Post #12 - Evolutionary Ethics

Evolutionary psychology tries to incorporate the ideas of both philosophy and the natural sciences. It claims that human beings, through natural selection, have been instilled with a moral sense and the disposition to be good. This idea could prove that our morality is not the result of ‘divine revelation’ but an evolutionary phenomenon of intelligent human beings. This morality was a useful adaptation which put the holder at a selective advantage. This article proposes that one of the ethical classes should be called descriptive ethics. Descriptive ethics could outline ethical beliefs held by many people and why they are held. The example the article gave was the one about incest where most human cultures believe this is wrong. This belief is probably held by so many different cultures because of the consequences of incest like birth defects and mental illnesses. This belief could have been passed down because following it gave the people a better survival advantage. The standard that could be used to defend evolutionary psychology is: “Actions that increase the long-term capacity of survival in evolutionary terms are good and actions that decrease this capacity are bad.”

The article Whose Life Would You Save, by Carl Zimmer, is based on the ideas of Joshua Green. Green is a philosopher at Princeton who studies peoples’ brain activity while posing the question on who they would save or kill. He explains that when you are making moral judgments, it is not only your reasoning centers which are working but also you emotions. Greed explains that it is our emotions that trigger the instinctive response which are the products of millions of years of evolution. This article presents a couple morally challenging examples then asks why the action seems so right in one situation and so wrong in the other one. Green describes that the answer to this question is not found in the logic of moral judgment but in the role our emotions play in forming them. He also explained that killing someone with your bare hands was recognized to be immoral millions of years ago. This is the reason we don’t even have to think about most of the moral judgments because they are so ingrained in us that we answer automatically.

Green discovered that impersonal moral decisions were made in the logic center of the brain, in this way people could figure out the answer to questions evolution hasn’t ingrained into us. The personal moral question affected three different areas of the brain. The center that is used to understand what other people are thinking or feeling, the center which analyzes information about people based on how they move their lips, eyes and hands, and the third center that was stimulate is the one that deals with peoples strong emotions. Green believed that these regions are part of the neural network that produces the emotional instinct behind our moral choices. He proposes that when our emotional network says no but our reasoning center says yes, we get trapped in a moral struggle.

I found that article about Green to be very fascinating! I love Neuropsychology or Neuroethics or whatever people want to call it. I responded to the trolley story with yes I would flip the switch but no I wouldn’t push a fat person in front of it. It took me a while to come up with the second answer, not because I was having a moral struggle but because I was so amazed by the comparison. My brain doesn’t work like a philosopher’s; I can’t come up with all these great scenarios to present to people. I also enjoyed reading about the monkeys which were proven to understand fairness. I would rather take a grape over a cucumber but I don’t think I would throw it back at the researcher. The cucumber is better than nothing. My dad is very interested in evolutionary psychology, so I told him the monkey story. In return he told me about how monkeys have a leader and how they listen to this one person. This is a very abridged version of what he told me and I’m not sure I could do it justice. If the leader decides they are going to attack the neighboring monkeys and kill them, the monkeys will do it. We laughed about how similar we are to monkeys.

Post #11 - Human Cloning

The website on cloning gave Dolly the lamb as the example. Dolly was cloned through the somatic cell nuclear transfer process. This means that her DNA came from a single cell that was taken from the mother egg and was then fused with a mammary cell. The fused cells then develop into an embryo which is then transplanted into a surrogate sheep. This embryo then grew into ‘Dolly’ who is genetically identical to the donor sheep. This can, in theory, also be done in human beings. A cell from a donor is taken and the DNA from this cell is removed and transferred into an unfertilized egg. This egg, with the donor’s DNA in it, is then implanted into a surrogate mother and the resulting baby is then genetically identical to the original donor.

Human cloning technology could be used to determine the causes of spontaneous abortions and understand the rapid cell growth caused by cancer. This technology could also be used study the process of aging, genetics, and to regenerate damaged tissues. There are several arguments again human cloning. Some scientists argue that this process would result in a large number of miscarriages and deaths of newborns. There is also a high concern that there would be an increase in the black marker for embryos. Scientist are also afraid that the clone’s chromosome would match the age of the donors chromosome, which would put them at risk for the same chromosomal disorders, just at a younger age.

There are several religious and ethical arguments regarding human cloning and how it would change our world. The Catholic Church believes that any type of cloning is “intrinsically evil.” They also think that the scientists are trying to ‘play God’ and the clone isn’t manufactured in the image of God. Jewish people fear that cloning humans might harm the family by changing the roles and the relationships between family members. Protestants believe that the Bible says that ‘children should be conceived within a marital union between opposite sexes.’ A Muslim doctor explains that he does not think there should be a limit on scientific nature because ‘knowledge is bestowed on us by God.’ Other Islamic individuals do not believe in human cloning because it might interfere with kinship, which is a key concept in Islamic law.

Some of the ethical arguments against human cloning are that it may cause physical harm to the embryo because the technology is not safe enough to use on humans. They also argue that the child might have psychological problems and suffer a diminished sense of individuality and personal autonomy. The issue that parents might not love the clones as much as they would their children. Opponents to this issue bring up the fact that this is the only chance an infertile couple has to reproduces, so they would definitely love this clone. Another ethical problem with cloning is that it may cause such social problems as cloning becoming the preferred practice of conceiving a child because it is a sure way to have a child that you want. Some supporters of human cloning point out the fact that the benefits to the society of cloning an exceptional scientist or an intellectual outweigh the potential harms.

