3/1/12
Is killing ever justified? If so, when and why? If not, why? Discuss.
I feel like in some senses it is justified to kill, but in others not.
Killing in self-defense or the defense of others is completely justifiable. Killing animals is sometimes justifiable, depending on the situation. Killing in the sense of war is sometimes justifiable.
If a person is about to take your life, it is your duty to protect your life. If you see someone attempting to forcefully take an innocent person's life, then (like wise with the previous situation) not only would it be justifiable for you to kill in that situation, but it is your duty to attempt to save the innocent person.
There are some wars that are justifiable in certain respects. I think we all pretty much agree that Hitler was a "bad guy" who had gained far more power than he ought to, and needed to be removed, even if that involved his death at the hands of others. (His acts of genocide, of course, can never be justified.) But I feel that some wars, such as many of the American wars in the Middle East. (Actually, it is my personal opinion that George W. Bush used the concept of "weapons of mass destruction" as a scare tactic in order to engender enough fear and hatred towards the middle east. This way, Americans would personalize the war; the war that was essentially W's personal vendetta to avenge his father's failed mission. But I digress.) Such wars as these, in my eyes, are not justifiable. I feel a little iffy as to the war on Communism - sure, Americans have the right to protect their democracy and freedom if they feel it is being challenged or threatened in any way. But on the flip side of the coin, Americans today are attempting to spread their Democracy to other countries, just as the Communist regimes did with their form of government. So, I suppose aspects of it were justified - the defense of freedom as a human right is always justified. I feel that hypocrisy is not though.
The general trend in my line of thinking (usually) is that unnecessary killings - violence for the sake of violence; needless death for the sake of entertainment, money, power, and whatever else - is never reconcilable. And part of the reason why I think that I feel this way is (and I know I reference this a lot) my biological make up as a human being. Survival is the most basic instinct that is engrained into every species, from the most complex being to the most simple single-celled organism. Everything we do is centered around one theme, and that is living. In some circumstances, that involves the death of another (e.g. gaining nutrients - some animals have to kill and eat other animals in order to get what they need to survive). So in this way, it think it makes sense that I would view unnecessary death as unethical and unjustifiable. The vast majority of animals kills (typically) on two specific occasions: 1) for sustenance and 2) for defense (this can be self defense or the defense of others such as offspring or even members of a clan/pack/et cetera). Due to the fact that the idea of survival is so rudimentary, yet so essential as to be the basis of animal instinct, it seems that the ability to survive and even thrive should be almost sacred to animals in a sense. Less intelligent species may feel this sort of power/reverence in a very basic and unsophisticated sense, while more complex and more intelligent beings may feel it in a more sophisticated sense - possibly even elevating this basic instinct to live to the point of designing laws, covenants, social contracts, forming familial bonds and friendships, forming truces with enemies, designing intricate constitutions and declarations of human rights, et cetera. There are few instances in nature in which unnecessary violence/killing is exhibited, leading me to believe that, do to our basic instincts of survival, this idea is (for the most part) considered unnatural (possibly even perverse); maybe this is the common ancestor of the Social Contract.
3/2/12
Does the soul exist? Discuss.
I think that the soul exists. There is a definite difference between when a person is alive and when a person is dead. You can even make a distinction between when a person is sleeping and when a person is dead. It's almost as if the soul emanates an aura of sorts. There have been incidents where you can distinctly tell when a person's soul leaves their body. A patient in the hospital could be asleep or in a coma but the moment that their heart stops beating or they stop breathing, there is almost a visible difference. You know that person is no longer just sleeping or in a comatose state; something has left; something is gone. There must be a reason why we can know that a person is dead and when a person is sleeping. The two states are very, very similar in appearance, so what could possibly differentiate between them? We know that the heart, lungs, brain, et cetera stop working after a person begins dying; their organs simply begin to shut off. But how can this effect our knowing whether a person is this "with us" (alive) or "gone" (dead)? Like I said before - there is no difference in appearance between death and sleeping - they look exactly the same. It seems to me that the only difference between living and nonliving is the soul - life and physical aspects of life are simply attached to the soul.
I disagree with Adam's point of view completely. Animals most definitely have souls. Adam claims that humans are the only beings in possession of a soul because 1) they have personalities. His second point was an example he used of his dog loving his(Adam's) mother being but willing to leave her side whenever anyone else has food defining this as an instinct, and thus claiming that 2) because animals act based on instinct, they do not have souls. His third point is that 3) because humans are able to distinguish between right and wrong, ect, they have souls based on that virtue alone.
