What We Don't Know, Scares Us

This is in response to Mariah Key's question, "Why do you think that people are uncomfortable with differences around them?".

So to answer Mariah's question, I think it would be right to say that in general, most people are uncomfortable with the unknown. Often times, prejudice stems from lack of knowledge or ignorance. Humans have a hard time stepping outside of their comfort shell and exploring the unknown. They don't want to get to know other people who don't share similar traits with them, because this would entail putting their own sense of security on the line to make another feel comfortable. Human beings have a need to feel included and accepted, but they are less willing to help others feel the same if they sense any sort of risk in doing so. As selfish creatures, people tend to watch out for their own self interest. That's why differences pose such a major problem.

Q: Do you think it would ever be possible to eliminate prejudice?

Why Ronit Herzfeld Gets Free Will Wrong

Ronit Herzfeld, a psychotherapist and writer for the Huffington Post, recently wrote an article on free will entitled, "Do You Think You Have Free Will". In it, she explains how free will can be achieved through the consciousness of one's actions; instead of only reacting, one must think about his or her actions before responding in an appropriate manner. Like a twelve step program, Herzfeld lays out all the necessary steps needed to obtain free will. The problem is, she does not know quite what she is talking about.

With all her talk of free will, Ronit Herzfeld seems to know little about the subject. She consciously pushes aside the free will v. determinism debate and creates her own understanding of free will. She writes,

"Unlike most philosophers and theologians, the question for me cannot be reduced to the duality of "yes, we can choose freely," or "no, everything is predetermined." As a psychotherapist, I have discovered that it's a matter of degrees. Your capacity for free will depends on how aware you are at any given moment"[1]

With this statement, Herzeld completley puts revels her lack of knowledge in the subject of free will. The free will v. determinism debate does not just boil down to "yes, we can choose freely," or "no, everything is predetermined". First off, this debate has many sides, including both compatibilists and incompatibilists. Secondly, predeterminism and determinism are two separate theories. And thirdly, just because it would be easier to make free will "a matter of degrees" does not mean that it is. Herfeld is confusing free will with conscious decision making. To have free will, one would have to make decisions outside of influences from nature and past experiences. The way Herzfeld writes this article, it seems as though she is advocating determinism more rather than free will. Because she does not know or confuses the topic, Ronit Herzfeld is spreading a popular, but incorrect, notion of free will.

Q: Why are so many misconceptions about philosophy ingrained in pop culture?

[1] Herzfeld, Ronit. "Do You Think You Have Free Will?" The Huffington Post. 24 Feb. 2011. Web. 26 Feb. 2011. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronit-herzfeld/free-will_b_826069.html>.

What is Beauty?

This post is in reponse to Katie's question, "What do you think is beauty and do you find yourself to be a beautiful person?"

There is an old adage that says "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder". I do not know if I actually believe in this saying. I think society has a set model of what beauty is. Beauty manifests itself in ascetically pleasing individuals. Beauty can also mean having a kind and warm demeanor and a solid sense of self. I believe that beauty is more about how a person acts towards others and themselves rather than physical appearances, but I am not naive enough to think that appearances are not important.

I have a hard time judging whether I think I am beautiful or not. I tend to think that only others can say whether someone else is beautiful. There are times when I really feel good about myself, and sometimes I have a hard time looking at myself in the mirror. I guess that at this point in my life, I have not figured out who I am yet, so I really cannot say I am a beautiful person because I am unsure of myself.

Q: Why do you believe the many artists (singers, dancers, actors/actresses are also considered beautiful?

The Human Concept of Wealth

         In his blog, Griffin posted the question, "What other human concepts are there that we use to define ourselves and the world?'. His post was a response to Jenny Beers question about the concept of marriage and why or if humans choose to be alone.
         To answer Griffin's question, other human concept that we use to define ourselves and the world are wealth, status, and birth. Wealth is the common denominator used all around the world to create social hierarchies Especially in capitalist countries, the more wealth one has the more power they amass. The most wealthy individuals have the greatest amount of resources and influence to change the world. All one has to do is look at Oprah or Bill Gates to see how much power wealth entails.
          Status, which often goes along with wealth, is another human concept that humans use to define each other. Social status in many countries defines one's place in society. Although it is often possible for one to move up and down the social ladder, one's social status can have a large impact on his or her life. Social status creates opportunities for those ranked near the top, while destroying it for those ranked near the bottom.
           Birth, in connection to wealth and social status, plays a major role in how humans view one another. In older societies especially in Europe, birth decided everything. Now in modern times, birth counts for less, but those born into richer families often receive more and often better opportunities then those born to parents of middle or lower class origins.