Human cloning became a main topic in governmental discussions in 1997 after ‘Dolly’ was made public. Former president Clinton called for a bill to ban any type of implantation of cloned cells into the female womb for the next five years. The National Bioethics Advisory Commission, which was created in 1995 provided some recommendations for the government. They said that at this time, human cloning is morally unacceptable for anyone. They suggested requesting any private or non-federally funded sectors to comply voluntarily. Members of the senate proposed banning human cloning forever since “creating multiple copies of God’s unique handiwork devalues human dignity and turns children into mere products of adult’s whims.” Other members of the Senate proposed a ban on somatic cell nuclear transfer but support the scientific community in research not involving human cloning. The majority of the scientific research community believes that these bans on human cloning would limit crucial research.

The topic of human cloning was discussed on the Charlie Rose show where he had a debate between Dr. Harold Varmus, who was a former director at the National Institution of Health, and the Republican Senator Sam Brownback. Senator Brownback, from Kansas, was a supporter of the bill that President Bush proposed banning all human cloning. Dr. Varmus does not support this bill because he believes human cloning could be very beneficial for our society. He discusses that the president and many of the senators do not understand the difference between human cloning with the intent of making a new human being and using the same techniques to generate materials which would deepen the scientific community’s understanding of human development and diseases. Dr. Varmus believes that using this technique could allow us to generate cells which can then be used in medical therapies. Senator Brownback fought back making the same point to every argument. In my opinion he had a very weak argument because he kept referring to the ‘clump of cells’ as a fetus. I don’t believe he has a very strong scientific background and can not understand how important this cloning technique could be to us for future therapies. Senator Brownback did have a good argument asking the doctor when he thought that clump of cells actually turned into a living human being.

Post #10 - Peter Singer on abortion, euthanasia, and poverty

Peter Singer is a modern day philosopher whose theories on abortion, euthanasia and the issue of poverty have started many heated debates. Singer believed that the right to life is intrinsically tied to a being’s capacity to hold preference, which is the same as the being’s capacity to feel pain and pleasure. On the topic of abortions he argues that it is wrong to kill an innocent human being, the embryo is human and alive, and that killing the embryo is morally wrong. His argument for pro-choice gets a bit complicated because he argues that killing an innocent human being is not a wrong moral decision. Singer points out that abortion is not a question of the woman’s right to choose, since it is not a question of individual liberty. He is a utilitarian so he believes that a moral decision can only be made once the person has weighed the preferences of the mother against the preferences of the fetus. Singer defines a preference as anything that can be obtained or avoided and deals directly with the person’s satisfaction or frustration. Singer argues since a fetus up to the 18^th week can not feel satisfaction or experience suffering; therefore it does not have preferences. Comparing this lack of preference against the mother’s comes to the conclusion that it is the mother’s choice and getting an abortion is not morally wrong. He also explains that since an infant does not have the essential characteristics of a person, such as rationality, autonomy, or self-consciousness, they are not actually considered a person yet. Therefore, killing a fetus is not the same as killing a person.

Singer also has strong opinions on euthanasia, which are also called mercy killings or assisted suicide. According to Singer, euthanasia can be classified into three different types: voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is that which occurs under the consent of the person being killed. Singer brought up the Dr. Jack Kevorkian case which caused a lot of controversy in the 90’s. He built a machine which would help a person end their life with a flip of a switch. It was a quick and painless death with a drug that caused a coma stage then a lethal drug which ended the person’s life. Many patients chose to use this machine because it was a better choice than to suffer a prolonged death with cancer or Alzheimer’s disease. A person can make a written request for euthanasia in case of an accident or illness should leave them unable to express their decision to die. A preference utilitarian, like Singer, is in favor of voluntary euthanasia. Involuntary euthanasia is when a person is able to give their consent to assisted-suicide but does not do so. They are either not asked or their decision to keep on living is ignored. Singer explains that the only way this type of euthanasia can be justified is if the person does not know the suffering they will be put through and then therefore have to deal with it until their natural death. Non-voluntary euthanasia is when a person is not able to make the decision between living and dying. Singer provided the excellent example of a baby’s suffocation leading to brain damage. This baby was connected to a respirator for 8 months when his father disconnected it and cradled him until he died. The baby was so brain damaged that it might not have even been able to feel suffering. If the baby lived, the family would have suffered the consequences for the rest of the baby’s life. Using Singer’s reasoning this type of non-voluntary euthanasia is morally just. Ending the baby’s life caused to least amount of suffering for everyone involved in the situation.

Singer’s stance on poverty is that anyone who makes a lot of money should donate part of their salary to the poor. Living in absolute poverty is very difficult for a person; therefore, anyone who can afford it should help alleviate some of this pain. He argues that once someone is living a comfortable life, purchasing increase comfort is not as morally just as saving another person’s life. He gives an example of a movie where a homeless Brazilian boy was taken to an adoption agency and the lady who took him received a thousand dollars for him. This lady then went and bought herself a new television with the money. She was then told that he was actually too old to be adopted and instead he would be killed and his organs sold. Singer compared this to the movie goers who after watching this movie went back to their wealthy lives. These wealthy individuals could have donated their extra money to an organization that would have fed homeless children in Brazil, just like the one in the movie. Singer also proposes that if you give up dining out for a month you can save a child’s life with that much money. He explains that an American household on average spends $30,000 a year on necessities. The rest of that families income could be used to help the world’s poor. Singer says that if we donate the money that we don’t need, we’ll be living a morally decent life.

Post #9 - Peter Singer

Peter Singer is a modern day Australian philosopher who studies applied ethics. He believes that ethics is something that matters. It affects your life in an everyday manner from how you act to what you eat. He is a utilitarianist; therefore, he is interested in minimizing and eliminating pain and suffering from all living beings. Singer is a preference utilitarianist who defines a morally right action to be one that produces the most favorable consequences for all the people who are involved. Preference utilitarianists believe that every person’s experience of satisfaction is unique; therefore, such ethical issues as abortion and euthanasia are not clear cut.