To these points I say
1. Animals as well as humans have personalities. They may not be as well defined, but they are definitely present. For example, dogs may vary in disposition. One of my dogs is more mean, the other is more playful and friendly. This is so with other dogs; they have intrinsic personal characteristics that separate them from each other and even other animals. According to Adam Petrillo's definition of a soul (as having a personality), animals too have souls based on this virtue.
2. To address Adam's example with his dog, I say that people also have the same instincts. People have their families and close knit circles of friends, but as soon as you pull out a snack that looks particularly yummy (for example, a Reeses peanut butter cup), everyone suddenly becomes your best friend, even if they don't know you that well. This goes back to biology and the way the brain works. There are chemicals in the brain that stimulate the reward pathway in the brain that are released and trigger a certain result (a reward - a good feeling). This reaction is triggered whenever organisms do something that benefits them and aids in their survival - eating, drinking, mating, ect. Animals as well as people have these basic instincts. Therefore, the fact that animals have instincts (just as humans do) does not govern whether or not they have a soul.
3. To address Adam's third point, I would like to reference biology again. I believe that humans are the way that they are due to evolutionary changes. I know that Adam feels similarly. In evolution, a certain characteristic does not just "show up" in an animal's genome; it manifests after eons of minute changes with in a specie's DNA. Animals have common ancestors based on characteristics that they have with other species. I would like to know at what point this personality or soul evolved, how it evolved. This "soul" had to come from somewhere; there most be evidences of souls in other animals, even if that soul is more rudimentary. I am stating that animals do indeed have souls because Homo sapiens has a soul, and according to evolution, this characteristic had to evolve from some sort of more simplified template-characteristic.
3/5/12
In 2012 is it possible to totally withdraw from society (e.i. be a hermit)? Discuss.
I think in some ways it is but in others it's not. It's going to be different from person to person depending on their personalities, they way they were brought up, and even their culture.
Some people may be more introverted and more independent, like me, and might find it easier to withdraw than people with more extroverted and co-dependent personalities. Introverts are already more withdrawn in a sense, so it probably wouldn't be as hard for them to withdraw even further. Typically, introverts are more reserved with their feelings and more choosy about how they spend their time and with whom. Extroverts and those that are co-dependents would probably find themselves needing the company and affirmation of others and might, after a short time in solitude, find themselves craving that attention and maybe even going a little crazy from the depravation of a social life.
It might be different depending on the way one is brought up and culture. In certain cultures, independence and self-reliance is a huge deal and not only do they encourage it, but they also teach it, both with in the boundaries of home and school. Some religions espouse the idea of withdrawal from society - monks (catholic, Buddhist, ect) and nuns leave a life of societal norms for one of constant depravation in the form of conventional niceties like the way they dress, the things they eat, when they eat, where and when they spend their time, and especially celibacy. For nuns, this with drawl from society seems to be more of a withdrawal from the ways of the world and the society's way of living; for monks, it seems to merge more closely with hermitage.
So, in this way, withdrawal from society is entirely possible for some people given their strengths and will power; some just choose not to because they fear there is too much to lose in giving up their material wealth in exchange for deeper meaning. It is much harder to strive for the life of the hermit than to go with the flow of society's standards of living. Society has made life so easy for humans in relatively recent years. Various technological advances have made it easier to connect and interact with people, especially those in far away places. Some people may have the ability to be a hermit based on their personality, their personal standards, their culture, et cetera, but choose not to for whatever reason, be it that they find their comfortable lives hard to leave because they are lazy or because they are afraid of failure.
3/6/12
Regarding the future, what gives you the greatest anxiety and what gives you the greatest comfort? Discuss.
There are so, so many things about the future that I find terrifying, but I feel that all of them can be categorized as fear of the unknown. This almost seems to be an innate fear that man possesses, for at some point in their lives, everyone is afraid of something; and it does not follow that a person would be afraid of that which they understand. For me, this is the reason why the future gives me anxiety, because I have no idea what lies ahead and likewise no idea how to prepare myself for whatever my be in my future. One personal yet somewhat superficial example is my current feelings in regards to college acceptance. It is about that time of year when acceptance (or rejection) letters should be arriving in my mailbox. According to the majority of the college websites, letters are to be mailed out by April 1st at the latest. Now April 1st isn't even very far a way; in fact, April 1st is less than a month away. Yet these 20 something days that I need to wait feel like an eternity to me because I have no idea what to expect. If I didn’t have to wait so anxiously; If I knew by which colleges I would get rejected, by which I would be accepted, and from which I would receive scholarships, I would be able to be more prepared emotionally, mentally, ect. Thus by knowing what would happen and being able to prepare myself I wouldn't want to worry so much.
