how many people do not believe my actions are moral---there is no objective morality. 

In subjective relativism whatever an individual believes--goes. There is nobody who can say their morals are faulty, are criminal, are stupid, are ignorant...nope, no judges. It's all peace, and free for all. It's all anarchy. 

If this theory were followed to the letter there would be anarchy. We couldn't have cops because then we'd be enforcing laws--but you can't do that because morals are tied up in laws, in their existence--and their compliance requires a morality that says that it is good to follow social rules. If this theory were followed there would be no safety, because the society as a whole cannot imprison criminals, because that shows intolerance, which is the ONE thing this theory states that you should show. (I am going to completely ignore the possibility of total tolerance, because that goes on a tangent which I do not want to take.) What makes this society of personal morality even scarier is this: if you disagree with anothers morals, and your own morals say that it is right to defend yourself, you could go so far as to kill who was threatening you, or who you so much as perceived to be threatening you. 

There are no criminals in this society. Only those who take action on their morals, in ways that offends the morals of others. Everybody is dangerous to those around them, if certain morals aren't generally accepted by the populace. 

Are there some universal morals? Sure, but that doesn't mean that there aren't criminals who disobey those morals. Some people lie compulsively, others lie on serious issues sneakily, some people murder, some people kidnap, some people commit armed robbery--even when they know that in human society those are not moral actions, by and large. Society may not totally degenerate under this philosophical theory, but fear would escalate. There is nobody but yourself to defend you against those of the world who would do you harm. 

This theory is not one I can support, even if I do believe that tolerance of other cultures, other personality traits, other beliefs and other morals is usually the correct course of action. Tolerance should not allow for others to be harmed--that is when it is time to step in, and shoo away tolerance, to pick it up again later. Tolerance is limited. I will not tolerate somebody using pesticide on a whole city of humans, or serial killers living next door to me and inviting my friends over for "tea". 

(just to point out to anyone reading this---i like peace thank you very much. I'd never use pesticide on somebody!!!)

If I were a MythBuster and this a myth saying a society can, (or maybe even should) live like this, showing complete tolerance, and morality on an individual scale, i'd get my nice big stamp and say "BUSTED!" I do not believe society can live like this. Even if it could, I don't think I'd want to live in this society. 

"Alive"

Have you ever seen the movie "Alive" or read the the book of the same title? The true story about a group of South American soccer players, in high school, whose plane crashed in the Andes, high high up, and because of storms and other circumstances their plane wasn't found? But there were survivors? And how those survivors turned to cannibalism in order to survive? 

The survivors entered an agreement to consume each other upon death, that it was the only way any of them would survive. It was for the common good--they did not say "Kill me and eat me"-- some had died in the crash, others slowly or quickly afterwards depending upon afflictions. Clearly they had made some sort of contract, and their act was also to instill the greatest amount of happiness--in this case, the ability to live on and be happy elsewhere. 

Now, the question remains how cultural relativism would see the situation. Their culture said not to eat human beings, and the cultures morals are to be accepted---there is no outside right or wrong. Their act of cannibalism was against their culture and thus immoral. Unless, that is, they became their own culture. 

When does a group, separated from its origins become its own culture, its own society, and thus bound by its own moral code? Or is that even a possibility--is the real matter that whatever code you grew up with, were raised with and lived with most of your life is the moral code that is 'right'. What about those who change countries---are they then expected to abide by, and believe the new country's moral code or else be deemed criminal or immoral? 

Cultural relativism, could relatively say: whatever you think is right is, so long as it fits what the majority thinks too. Cultural relativism could say that it is relatively moral to eat human flesh if you think it is wherever you're from. And if a visitor comes to our country it's relatively moral for us to kill and eat that visitor. In our land, our morals are, after all, morally right. 

In the case of "Alive" moral relativism provides no answer---we must tolerate it, they are not any more correct or wrong than any other culture---but then, cultural relativism offers no explanation of how to decide what counts as a culture, what the groupings should be. 

Should everything be split up by language or geographic boundaries? Or religion? Please note I choose those separations as they have been connected to wars---Germany wanted unification and so went to war with it's neighbors trying to consume all German-speaking land into their nation, a long time ago. Geographic boundaries and religion are critically important issues in the Middle East. Where do we decide where cultures begin and end, and thus where a different moral code begins and ends?

Out in the middle of the Andes were the survivors of  "Alive"  their own group, and thus acting in a moral manner according to cultural relativism, or where they immoral to eat human flesh in order to survive? 