Singer’s views on animal-rights started after a lunch with a fellow classmate who was a vegetarian. He does not like using another group of living beings in a certain way just for us to use. Why is it that we don’t lock humans up in crates, in dark spaces, just for food? The PETA video defined speciesism as the assumption that humans are superior to other species or to dominate other species. Singer believes that speciesism is like racism where a dominant group which has the power to exploit an inferior group. This group also gives itself all the valuables and denies the other group of the same values. He believes that we should not allow or cause suffering at any other species. He argues that all beings with interests are entitled to equal consideration to what you would give to someone from your own species. Singer explains that when it comes to morals you should put yourself in the position of the other person being affected and the people surrounding this person. Then weigh your options and make your moral decision from there. Singer also points out that you can not discriminate against something based on the idea that it has wings or because it has fur no more than discriminating based on skin color or sex. He also argued that we are not superior to animals just because we are more intelligent. There are human beings who are considerably less intelligent because of mental disorders, but we still treat them as humans.

The PETA video also quoted Charles Darwin by saying “Emotions and faculties such as love, memory, curiosity, and reason may be found well developed in animals.” It makes sense that Darwin would be saying something like this because he is the first one who proposed the idea of biological evolution. In David Lane’s essay, The Central Nervous System, he gives a neuro-evolutionary argument for vegetarianism. He explained that we are able to feel pain because we have a central nervous system which oversees what our bodies feel and directs how our bodies will react. Lane believes that we do not eat other humans because we can empathize with their pain. Since we do not see our dinner being killed right in front of us, we do not emphasize with these animals. He also points out that we do not eat animals like dolphins and apes because we can empathize with them since they are animals with higher intelligence. Lane argues that we do not need to eat animals to have a substantial diet, therefore, we shouldn’t eat anything that has a central nervous system and can feel pain.

Singer focused on the aspect of speciesism, whereas, Lane focused on the neuro-evolutionary aspect of eating animals. Lane tried to appeal to our emotions by offering emotional examples like someone coming over to your house and eating your husband, dog, or apple. He tries to argue that there is no need for eating animals because our diet/health is fine without meat. Lane also brings up the fact that a vegetarian diet is a better health and economic choice for our civilized society. Lane finishes his essay with the topic of animal testing. He is against animal testing for the same reasons Singer is, we shouldn’t test anything on animals that we wouldn’t test on humans first. Animals have a central nervous system and can feel pain the same way we can, so we shouldn’t feel superior to them and use them for our benefit. It seems like Lane has more of a religious reason for not eating meat, seeing that he is a Hindu. Singer’s position is from a utilitarian point of view, as in, he is condoning the elimination of pain and suffering from this world.

Post #8- World Religions

Taoism:

Taoism is a religion that originated from East Asia over two thousand years ago. Their religious rules cover ethics, ‘the personal values of the individual,’ and morality, ‘the communal norms and social values of the organization.’ They have rules that range from the basic moral rules against murder and theft to how to eat, bow, and wash. Taoism also teaches its followers how to have altruistic thoughts and how to think the Dao. Taoists are big believers in following the natural order of things and living in harmony with all the universal elements. To ensure that their desires and compulses do not push them into doing something, Taoists do not initiate any actions. I like the Taoist ideal that a person should take action to change themselves and therefore becoming an example of the good life to others. I agree with this idea. This idea doesn’t require you to preach to random strangers or go door-to-door saving people. I believe that what you do and how you act is a better way to show your moral standing than by the number of individuals you can convert to your religion.

Buddhism:

Buddhism is a religion based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha who lived circa the fifth century BCE. There are two major schools of Buddhism: Mahayana and Theravada. There are also several schools under these two main ones, which makes trying to pinpoint their ethical views difficult. Most traditional Buddhists believe that abortions are immoral because it involves deliberately destroying a life. Buddhists believe that the act of the abortion will bring both the mother and the doctor bad karma. The website also explains that bad karma is brought to the baby as well because it does not have a chance at an earthly life. Buddhists teach the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth which can only be broken through enlightenment. I have never thought of an abortion bringing bad karma onto the baby, but I understand that from their point of view, the fetus was returned to the death phase. I’m not a big supporter of abortions but I can understand special circumstances like rape and serious birth defects. I’m not a very religious person but I heard a pastor say something once that has stuck with me so far. He said, “How do you know that the baby you are aborting wasn’t meant to be the next Einstein or find the cure to cancer or AIDS.” I really liked how Buddhists believe that souls are reborn as animals because of their past misdeeds. Does that mean that the jerk that cut you off on the freeway is going to come back as a snail?

Hinduism:

Hinduism is on of the oldest religions which has nearly 900 million members and started in modern day Pakistan. They believe in a universal eternal soul called Brahman, who has several different forms. Hindus believe that the sour passes through a cycle of successive lives and your life is dependent on your previous life. Like with Buddhism, Hinduism has branched many different directions, so not all schools will have the same ethical beliefs. In regards to abortions, many Hindus would choose the action that will do the least harm to the mother, father, the fetus, and society. We can look at this in modern day terms. Would you rather have a crack-whore have a baby who will also be addicted to crack and most likely suffer birth defects, or allow her to abort it? I really like the program that was started in San Francisco where crack-whores are given money to have their tubes tied. Our society will benefit from this in the long run. Hindus like to take the route of least harm but they believe that the fetus and its soul are joined at conception. Reading the war section in Hinduism was quite interesting to me. The idea of Karma is kind of like an excuse for violence. They believe that any unkindness a person carries out will return to them in the future because it is the natural law of the universe. This makes it okay for them to attack someone who has been unkind to them. However, Hinduism has the first written record about peace.