Q: Why do you believe that the people of poorer countries are often happier then their counterparts in wealthier societies?

The Flaw with "The Flaw of Fatalism"

In one of the sections on Naturalism.org called Three Strikes Against Fatalism there is an article called "The Flaw of Fatalism". In this article the author, Thomas W. Clark, argues that fatalism is flawed because one's desires and rationality influence one's actions, contrary to fatalistic thinking. Clark writes,

"But desire and rationality – unlike the independent, freely willing agent – are not powerless, far from it. By being embedded in the causal matrix they inevitably have their effects, and a strong, skillfully pursued desire can have far-reaching effects indeed". [1]

This quote, along with the rest of the article, reminded me of Wednesday's discussion and how the class tried to reconcile free will and determinsim. At one point in the class, a student asked why cannot free will and determinsim be integrated on the idea that although actions are influenced by prior events, people think about their actions, and thus their thoughts and desires guide them in making decisions? The response was that humans' biology were determined at birth, thus all there thoughts and actions being a byproduct of the brain, were also determined at brith. That is why desires and thoughts are not agents of free will.
        In Clarks' article, he tries to say that people's thoughts and desires have a major influence on their actions. While this is true, it is also true that their actions cannot be changed by thought and desires if one believes in determinism. And as one's thoughts and desires have already been determined, the circumstances of the world would have to be completely different is one's thougths and desires would have an influence on actions.
       Although I can see many problems with fatalism, I find it hard to follow Clarks' logic in expelling it. So for my question I ask "Is fatalism the opposite of free will and/or determinism?

[1]

Clark, Thomas W. "Free Will: Three Strikes Against Fatalism." Naturalism_Org. Center for Naturalism, 98. Web. 19 Feb. 2011. <http://www.naturalism.org/freewill.htm

---

Murder is Wrong No Matter the Circumstances

Lauren asked an interesting question over whether it would still be bad to kill people if it meant preventing potential murders of innocent people in the future. As aways, I have to respond that no matter the circumstances, murder is morally wrong. No one has the right to play "God". Humans being equal on this ground cannot decide the fate of others. While it is true that in some situations, the killing of another can be justified, but the morally of the act does not alter.

Q: If someone kills another in self defense, should they still receive punishment for their actions?

Are Meat Eaters Cannibals?

In response to Shannon's question, I believe that while her theory about humans being cannibals by eating animal flesh is interesting and thought provoking, it is not entirely true. Humans, unless they eat other humans, are not cannibals; they are omnivores. If the classification for being a cannibal was that the individual or thing had only to eat meat, many animals like lions and dogs would also be considered cannibals.

The cannibal theory, while debatablee does hint on a major philosophical issue about human consumption of animal flesh. Although humans have the capacity to eat meat, the morality behind it is still up for debate. By comparing meat eaters to cannibals, Shannon invokes the monstrous nature of consuming animal flesh. Normally, whenever I think about cannibalism, I naturally think of Hannibal in the Silence of the Lambs. Maybe cannibalism can take on a different form? I still, however, think eating meat is not cannibalism.

Q: If consuming animal flesh is morally wrong, is it also wrong to consume animal byproducts such as milk?

To Trust or Not to To Trust

Griffen asked to question whether it is better to be too trusting or not trusting enough. The answer to that question is neither. Too much trust in others puts an individual at the mercy of other people. This leaves the individual extremely vulnerable and leads to self-doubt. Individuals in this situation often feel betrayed and hurt when their trust is broken. Too little trust is a whole other issue. Without trust, individuals are constantly suspicious of others, and they withdraw from the rest of the world. They are often victims of betrayal. They tend to adapt the whole "the only person I can trust is myself" attitude and turn bitter as a result. The best way to avoid both extremes is to establish a balance between the two. Creating emotional boundaries between oneself and others allows for a substantial amount of trust to be formed without sacrificing a sense of self. Being sure of oneself is the best way to prevent someone from going to either trust extreme.

My Strange Reaction to "Earthlings: A Documentary"

So yesterday I decided, on a whim, to watched the documentary "Earthlings". Having been posted on Professor Johnson's blog since Thursday, the link to the documentary had the description "Powerful and disturbing (warning: graphic images of animal abuse)". I knew going in what the documentary was all about. I had already read both The Food Revloution by John Robbins and Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser and watched PETA promotional videos on the fur and medical industries' abuse of animals. Yet somehow, I still managed to eat meat on a daily basis. Maybe I was immune to this kind of thing. All throughout my life, I was never really effected by disturbing images or accounts of brutality. I was one of the few kids in high school who could watch footage of the Holocaust without closing my eyes. For me, the most disturbing material was like watching a train wreck; again and again I would never looked away even though I was horrified by what I was seeing. Then, after reading or watching the accounts of brutality and abuse, I would always be fired up, wanting to bring justice to the victims and punish the offenders. Yet, after a couple of hours, I would forget about the whole thing. As sad as it was, I was always true.