Convergence

Durkheim, whose writings and theories are relevant to sociology, has an article written by him in my textbook for said class. It goes along wonderfully with what I was just talking about in my last entry so I must spend a moment discussing it, whether or not I actually require another entry. (With only one class last week do I still require more than one? And that one class was a test not a lesson...)

At any rate Durkeim believes that crime is a normal part of society, in fact a sign of the health of society. Crime has existed in all societies, absolute intended, and thus is normal. Crime is a sign that the community as a collective whole has certain values that they uphold. When these values are violated it is termed crime. 

Thus the definition of crime, of what constitutes a crime, does over time, change. The stronger the value, the greater the punishment associated with the crime. A lie barely receives any notice if it does no harm---but if that lie crosses another value--say the right to a reputation that honestly reflects your identity (or even is better than the truth) then it is libel/slander (depending on its presentation, but most things are termed libel these days) which is punished in America, frequently with fines. Those fines even differentiate in value depending upon the severity of the lie and the amount of 'damage' incurred by the lie. 

With this concept of crimes being those actions that violate communal values, or morals so to speak, the question becomes then: who determines communal values? Are they the same in all individuals of the community--at least those that become law---minus the criminals? Or is there some other, force per say, determining morality and thus the laws? (Probably neither--majority rules, I say, yet the question remains.)

~Jessica

Philosopher's Disagreements

It is quite clear that philosophers disagree; they do so in their arguments. Utilitarianism doesn't agree with contractarianism, and Kant doesn't quite agree with either. Duties to humanity, a contract of agreements with others who also enter into the contract, or a search for happiness and an attempt to eliminate as much pain as possible. They just don't always agree!

Clearly then the minimum conception of morality, is on an individual basis. Each individual tries to use logic and reason to establish which action is the best choice within the bounds of morality, considering each person that would be affected. Each individual has different logic, and in so many cases humans have just a few moments to ponder which is the best course of action. Take too long, and you've lost the opportunity to act--thus choosing inaction. 

Considering a real situation perhaps establishing some general moral rules based on standard situations is the best way to go. Whether you're determining what the contract is, what your duties to humanity are, or what would derive the most amount of happiness (and least pain); rules may be a system for an average person, who does not have a great deal of time to determine every action, to determine what is moral. 

Immorality could then be defined, not as an action which does not fit the rules, but then as an action which was knowingly committed which did not fit the rules. That is not saying it is not immoral to kill a man if you had not decided it was immoral, it is merely putting some sort of degree into the situation. 

The problem, which is huge in a society with laws is, that if we can determine our own morals---does that then mean our morals are equal to law, or we must disobey our morals to obey the law? Or obey our morals and disobey the law? 

A quote comes to mind, (though I cannot recall from precisely which book and chapter) "Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's." Even in a secular understanding the point remains--give to the law what it requires. 

Is morality belonging to the law? 

 

Politics and Ethics

Meet American culture: The widespread belief that politicians LIE. They lie through their teeth, with grins on their faces, as they give money to charities, as they get elected, as they give speeches, as they lead us to war, and tell us our planet isn't being destroyed by our actions. Politicians lie. Clearly the American populace wonders at the ethics of a politician. Yet we let these men and women lead us... Perhaps that is in acknowledgement of the fact that all people lie (or so we assume, since we ourselves do).

Seneca gave up his views on vegetarianism, and animal rights, in order to pursue his political dreams. He, a man who gave up his own views, was a tutor to Nero! The speechwriter of George W. Bush was a vegan (was, as in he quit). 

Is a good future more important, does it suit better than respecting animals? Animals, by utilitarianism, aren't capable of feeling pain the same way humans do--physical yes, mental no (or so it has been argued). By contractarianism animals don't yield the same respect. Essentially animals are respected because of indirect duties, for a large part. Are our indirect duties to humanity more important than ourselves? 

No. If we each selfishly followed our own paths---that is not humane at all! If I murder this man, it may not be humane, but it suits my needs better. If I kill and eat this orphaned infant it will provide me nourishment, and maybe I believe it will provide a spiritual benefit enabling me to reach my goals more efficiently, so it's OK. The infant has nobody to care about it to be harmed by a utilitarian perspective, I'm good with it----but it does conflict to duties to humanity. If someone followed that selfish (and grotesque) path ---there is no humanity in that person, by Western standards. 

What else will a  person who can eat an infant without guilt do? If you can go against your principles of ethics for a job--what else might be a reason? If Seneca abandoned his vegetarianism for a political position--what else might a man abandon in favor of something material? 

I'm not quite sure that I want to know! 