Sikhism:

I felt really ignorant when I opened the website on this religion because I have never heard of it. Sikhism is a religion with about 20 million members, most of whom live in the Punjab province of India. It was founded in the 16^th century by Guru Nanak and his nine followers. Sikhs are against any form of interference with God’s creative work, such as abortions, euthanasia, and suicide. I think it’s a bit contradictory that they would be against those ideas yet not have an objection to birth control. I mean don’t get me wrong, I think birth control is great! Many Sikhs still have abortions and it is often female fetuses because of the cultural preference of having sons. I don’t want to have any girls either and I want at least three boys but I still wouldn’t abort a female fetus. Then again I was raised in a different culture and can not pass judgment on them. I like the fact that this religion does not set down detailed answers to ethical questions but sets the general principle and framework so the Sikhs can answer the questions for themselves.

Judaism:

Judaism has 12 million followers worldwide and it originated from the Middle East over 3500 years ago. They only believe in abortions for serious reasons and it can only take place after a rabbi is consulted. Judaism is very concerned with the sanctity of a human life. Many Jews would like to see abortions banned since killing the fetus would break God’s command to populate this world; it also kills something God imagine and created. Judaism looks at animals as God’s creation and should be treated with compassion. The Talmud specifically instructs Jews not to harm animals. It does however allow the killing of animals to fulfill the essential human need of nutrition. I do disagree with the Jews on the idea of circumcision. I don’t mind the actually idea of it but I don’t think it should be a public event. I think it should be done the day of the birth, in a sterile environment, without an audience. I don’t think this is a celebration. The portion on Tay Sachs disease was really interesting to me. Tay Sachs disease is a common genetic disorder in Jewish children which causes the progressive destruction of the central nervous system and eventually leads to death. I don’t like the idea that Judaism discourages couples from getting married because they are both carriers of the disorder. These couples just shouldn’t have children together; they should take advantage of adoption services.

Islam:

Islam started over 1400 years ago in Mecca and is the second largest religion in the world with over a billion followers. Islam actually means ‘submission to the will of God.’ This phrase has been skewed in awful ways be people looking for power and control over Muslim countries. Muslims believe that abortions are wrong and they forbid them except for serious circumstances. The only reason that a fetus can be aborted after day 120 is if the mother’s life would be put in danger. The Muslim religion is big on family and thinks of children as gifts from God. Most of the schools permit contraceptives. The Muslim population is the largest religious group to circumcise boys and they think of it as an introduction to faith and a sign of belonging. I read Kite Runner earlier this summer and I didn’t really catch it then but that was one of the insults the bullies used against the servant. It really makes sense now. The fact that he wasn’t circumcised enforced the idea that he was from a lower class. Muslims do not believe in euthanasia because God chooses how long each person should live, therefore, we can not interfere with this process.

Christianity:

Christianity is the biggest religion in the world with over 2 billion followers. They believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God who was sent to the earth to save humanity from the consequences of our sins. Christians believe that there is one God but three parts to this one God: Father, Son, and The Holy Spirit. There are many schools of Christianity all differing in their opinions about ethical issues. The Church of England strongly opposes abortions but recognizes that there are severe circumstances which require it. The Roman Catholic Church’s opinion on abortion is that it is ‘gravely contrary to moral law.’ In recent years the Christian Church has changed its position on capital punishment and no longer supports it stating that Christianity supports life. I like the fact that the Christian Church supports organ donations, since they see it as being helpful and charitable. I didn’t know this, but Quakers have allowed same-sex marriages since 1987 and now the Methodist Church has opened up the debate again. I think the rest of the Christian Churches should re-evaluate their stance and accept the fact that times have changed and we need to be more open-minded on this issue.

Post #7 - Nietzsche

Friedrich Nietzsche was a 19^th-century German philosopher who wrote texts on religion, morality, contemporary culture, and science. His father was a pastor and brought him up in a Christian environment, but once Nietzsche started college he lost his faith. Nietzsche argued that historical research had discredited the central teachings of Christianity. He didn’t want to destroy morality but rather initiate a re-evaluation of the values of Judeo-Christianity. Nietzsche viewed Christianity as a hypocritical state where people preached love and kindness, but found their joy in condemning and punishing others for pursuing impulses that they, as Christians, are not allowed to act upon.

He became the Chair of Classical Philology at University of Basel at 24 but had to resign due to health problems. Later on in his life he exhibited symptoms of serious mental illness and had to be taken care of by his mother and sister. His book called the Vision of Nietzsche is out of print but his writings can still be found on the internet. I have read some of these passages and have written a quick summary and interpretation of each.

1. Death of God:

The God is dead quote is about a madman who ran with a lit lantern into the market-place looking for God where he was ridiculed by a couple non-believers. The madman was crying out that they were all murderers, that they all killed God, and how where they supposed to console themselves after such a crime. These comments left the non-believers silent and in deep thought. This quote is about the death of God in the heart of modern man due to the rationalism and advances in science. Nietzsche states that these same people used to have “Christian-morals” but these same morals have lead to the death of God. A new approach had to be taken where a new set of values are set in place which are faithful the values of the earth.

2. Truth:

This passage was very difficult for me to understand, but I’ll give it a try. It starts off by explaining a planet where clever animals invented knowledge, and after a minute this star grew cold and died. It then talks about nature and how this world existed before our human intellect and how it will still continue after we die out. It talks about how the world does not revolve around us, even if we think it does. I like when it points out that the mosquito which flies around the room also probably thinks that it is flying around the center of the world. Nietzsche goes on to explain that if we actually had real knowledge about this world, then we would want to leave it as soon as possible. Our world is full of vanity and we want everything we can get our hands on. This vanity is a great escape from the reality of things and gives us something to focus on besides the truth about the world around us. Our vision of the world is not the ‘truth’, but a vision that is spoiled by our prejudice.