Yet in the same breath, the unknown can also be comforting. To a person who is born into a caste system, their future is set; they know what lies a head of them and, depending on where you are, this could be good or bad. But how horrible would it be to know what is going to happen to you (or at least have a very good idea of what is going to happen to you) for the rest of your life. So I guess in that way the unknown is also very comforting because although you don't know what's coming and can't always prepare yourself as well as you might like, there's always the hope that things will change and that you won't be stuck where you are. The future, although unknown to people, has the potential to bring hope for a "better tomorrow" and motivation to "try again", to "keep moving" and to keep changing and improving.
3/20/12
Can money buy happiness? Discuss.
I suppose it depends on how one defines happiness, and possibly even how happiness is differentiated from other words that are rather similar - for example, joy.
I personally would define happiness as good feelings experienced based on whatever is happening in a given situation. A person's happiness depends on whatever is happening at that specific moment in time.
I would describe joy as an over all good feeling; it does not necessarily need to have anything to do with what is happening at that moment.
I reference yoga philosophy a lot, and I feel that it is very applicable here as well. To me it seems that joy comes from a sense of inner peace and acceptance. The current circumstances (or current happenings) may not be what you anticipated for them to be, but by accepting the situation and just letting it be what it is, one can experience a form of joy despite the unpleasantness that a situation may present.
Coming back to the original question, if happiness is defined as a feeling of joy that is based upon a certain situation, then yes, money can buy happiness. At that specific moment in time, because you bought something you really wanted - or essentially got something you wanted; received some sort of gratitude from getting your way - you experience a good feeling at that specific point in time. Money has bought your happiness. But money cannot buy your internal peace, and therefore cannot buy you joy - a very different feeling from happiness.
3/22/12
Can the problems of economic activities and environmental protection ever by reconciled? Discuss.
No, they can never be reconciled. Economic theory revolves around individual self interest, while environmental preservation generally has to do with a degree of self-sacrifice. For example, the heated debate of whether or not our country should consider off shore drilling was affected by the fairly recent BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. This is a classic example of economy versus environment. In order to obtain oil to be used as fuel for motor vehicles, homes, ect, the environment is harmed by chemicals in the fossil fuels. In this way, environmental harm is inescapable. In Silent Spring, the chemical DDT and it's harmful (and even deadly) effects on the environment and all its inhabitants are brought to light in order to show that our commercial efforts in creating "better" cleaning products (an economic endeavor that attempts to get households to spend more on the latest in "cleaning technology") does not mix well with environmental factors.
One could argue that newer forms of energy are currently underway (electric cars for example) that supposedly are better for the environment. But electric cars aren't exactly environmentally friendly if you have to charge an electric car by plugging it in to your house (which uses fossil fuels) to charge it, you're still using fossil fuels, and essentially no change to the environment has been made. So even this attempt to reconcile our capitalist economy with "saving" the environment falls short.
3/23/12
While most of the world's religions offer some notion of eternal life, is the idea of living/existing forever at all frightening?
For me, it's just a crazy concept to imagine the possibility of forever, it's just strange to think about because of the way things are in this world.
From the time we're born to the time we die, we are constantly on a schedule. A fetus goes through a nine month development period that begins at fertilization and ends with the exiting of the fully grown baby from the uterus. We wake up when the sun rises or is already in the sky; we go to sleep when the sun goes down or it's already dark outside. Plants and animals alike experienced an introduction into the world and will eventually be given an escape route. Needless to say, the concept of finite time is engrained in us constantly, from the day we're born to the day we die.
As creatures of habit, humans take comfort in the idea of the familiar - an trusted friend, a family member, a dear possession…a repetitive schedule of set times and places. Humans typically like to be prepared - they like to know what's going on, and that may possibly be an evolutionary defense mechanism - the more aware you are of what's going on around you, the more able you are to protect yourself.
Because of this intrinsic nature to gravitate more towards the familiar, anything unknown is scary because it could potentially be bad. The future is (generally) unknown, and so the idea of living forever could definitely be very scary.
3/26/12
What is your greatest fear and greatest hope regarding the future of technology. Discuss.
I feel like some forms of technical advancements are necessary, and many of them have been helpful to society, such as advancements in transportation, medicine, et cetera. Clearly, there's always room for improvement in these fields, so I guess my greatest hope for the future of technology is making the technology that we already have more efficient. By this, I mostly mean more compatible with the environment, yet still able to function efficiently. At this point, we have all sorts of technology for entertainment, for medicine, for transportation, for security, but not all of it is "environment friendly". Currently, I see no reason to create new technology (with the exception of in the medical field, we could always use new, more efficient technology in the medical field). The technology that we already have is perfectly suited for it's function: making life more convenient. We don't really need more convenience in our lives; there comes a point when convenience just becomes laziness. Another hope is that this technological wealth could be more equally distributed among citizens. The problem with technology is that its distribution is typically regulated by income - technology tends to be pretty pricy, and those of the lower income brackets tend to have to give up such life-enhancing products due to lack of extra spending money.