~Jessica 

a.k.a. "Simplice"

Vegetarianism

The film we watched entitled "Peaceable Kingdom" was in some ways very heart-wrenching. It showed the life of cows, pigs, and chickens (for the most part these three); and their mistreatment in food-producing industries. Watching the animals engage in human interaction is certainly enough to encourage vegetarianism. 

Well, okay, I have to admit that I found nothing sentimental about chickens. They do not seem to be terribly intelligent, and they'll peck each other to death over territory. My sympathy is low; yet aren't humans so terribly familiar to such behavior? At any rate, chickens received low levels of sympathy from me, as did pigs. It is highly likely that my emotional responses depended on how attractive I found the creature in question. 

Cows however yielded a great deal of sympathy from me. The story of Snickers showing love toward his adopter struck home. Why have we decided that dogs and cats (in America) are not to be eaten, yet cows are? Cows are holy in India, the producer of life. Here we put them down when they develop illnesses that we encouraged (the udder swelling and getting infected after too many years of producing too much milk), slaughter baby calves who can't even walk because they were shut up in cages. 

Cows are downright spoiled in India, compared to America. We have institutionalized cruelty to animals. Lab rats, cows, pigs, chickens, and much much more! Vegetarian or not, cruelty to animals is not conducive to healthy human emotions (I believe, at any rate. Cruelty to animals has been a sign of criminal escalation, in many [though not all] cases.) 

Free-range meat, here we come. Oh but wait! If America went back to free-range meat only, well--there would be a LOT of rainforests in other countries we'd have to wipe out to feed our overpopulated, over-citified nation. It would mean more cowboys, which would please my uncle, but people would probably starve. Clearly, if humans value animals and do not wish to be cruel, should we then not change our system to be less inhumane? 

After all: What is the difference between dogs and cows? Why is cruelty to one considered wrong, but the other considered accepted and done on a daily basis en mass?

Knight of Utilitarianism

Over the weekend I managed to, finally (actually not finally, I don't classify him as a superhero so was willing to wait for it to come onto video), managed to watch The Dark Knight. Heath Ledger, played a villain so sadistic that I can understand quite easily how he was driven to sleeping poorly, and losing health over the role! His role was convincing, more so than any previous rendition of a Batman villain (to my opinion). However the point here isn't to rave, it is to monologue upon a situation he put Batman in, hopefully I'm not spoiling the movie!

Our brave not-super-hero, had to choose between the woman he loved and the attorney who was going to save Gotham city. They were on the phone to each other, tied to barrels of gasoline rigged with explosives. 

Who was Batman to choose to save? (Because unlike Spiderman in a similar situation he could not save both.) Saving who he loved might reward him with the greatest good; his heart would be at east. Yet by doing so he condemns the city to more pain, and himself more pain as it is his chosen duty to defend the streets of Gotham. In the longterm he might face eternal heartache over his lost love but many people had the potential for increased happiness. 

Saving the attorney would keep many criminals in jails, would keep the organized crime syndicates of Gotham City on the run. Saving the attorney would save thousands. Batman made his choice. He didn't know the long-term effects. None of us ever could know the future. 

In a similar situation saving the attorney might indeed serve the greater good. Killing Hitler and the ten regular people he is in a room with might be better than killing a single regular person. Utilitarianism seems to offer clear cut answers, especially in these drastic situations. These situations aren't terribly common, and seem to go against the innate sense of wrong, that is commonly referred to as 'common sense'. 

At any rate Batman made his choice. I wonder what would have occurred had he made a different choice. Would pain and suffering be averted equivalent to what it saved? Was there no valid choice---did the Joker plan so well that no choice Batman could have made a choice resulting in happiness? 

~Jessica

Environmental Utilitarianism?

I decided when I sat down to write, to pick a topic and put a bit of effort into understanding it in light of of utilitarianism. Within twenty seconds (literally) I'd looked at my shirt, of cotton (which the growing methods can be quite harmful to the environment) and voila! 

How does the environment relate to utilitarianism? Unlike animals the planet is not considered to be alive, by science, so it cannot feel pain. Does the damage to the environment then not matter, since it cannot feel anything? 

Clearly this has some similarities to baby Theresa. Baby Theresa could not feel any pain. Yet damage to her caused emotional pain in others. Damage to her would also prevent happiness in other babies, thus continuing their pain. 

The planet is a very similar case. While damaging the planet does not cause it pain, it does cause humans and animals alike pain in the long-term. Leveling a forest and putting homes and shopping malls in decreases the amount of oxygen in the air---less trees to deal with the carbon dioxide living animals breathe out. It may not hurt a human in the short term to level a forest, but in the long term it does! 