3. Morality as Anti-Nature:

The passage on Morality as Anti-Nature was also a difficult concept to understand. I think it’s talking about how Christians feel they have to destroy the ‘passions and cravings’ in order to prevent themselves from doing something they’ll regret and suffer the consequences of these actions. Nietzsche explains that Christians do not have good self-control and have to follow strict rules to behave ‘morally.’ Ascetics are the ones who came up with these rules because they wanted to be able to punish anyone who was freely living out their passions. He focused on the idea that Christian moral value system in Europe had changed and the present morality was an inversion of the true and noble morality.

4. Jesus:

The passage on Jesus explains the Christian way of life. They are promised ‘eternal bliss’ if they live their lives as Christians. They do not hate anyone, don’t get angry with anyone, and love their neighbors. Nietzsche explained that Jesus lived his life and died in this manner so he could teach mankind how to live and not to just save them. Jesus understood that his crucifixion was all planned out by God, so he did not try to fight it or show anger towards his accusers. This is where the phrase: “What would Jesus do?” comes from. Jesus lived a Christian life, knowing that everything has already been planned out by God. Therefore, he did not fight any of the horrible things that were happening to him and he showed love to every individual who crossed his path. I think Nietzsche is using sarcasm when he is praising Jesus for these attributes. He feels these are all demonstrations of how Christians have taken on the slave-morality where meekness and subservience. Nietzsche called for an “Anti-Christian” morality for the future with the transvaluation of all values.

5. Paul:

Nietzsche wrote these two passages about Paul to show how he corrupted the image of Jesus into the image of “Jesus Christ” through his resurrection and second-coming. Nietzsche brings up a comparison between Buddhism and Christianity. He says that Buddhism offers nothing while Christianity promises everything but fulfills none of it. He accused Paul of inventing ‘his own history of Christian beginnings’ and of using his standing as a priest to reach out for more power. Nietzsche believed that Paul set up the belief of the immortality of the soul and therefore, the ‘doctrine of judgment.’ I don’t think Nietzsche’s ideas or accusations are too outlandish since the Bible was written by humans. Humans are not perfect or completely innocent, so I can see why Nietzsche would believe that Paul would use his position to gain more power.

6. Myth of Eternal Recurrence:

This passage is about a demon sneaking into your dreams and telling you that you will have to relive this life over and over again. Everything will be the same every time you live your life. What would you do if the demon told you this? Would you curse him or take this as your ultimate eternal confirmation? In this passage I think Nietzsche is trying to explain to the reader that living a Christian life of abstinence is not something one would want to re-live over and over again. He thinks that an individual should only consider their life when trying to decide what action to take. Nietzsche is criticizing the Christian view of the afterlife, where the believers are supposed to give up their immediate happiness for the reward in the afterlife.

7. Free Spirit:

I believe Nietzsche is referring to himself and other philosophers like him, who do not believe in the Christian morality, as the ‘free spirits.’ Passage 343 is about him rejoicing at the fact that ‘God is dead.’ Nietzsche explained that most people don’t know what this death of God actually means; they do not realize that the Europe they live in has been built on these Christian morals. He talks about how the free spirits don’t even understand what this means but they see it as a kind of new light and exhilaration about the changes which are about to come. Nietzsche states that these free spirits can finally come out of hiding and they are finally allowed to be lovers of knowledge. Nietzsche sees the death of the ‘old God’ as the dawning of a new way of life, where free spirits will be able to live without the passing judgment of Christians.

Post #6 - Karl Marx

Karl Marx was a 19^th century philosopher who was often called the ‘father of communism.’ In his book, The Communist Manifesto (1848), Marx argues that capitalism will produce tension between the classes which will lead to its destruction. He believed that capitalism would be replaced by communism, the classless society. Marx predicted that before this switch happens there would be a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, or the ‘workers’ democracy.’ The workers’ democracy is the period when the proletariat (working class) replaces the current political system which is controlled by the bourgeoisie (propertied class.) The bourgeoisies were the land owners in Western Europe and the proletariats were the working class which had to sell their labor power in exchange for wages. The bourgeois society, or capitalism, sprouted from the ruins of the feudal society and increased the struggle between the classes.

Marx believed that capitalism was immoral because it encouraged the separation of classes. The bourgeoisies not only owned the forces of production, or the land, natural resources and technology necessary for material production, but they also had the relations of production. These are the social and technical relationships people have acquired as a means of production. Marx believed that the social relationships of production not only destroy relations between individuals but also between different classes. He was also concerned with the working classes’ alienation from their own nature, or spiritual loss, due to their loss of ownership of their own labor. Marx describes that under capitalism, social relationships among and between workers and capitalists (bourgeois) is harmed because it is mediated by the buying and selling of commodities, including labor, on the market. The capitalist mode of production developed in Europe because people had to sell their labor-power in order to make money to survive because they no longer possessed their own land. These workers are not only selling the product of their labor, but their capacity to work. The capitalist system results in a class system where the individuals who own the land and technology, maintain the power over the working class. Marx also discusses that the working class is suppressed because they do not have time to come up with new ideas, while the bourgeoisies are able to follow their interests since they do not have to spend time working. The capitalist system is also immoral because when the rate of profits falls and results in a depression, it is the working class that suffers since the price of labor also falls.