The same thing occurred after watching the Earthlings" documentary. Throughout the program, I was aghast at the treatment of animals by humans. I would often turn my head away in shame and disgust; I did not want to be associated with my own species. For me, the most powerful and frightful images were of the dog being thrown into the garbage truck to be crushed to death and the killing of the cow in the supposed kosher factory. I was so sick to my stomach after about ten minutes of the film, but I forced myself to watch the whole thing. Upon finishing the documentary, I swore that I would never eat meat again or wear animal products. I went to dinner and ate a salad, while silently criticizing everyone around me eating meat.
Unfortunately, my animal rights crusade lasted less than twenty four hours. After rugby practice this afternoon, I went to dinner with my team and ordered a turkey sandwich. I had forgotten all about my pledge to stop eating meat. I know that I am a hypocrite, but eating the sandwich did not disturb me as much as I thought it would. Like many other times in my life, I had suppressed all of those horrible images I had seen not even a day before.

Upon reflection, I started to think about my actions and wondered if Nazis in Germany during WWII had the same reaction to the Holocaust that I did to the "Earthlings" documentary. Just like myself, they continuously participated in atrocities without expressing guilt or shame. Q: I began to wonder if it was part of human nature to detach oneself from situations in which humans commit inhumane crimes against each other and non humans?

Killing for the Good

"What is your view on people killing to rid the world of evil so good can prosper?"- Mariah Key

In response to Mariah Key's question, I would have to say that it is wrong to kill, no matter the circumstances. Murder is morally wrong; no one has the right to take another's life. Gandhi famously said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". Just because someone commits an evil act, it does not make it okay to retaliate. By ridding the world of evil through evil means such as murder, evil  grows stronger. Although the evil individual might be destroyed, the evil is only transferred from the victim to the murderer because the murderer has now committed a sin. It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions; killing to rid the world of evil so good can prosper is still morally wrong and is not reasonable enough justification to condone the act of murder.

Q:  Do you believe that it is within human rights to sentence criminals to the death penalty?

Trustworthy People

Katie Russell posted an interesting question on her blog asking whether there could be such a thing as a trustworthy individual. In her post, she alluded to the belief that no one is trustworthy and the only person you can trust in is yourself. While it is true that there are those who are not worthy of anyone's trust, I happen to believe that trustworthy people do exist. For instance everyday, millions of children trust in their parents to keep them safe and have their basic needs met. If every parent was untrustworthy, all the children would be on their own taking care of themselves, which is not the case. Obviously, there are certain people who are not trustworthy at all and take advance of others for their own personal gains. Yet if everyone was only looking out for themselves, this world would not exist.
There is saying that goes "Trust is hard to gain but easily lost". For many, it only takes one small instance to completely lose trust in another. Sometimes however, the breaking of the trust bond is necessary to eventually strengthen the relationship. The most well known example of this is when an individual gets help for someone who is thinking about committing suicide, even though that someone asks the individualal not to tell anyone. Even though the individual broke a certain someone's trust, in the long run it will actually increase the individual's trustworthiness because the individual had the certain someone's best interest in mind.

Q: Are love and trust one in the same?

Harm v. Suffering

All living things have the ability to be harmed. From weeds and ticks to monkeys and humans, all living organisms can be harmed by others. For example, every time a woodpecker pecks a tree it ends up destroying a part of  the tree. When a human kills an animal for food the human is causing the animal harm. The main difference between these two examples is that the woodpecker can only harm the tree. The human, by killing the animal, causes the animal both harm and suffering. All animals have the ability to suffer because they all have the capacity to feel pain. Plants, unlike animals, cannot. This is why it is easier for humans to justify the killing plants over the killing of animals. The plants might be harmed when they are killed for human purposes, but when the plants are killed, they feel no pain. No matter how quickly or humanly a human kills an animal however, the animal still feels pain upon death. The ability for animals to suffer raises the moral status of animals over other living things.
While all animals can be harm and experience suffering, not all animals suffer the same.  When comparing a mosquito to another animal such as the dog, the dog is given a higher moral status because it has more ways it can suffer. A dog can be put through endless amounts of cruelty lasting years; a mosquito has the life expectancy of one day. Even if a mosquito is subjected to pain, its short life span prevents it from experiencing the kind of suffering capable of dogs and other more complex animals.

Q: In some respect, do certain plants have a higher moral status over specific animals?