Damaging the environment doesn't just affect the person who acted against the planet. It actually affects every last creature on this planet, from bacteria to humans, from dogs to cats, from mollusks to cnidarians, from the birds in the sky to the deepest-dwelling oceanic creatures, those albinos of the deep. 

Damaging the planet counts against every one of us. It might take more than three strikes to destroy our planet (hmm, let's count---Industrial revolution, cars, textile factories, toxic waste, landfills...oops we're waaaay past three) but the science is telling us that we just may be headed that direction, faster than we'd like to admit. 

The principle of utility is clearly suggesting something: it may increase our happiness if we took a look at how our actions affect our planet, and thus us.

Personal Ethics

In our last class we played a game, sort of. A game frequently has the purpose of amusement, however this was more of an activity in which we listed our values and then got to see how other students ranked their values. 

Despite things I disliked much more being on the list I put driving the speed limit as my lowest priority ethically. This is because, in some ways, I feel that driving the speed limit has fewer ethical issues surrounding it. Yet, that is not really true. 

We have speed limits in order to protect drivers on the road. Obeying speed limits is a safety issue. What human has the right to randomly take away the safety of another just to get to their destination a little faster? Also, there is the issue of fuel economy and protecting our environment by driving speeds that best conserve fuel, and so consume less fuel, taking more time to release the same amount of fossil fuel emissions into the environment (there is of course, a catalytic converter in newer cars for that purpose, but is it 100% effective?). Another reason people encourage driving the speed limit is simply because it is law. 

Laws are not always correct. Furthermore most laws tell us what not to do, are prohibitory, not tell us what to do. Don't speed. Don't use fireworks that meet these specifications. Don't kill. Don't steal. Don't extort/blackmail. Fewer laws tell us to do something (and those that pop into my head at the moment are : Do pay taxes). These laws can be flawed. Just because something is a law does not mean it should, ethically, be absolutely obeyed. It is not at the top of the thinking pyramid. Law and Order is not the ultimate means of thinking rationally. (I cannot recall from high school which philosopher I am drawing off of. Oops.)

Ultimately my problem with saying to "drive at speed limit" is the highway system. In America if you drive at the speed the highways declare you're going to run into problems so many times. When traffic is backed up driving at the speed limit would not be safe---you'd be just ramming your vehicle into others, as there would be nowhere to go. More to the point of the argument, and less literally, if you drive at only 55 mph on most highways you are actually dangerous to all of the other drivers who are speeding. It is not safe. Laws are made to protect---if following the law is more dangerous than not...which should we do? 

I normally follow speed limits. I drive at 20 mph in school zones. I drive at the speed limit in cities. On the highways I drive at the speed of traffic. Safety is most important in this, not obeying the law, as far as I have determined for  myself. Now if everybody could be convinced to drive at the speed limit, then I'd oblige. It would be safe, and I would even be safer---no risk of being pulled over by a grouchy cop. 

--Jessica

"All Evil is Ignorance"

Plato wrote that very quote, "All evil is ignorance," yet the meaning can be deemed unclear through the use of meta-ethics. What is the meaning of ignorance? Harder yet, what is the meaning of evil?

Is evil that stereotypical thing, out to destroy the world? Is it Satan, formerly the angel Lucifer, who knows of God yet turned against him out of jealousy? Is evil living in an immoral means, and if so what is the complete definition of immoral? 

Presuming that ignorance means a lack of knowledge, and merely that (not a lack of understanding). And presuming that evil means....not eating vegetables when they are served to you?

Clearly not. Young children have quite the reputation for not eating vegetables. Furthermore food allergies exist, a valid reason to not do something, but it would still be evil to not eat them. But the reason would not be ignorance. It would be more pressing concerns, or in thecase of children a nonchalance toward the evil. I don't eat all the vegetables presented to me;  cauliflower, asparagus, and mushrooms are not on my list of food that I'm willing to eat. The reason is not that I am unaware that I should be grateful for food, so ignorance is not a valid argument for reason. 

Plato may indeed have had a point, that evil could be committed out of an ignorant mind, and only that way. Yet 'evil' is far too ambiguous of a word. It is straight out of a children's story--the evil stepmother wanting to harm the sweet princess, and the good prince riding in to the rescue at the last possible moment (as all good heroes must: see course Heroes 101). 

Philosophers clearly must consult meta-ethics before making statements. That way there are less arguments to made against them, when their works are a thousand years old!