Marx believed that a moral society could be started in Europe if the proletariats stood up and revolted against the bourgeois. He pointed out that the cycle of growth and collapse which came with improved means of production only made the capitalists richer and the working class poorer. He encouraged the proletariats to seize the means of production because they would encourage social relations that would benefit everyone equally. Marx did not believe peaceful negotiations would work, so the working class should have a massive well-organized violent revolution. In the second section of The Communist Manifesto, Marx explained that the Communists would not form a separate party to the working class parties, but work as a mediator. It would point out and bring to the front the common interests of all working people internationally and help with the various stages of development. Marx explained that the Communist party and all the proletarian parties have the same idea: “Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.” Marx believed in the idea of allowing working class individuals to work towards acquiring their own property, as opposed to working on someone else’s land. Marx believes in a moral society where the present dominates the past, not in the capitalist system, which allowed the past to dominate the present.

Marx offered a list of guidelines for a moral society. His ideas were to abolish personal property and make it open to the public. He wanted to incorporate income tax and abolish the rights of inheritance, so the past can not influence the future. Centralizing all means of communication and transportation and making factories state owned. Everyone has to work and free public education for children. He suggested that the agriculture and manufacturing industries should merge so that the distinction between the town and county fade away. If all these guidelines were followed then it would result in a developed class-less society which functioned as a whole nation.

Post #5 - Kierkegaard

Soren Kierkegaard was a 19^th century Danish philosopher and theologian. Most of his work deals with religion, such as Christian ethics and theology. Kierkegaard is considered to be the father of existentialism, which is a philosophical concept stating that and individual should be in control of determining the meaning and essence of their lives. Existentialists believe that this is an individual’s right and should not be influenced by deities, authorities, or philosophical and theological doctrines. Kierkegaard was a theistic existentialist who believed in the existence of God as the source of our being. He also believed that God designed the world so that each individual is responsible for his or her actions and self-definition.

Existence is a major concept in this philosophical idea. It tends to focus on the concrete life of each individual and their concrete ways of being in this world. A central theme is the unfairness (absurdity) of this world and how it can suddenly convert a meaningful life into a meaningless life. This concept keeps us aware of the fact that we are humans. Existentialist philosophers derived many metaphysical theories from this including the self, consciousness, and the nature of meaning.

All existentialists believe that existence precedes essence. This means that our existence is not determined by God, religion, authority, or human nature. A person is a rational being and his/her existence is defined by the actions and decisions they make throughout their lives. Existentialists also explain dread (or angst or anxiety) as the experience of our freedom and responsibility. It is the person’s inherent insecurity about the consequences of their actions and that they are fully responsible for these consequences. Kierkegaard pointed out that when a child feels this dread while facing the possibility of being caught, actually helps them with their individuation. This situation will help the child grow and discover their individual self.

Bad faith is another main concept in Existentialism. Bad faith is the denial of free will by lying to yourself about your self and freedom. An example of this is when a person denies responsibility for an action because it is just something that they do. Existentialists would explain flipping a coin to make a decision, a refusal to live the consequences of one’s freedom to choose, which is also an example of bad faith. These philosophers believe that one is not only responsible for their own actions but also for the values that they hold, since they can change them at any time.

Existentialists do not believe that reason is the source of meaning. Kierkegaard saw rationality as a ploy people used to counter their existential anxiety, which is their fear of being in this world. The idea that the world is absurd helps explain that there is no meaning to be found in the world besides the meaning we give it. This absurdity shows that anything can happen at any time, to anybody.

Kierkegaard’s second book focused on the hypocrisy of Christendom. He did not deny his faith but he ridiculed the church and the applied religion of his society. Kierkegaard does not like how communities conformed and assimilated into an indifferent public. He supported communities which encouraged individuals to keep their diversity and uniqueness. With his writings, Kierkegaard was trying to inform the public about the shallowness of their so-called ‘Christian living.’ In his last couple years, Kierkegaard focused his attack on the Danish Church through newspaper articles and self-published pamphlets. He felt that the established state church was detrimental to the individuals and their self-reflection. Kierkegaard believed that the state-church union was unacceptable and skewed the true meaning of Christianity. He did not like how the Church was controlled by the State, and therefore wanted to increase its members in order to have more lives to control. Kierkegaard did not give up his faith in God; he just didn’t like the ‘herd mentality’ of the organized religion.

Post #4 - Kant & Mill

Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 in Prussia. He was regarded as one of the most influential philosophers of modern Europe and of the late Enlightenment movement. His most important works were the Critique of Pure Reason and the Critique of Practical Reason, which examine the relation of epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics. I will focus on Kant’s ethical theory which can be found in The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), which is about his search for and establishment of the supreme principle of morality, and in The Critique of Practical Reason (1785). Kant was a proponent of deontological ethics, which is the study of duty. He believed that the only feature that gave an action moral worth was not the outcome, but the motive behind the action. Kant’s ethical theory focuses on a single moral obligation, which he called “categorical imperative,” which is duties that are intrinsically valid and good. Therefore, these categorical imperatives should be obeyed in all situations and circumstances in order to observe the moral law. He specified that the moral law is a principle of reason itself and is not based on what would make us happy.

Kant explains that we are not able to understand the total systematic knowledge of reason because of the spatiotemporal constraints on sensibility. Kant stated that freedom plays a central part in ethics because moral judgment uses it. Reason cannot act without the assumption of freedom because it is an indispensable practical function of it. Kant explains humans as being between two worlds; we are both sensible and intellectual. We neither act by natural impulse alone, nor are we free of non-rational impulses. Therefore, we need rules of conduct which guide us on how we should act when we have to power to choose. The morality of an action, therefore, must be assessed in terms of the motivation behind it not the outcome of it.

I suffered through the first section of the Kant reading. Kant explained that the only thing that is good for an individual in all situations is a good will. Good will is the action of duty, not because you want to do something but because you know you have to. Good will is good not because it accomplishes something but simply because it is good in itself. There are moral laws which all humans should follow in all situations. Kant also explained that no one can really prove or disprove the existence of God or the afterlife. Therefore, for the sake of society and morality, people should believe in both. When considering our actions with reference to the highest aim of life, our ultimate intentions have to be directed by moral interests only.