My greatest fear is that we as a society will become more reliant on technology that we already are. In some cases, technology has become more of a crutch, no matter how helpful and expedient it is. A perfect example, I think, is the computer, and - most significantly - the internet. Search engines such as google make a wealth of information available to just about anyone with just a few key strokes and the click of a button. Students today, though, have a lot of trouble looking for information in books. Students often groan when they see that, for their research project, only 3 out of 10 sources that they have to have for their necessary citations can be from online sources. The reason why students would have this reaction is not necessarily because they hate print media altogether (many adolescents love books, actually) but because they have never actually had to search for information in print sources - it's something entirely new to them. Therefore, they're stepping into unfamiliar territory. This is only one example of how society's reliance on technology has become more of a crutch in recent years. Seeing this reliance, my fear is that one day people will be unable to think for themselves. Not because they would be unintelligent all together, but because they would be too lazy. They would want life to be so easy to the point where they're not even thinking independently or making their own choices any more; they're being spoon-fed facts, ideas, and opinions; they'd be told what to think. And this terrifies me because it makes me think of what kind of horrible things could happen if the wrong person came into power. Hitler won over the hearts of millions with his charisma and flawless orations; the people of Germany were so desperate for freedom from the extreme economic depression in their country that they were willing to believe anything he told them. He was going to bring back the old Germany; he was going to make Germany powerful again. And yet, he destroyed the lives of millions of others. I can only imagine what a man (or woman) of similar merit and sentiment could accomplish. Brainwashing an uninformed society would be easy; this political leader would only have to sound like they had all the answers.
3/27/12
While considered appropriate (and even humane) with animals, is euthanasia morally justified with humans? Discuss.
I think euthanasia is justified in humans, but only to the extent that the person receiving euthanasia treatment requests it. If a person does not want to die, that person shouldn't have to. We consider life to be one of the most fundamental human rights. But to me, it seems that death is a part of life, no matter how paradoxical that may seem. For that reason, I believe that we also have the right to death if we choose it. A person who wants to die - especially someone who experiences chronic, agonizing pain, be it physical or emotional - has the right to die. In fact, I would go as far to say that it is unethical to deny a person in extreme pain this right to death if they so request it. Many would say that it is unethical to inflict unnecessary pain. In denying a person the right to euthanasia, unnecessary pain is being inflicted based on the fact that an individual is forced to live in a condition of chronic suffering until God (or the fates, or the universe, or whatever higher power -if there is one) decides to ease their pain.
3/28/12
What are the prospects for there being other intelligent life in the universe? Discuss.
I personally think that the possibility that there is intelligent life else where in the universe is very likely. In fact, I would go even further to venture that it is foolish to believe that humans are the only intelligent life forms in an extremely vast and ever-expanding universe.
Scientists are already starting to test whether or not humans are the only intelligent life on earth itself. Although the results are not complete, they do suggest that other species have the potential to be just as intelligent, if not more intelligent. Tests on animals such as octopi, dolphins, and whales have indicated that those aforementioned animals possess intelligence of some form or another. (For example, as I have mentioned before, octopi have proven themselves to be excellent problem solvers and have found ways to escape captivity on many occasions). And when brain size is considered, it maybe possible that other species here on earth possess some form of intelligence as well. Humans consider themselves to be the most intelligent. Dogs are considered to be less intelligent than humans. The brains of dogs are smaller than humans. So on with mice and other rodents; dogs are more intelligent than mice, and the brains of dogs are significantly larger than mice. And so on with insects, and even microbes, and single celled organism. The trend is that as the brain gets smaller and smaller, the animal exhibits less and less capacity for intelligence. Considering how much larger a dolphin's brain is compared to that of a human, or a whale's brain, or even an elephant's brain, and considering the trend of brain size compared to capacity of intelligence, I feel that it is entirely possible that there is more intelligent life here, on our home planet.
So considering all of these examples of potential intelligence here that most humans do not even consider, there absolutely is a strong chance that there are other life forms in the far corners of universe, especially intelligent life. The universe is huge, the other planets and stars have had just as much time to form and grow as ours. Just taking into consideration the vastness of the universe, and the fact that the universe is still expanding today, I think it's foolish and even pompous to think that humans possess the only intelligent life, and even to think that intelligent life can only be found on earth, even if other species are included in the equation.
No comments:
Post a Comment