Logic

Last night my roommate was working on some problems in logic, for one of her math classes. (Math, shudder.) She called me over to have a look at them, and I had an answer for her, beyond my standard 'I hate math so whatever you want to be true is'.  p-->(q-->r), if p is you work, q is you get paid and r is you go to the movies, is a different form of those same facts true? No: going to the movies doesn't necessarily mean you got paid. There are a multiple possibilities; being treated on a date, being a kid and your parents paying for it, being independently wealthy, or even it being a movie being played in the park as a fundraiser, if you just bring a canned food item. 

I don't think my answer quite satisfied it mathematically, and my roommate and I got to teasing each other over whose logic was 'superior'. (Superior of course meaning the most fun to argue.) The problem with logic is right in one of the fallacies, and it can plague every argument, even without us knowing. We as humans do not know everything, and sometimes what we learn gets tossed out in a few years. Another professor, for child development, was actually telling us on Thursday that they've tossed out the female gamete,the ovum (forgive me if my terms are incorrect)having only half of a paired set. Turns out the ovum actually has a full compliment of chromosomes until fertilization, at which point half of them are randomly ejected. That would be news to my high school biology class! 

Every argument we make, even those that we are almost positive on, which we have accepted as truth for centuries, could potentially be an "Argument from Ignorance". Everything could be second-guessed until pigs fly and the sky turns into an ocean of lava. Not likely to happen anytime soon. The fact remains: each of us can only use what logic others have shown us, and we agree to be true, and what logic we ourselves determine to rule our actions. To some extent we will always be ignorant.

I certainly was ignorant with that math problem. That's okay with me; I never expected to be able to answer it, and nor do I want to take half a dozen math classes so that I can learn that twisted form of logic. There are other things I can turn my mind to---things that aren't going to make my brain turn into soup in a skull. Don't tell Rachel this, but I think she can have the title of possessing the most superior logic when it comes to mathematical problems.

Trans-species Justice

A thought occurred to me: Rawl's view, as written in "A Theory of Justice", applies to fairness, as it is commonly termed, among human individuals regardless of race. It does not address nonhuman elements by any means. Yet there exist debates over animal rights. Where do animals fit into the scheme of justice as proposed by Rawl? 

Animals, whether they are capable of communication within the species, as elaborate of that of even a child, or even inter-species communication, are by their very nature not human. Similarities may exist, with or without said communication. Some level of emotion may be felt, social structures are present (Wolves for example), so too basic needs. Much of Western society would not give any credit to the statement that animals deserve the same basic rights as any human being. Surely politics could not be included---we cannot communicate with dogs, one of our closest animal companions (bar countries that see them as viable food sources) so we cannot speak to them and give them the pros and cons of voting for any particular candidate for any election. We would not give animals the same rights. 

Then how would a person who believes in reincarnation (typically not a mainstream Western religious feature) deal with valuing the rights of that same dog. That dog may once have been human, who did not quite live up to expectations on the way to enlightenment and escaping the reincarnation cycle. By debt of not having lived a better life did that being (dog) forfeit basic rights? Ignoring the political ramifications, does that dog deserve total freedom of person, the right to some basic level of autonomy and power---the right not to be eaten? 

Yet, even before this becomes an issue we are brought to the question---with all of these possibilities how does that play into the original position? Behind the veil of ignorance each mortal being (for presumably all are mortal, reincarnation or no) has to face the possibility that they may believe in reincarnation (whether it truly exists or not, belief is belief). Thus, technically speaking all creatures on earth might be given the freedoms of a human being. Or we must affirm that by not being human in the present life, freedoms are restricted, as in a caste.  

Clearly if the first were so, we must kill other potential-humans in order to eat, essential to life. That act would deny the basic rights of those who fall into the category of presently-nonhuman. If the second were so, that gives some precedent allowing caste and social classes to have an effect on our existence and our basic rights. It would allow for inequality. 

Perhaps there is a way to argue that the cases are not alike, and thus separate answers are allowable. Disputing the likeness, or even throwing out Rawl's theory seem the most likely to me. That or somehow we know divine truths, but not our situation in life, behind that veil of ignorance....

I don't really have an answer, to this, by the way. 

Welcome

Here I will post my thoughts in regards to philosophy, current readings and current events. I meant to use my old blogspot account, but it wouldn't let me create a google account for that one. Mildly aggravating of course---so since I can't get it, it shall never be deleted. I like this one better anyways- the name of it.

And so--welcome to the world of my mind. 

~Jessica