John Stuart Mill was born in 1806 and was a Utilitarian philosopher. He proposed the ‘harm principle’ which states that every individual has the right to act as he wants as long as it does not harm others. Mill also believed in free speech, since it is a necessary condition for intellectual and social progress. Mill also states that harm may include the action and the omission of an action. Mill also applies a similar idea when it comes to religion. He believes that everyone is rational enough to make decisions about which religion they want to follow.

Like all Utilitarians, Mill believes that one must always act so as to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. He contributes to this theory by the idea of qualitative separation of pleasure. He explains that ‘happiness’ is of higher value then ‘contentment’ because people who have experienced both tend to prefer the first one over the latter one. Mill was a big supporter of the free-market system, but accepted taxation on alcohol and legislative intervention for the purpose of animal welfare. He touches on the idea that even though this world can support a bigger population, he does not see how this is a desirable goal. Mill states that the destruction of the natural world will not amount in progression of mankind. He does point out that our technological advances will help solve the problems we will face with a more densely populated world. (I really hope he’s right..)

Mill, being a utilitarianist, believes that the moral worth of an action is determined by the outcome of this action. This is opposite from Kant who believes that the moral worth comes from the reason the person is carrying out the action, not the outcome of it. Utilitarianism focuses on actions which produce the most happiness for the most people. Kant had several objections to this moral evaluation because he felt this theory devalued the individuals it was supposed to benefit. He pointed out that following utilitarian theory, it is okay to sacrifice one individual for the benefit of others. Doing this would require not treating this individual as a means and not as themselves. Kant also has a problem with utilitarianism because he points out that it is a theory driven by pleasure and happiness, not reason, universal moral law, or duty. Mill argued that the cultural, intellectual, and spiritual pleasures are of greater value than physical pleasures. This is something Kant would agree with, as long as the individual was carrying out their duty and following the universal moral law.

Post #3 - Spinoza

Baruch Spinoza was born in Amsterdam in 1632. He was the son of a successful Portuguese Jewish merchant and was educated in his congregation’s academy, the Talmud Torah School. When his father died during the wars with England and France he took over his father’s business but then quickly passed the responsibility to his brother and focused on philosophy. Spinoza then lived and worked in the school of Franciscus van den Enden, the Cartesian atheist who was forbidden to propagate his doctrines publicly. Spinoza became known in the Jewish community for his controversial positions towards the Talmud and other religious texts. He was excommunicated from the Jewish community in 1656 and changed his name to Benedictus, the Latin equivalent to his given name meaning “blessed.” Spinoza made a comfortable living as a lens-grinder and wrote controversial books like Theological-Political Treatise, which was published anonymously in 1670. This book argued that the stability and security of society is determined by its freedom to philosophies. It also explains how the clergy use fear and superstition to maintain power over the common people. This book received lots of criticism, so Spinoza decided not to publish his Ethics book which he completed in 1675 until after his death.

Reading over Spinoza’s Ethics reminded me of my Freshman Geometry class where we had to work on proofs to specific formulas the whole time. Spinoza wrote his Ethics based on a deductive method derived from Euclidean geometry. He claimed that the validity of ethical ideas could be demonstrated by mathematical arguments and proofs. Spinoza first makes several propositions, which he then follows with definitions of all the important terms and then a logical proof of each proposition. He believes that ethics is a rational system which then corresponds with the rational nature of our universe.

Spinoza is a pantheistic philosopher who believes that “God is All” and God and Nature are one and the same. He did not believe that God was the transcendent creator of the universe who determines our fate or destiny. Spinoza explained that God is Nature itself, which is an infinite, necessary, and fully deterministic system of which we are a part of. Thus, God is the natural world and He does not have a personality. He believed that humans can find happiness only through a rational understanding of this system and their place within it. According to Spinoza, the highest virtue that people strive for is the intellectual love or the knowledge of God, Nature, and the Universe. He explained that the human mind has both adequate and inadequate ideas. An active mind is full of adequate ideas, which are the subject of reason. A passive mind is full of inadequate ideas that are guided by emotions and not reason. The more active the mind is, the more adequately it knows God, and the more it is able to avoid emotions which are evil. Spinoza further explains that not all emotions conflict with reason. Emotions which agree with reason may cause pleasure but inability to control emotions may cause pain. Spinoza argues that if we live according to reason then we are guided by love and good-will not by fear or hatred.

These days, Spinoza is considered to be one of the great rationalists of the 17^th century philosophy and given credit for setting the groundwork for the 18^th century Enlightenment movement and modern biblical criticism. His account of the nature of reality treats the physical and mental worlds as one and the same. The universal substance consists of both of our mind and our bodies, without any difference between these aspects. This formulation explains the famous mind-body problem in Neuropsychology. Albert Einstein named Spinoza as the philosopher who exerted the most influence on his world view. Einstein believed in an impersonal deity, which fit very well with Spinoza’s idea of God being the same as Nature. When Einstein was asked if he believed in God, his response was: “I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.”

Post #2 - Epicurus & Epictetus

Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who lived from 341 – 271
BCE. He did not believe in the immaterial soul and did not believe
that our lives our controlled by gods. Epicurus taught that the
point of life was to attain a happy life with the absence of pain,
fear, and death. Even though Epicurus was a voluminous writer,
hardly any of his writings survived since the Christian authorities
thought his ideas were ungodly. One of the surviving documents was
his Principal Doctrines, which is a list of forty sayings of ethical
matters. Epicurus believes that the only thing that matters in
someone's life is bringing them pleasure. He agrees with Aristotle
that the highest good is happiness but he thinks happiness is the
same as pleasure. Epicurus explained that pleasure and pain are the
measures of what is good and what is bad. This does not mean that
all pleasures should be pursued and all pains should be avoided.
The individual has to assess what the long-term consequences are of
the action and decide whether to pursue it or not. Epicurus does
not believe that there is any intermediate state between pleasure
and pain. If one does not fulfill their desires it is painful and
if all their desires are fulfilled then they are happy. He further
points out that physical pleasure/pain is only concerned with the
present, whereas, mental pleasure/pain also includes the past and
the future.

Epicurus believes that vain desires for power, wealth, and
fame should be eliminated. The person will never be satisfied with
the amount that they obtain and will always want more, leading to
unhappiness. By eliminating these vain desires, the person will
eliminate the unfulfilled desires and become happy. Epicurus taught
that one should not be unjust because they will suffer the
consequences of their actions once they are caught. Or the thought
of being caught and punished will bring the person anxiety and
inevitably pain. Epicurus only shows selflessness towards
friendships which he thinks very highly of because they bring the
ultimate pleasures. He explains that a true friendship is built on
trust and that they must treat each other as they treat themselves.

Epictetus was a Stoic philosopher who was born into slavery in
55CE. He studied in Rome and then started teaching there. Arrian,
a student of Epictetus, captured his ethical teachings in two books
called The Discourses and the Handbook. The first appears to be a
summary of the day's teachings and the intimate conversations
between Epictetus and his students. The Handbook is a preface to The
Discourses and outlines its key points.

Epictetus saw moral philosophy as a way of guiding people
towards a better life. He encouraged his students to live the
philosophic life which would ultimately lead to happiness.
Epictetus, like other Stoic philosophers, believes that living a
life of reason means living virtuously and according to nature. He
does not believe that wealth and pleasures are considered good
because the person who possesses these things is not necessarily
happy in all circumstances. If the person is virtuous and uses
these advantages wisely, then it is considered to be always
beneficial and a good thing. Epictetus talks about eudaimonia, or
happiness, as that state one reaches when they attain
imperturbability, freedom from passion, good feelings, and an
awareness of a rational way of life. He states that the only thing
that is good is acting virtuously and the only bad thing is acting
viciously.

Epicurus and Epictetus both believe in pursuing self
pleasures in order to attain happiness. Both believe in a fine
balance and warn against overindulging on these pleasures. Epicurus
believed that pleasure and pain were the measures of what is good
and bad. He taught that death was the end of the body and
therefore, should not be feared. Epicurus claimed that the gods do
not reward or punish humans and the events of the world are
ultimately based on physics and the interaction of atoms. Epictetus
believes that we have power over our own mind but that our overall
fate is guided by the gods. One's fate and the fate of the world is
due to the divine intelligence which makes this world the best that
it can be.

Post #1- Aristotle

Aristotle was a Greek philosopher who lived from 384-322 BCE and was a student of Plato. He was one of the greatest philosophers that lived and wrote about physics, government, ethics, biology, and poetry to name a few. He started his own school in Lyceum and his writings have been passed down through a line of his followers, often called peripatetics. He usually taught two classes a day, one in the morning for his followers and one in the evening for the general knowledge-seekers of his time. Aristotle believed that ethics was a person’s attempt to find their ‘highest good.’ He explained that our aspirations have to have a final point, which is called happiness. Aristotle said that happiness must come from human nature that can be worked for throughout a lifetime. Happiness can only be achieved by humans because they are able to control their moral virtue through control of their irrational desires. Aristotle explained that having pleasure in your life is not the same as having a good life. A good life can be achieved by a fine balance in life of excess and deficiency. He explained that this balance is different for every person and every situation, therefore, is not the mathematical medium of these two factors. Aristotle also claims that politics is the verification of ethics. Aristotle explained that a city was an institute of moral ideals set-up to protect the goods and property of its people. These cities were therefore ideal for the advancing the development of humans. He believed that education should be regulated by the city and formal education should begin at the age of seven.

My family and friends bring me happiness in this life. I considered today to be a great day because I convinced my sister to go to the Museum of Tolerance with me where we spent the whole morning. We then went to a barbeque and pool party with all of our friends. We spent the afternoon sharing stories, laughing, and dancing. Aristotle would consider all of these pleasures in my life which I’ve achieved on a very basic moral level. I don’t think I’ve reached my ‘highest good’ in my life, but I plan on reaching it within the next five years. I think I’ll be happy when I am working as a Nurse Practitioner in a foreign country which does not have a good healthcare program set up. I will find joy and happiness in helping others in such a hands-on way because I will see daily the influence I am having on peoples’ lives. I plan on having children with a husband who will have similar priorities and morals as me. We will travel around, going where ever our help is needed and teaching our children about the different cultures.

Aristotle would not claim that I have reached my ‘highest good’ or my highest moral standing. I am definitely living for the pleasure in my life right now and I am focused on my self. I do love myself and Aristotle claims that this self-love is the highest law of morals. He says that it is selfishness but one must love thy self in order to live the most pleasant, most self-sufficient and productive life with a distinct purpose. I do believe that Aristotle would be proud of me for having such great friends since he believes that friends are indispensable. He argues that friendships help define our higher moral life in many aspects of our lives. Aristotle does explain that these friends can not be the result of convenience or just pleasure but must have a higher moral value. A true friend is someone who is similar to you and you can look at their lives and have a greater appreciation of life. I have a great friend who lives in England and whenever I talk to her, I feel like I haven’t done anything with my life. I feel like I need to volunteer as much as she does and give back to my community. She is an amazing person who does not sit still for a second. She is an active bike rider and goes on canoe trips all the time and does not waste time watching trashy television shows. Aristotle would definitely call her a true friend since whenever I look at her life I feel like I need to do more and reach my ‘happiness.’