Yeager Hudson "The Independence of Ethics from Religion"

The Independence of Ethics from Religion-Yeager Hudson

In Yeager Hudson’s, “The Independence of Ethics from Religion” he stresses two ideas, moral rules and moral duty. Moral rules are obligatory because god commands them, they are right or wrong based on whether or not if follows a command given by god. Moral duty is known by reason, part of universal law called natural law, that is true are present/true in all cultures at all times. Moral duty applied is, if god commanded us to hurt innocent people god would be wrong, just as god can’t make 3+3=7. If god is omniscient god would never command such a thing in the first place.

In the class discussion we began by warming up with a scenario that was provided by Mr. Bollinger-Danielson. The scenario was a couple that was trying to cheat the hotel into letting them use a coupon that they found, even though they had already used a coupon the previous night. The couple was discussing how they were going to approach the front desk in the elevator. There was another man in the elevator who witnessed the entire interaction. This man was also headed to the front desk and the man happened to be an investor for the hotel. As a class we discussed what moral action the man should take. Some students argued that the man should tell the administration that the coupon system is being abused because it will help keep future clients/guests honest and moral. Other students believed that the best thing the man could do, would be to confront the couple, to stand up for what is honest and then leave it up to the couple to decide what to do. The conversation slowly turned away from the specific scenario and more towards other ideas that can be applied at a larger level. The question was asked what is most beneficial to the most people and where the line is between honesty and being a snitch. The class agreed for the most part that the answer will vary depending on the situation for both of those questions. Two ideas that stood out towards the end of the coupon discussion were that actions do not equal what ought to happen and gut instinct is not always what is ethically right.

“Morality is a matter of rational inquiry. It involves the exercise of a faculty—reunion—that is the same in all normal human without regard to culture, religion, or time in history” (304). Moral disputes come from different applications/beliefs of different cultures, but the basic law always stays the same, it is just applied to different types of situations. Morals are universal, and the moral natural laws are what explain how humans ought to act.

The class discussed how you can choose to do the wrong thing easily because the laws are breakable. In any action that you take, you have to know that you might be wrong. The question was raised, whether or not emotions play a role in rational thinking. The class discussed the idea that your ethical stance can be changed by your emotions.

The most interesting part and most controversial part of the discussion was about genetalia tribe mutilation and a tradition in an Eskimo tribe. We talked about the value of life, value of gender rights, value not to harm, value other cultures, value other religions and the right to choose. It was hard for me to choose where I stand and what I think is moral or immoral, because as a human being with compassion I am horrified at how these two different tribes treat different members of their tribe. But at the same time, as an American I don’t understand their culture or religious beliefs. America always projects American morals/ideals on other cultures and it’s hard for me to know what parts are my own human morals versus what parts are my American morals that I have inherently adopted.

Immanuel Kant "The Categorical Imperative"

Immanuel Kant’s The Categorical Imperative

Kant’s The Categorical Imperative addresses moral principles, and human obligation to abide by those morals. He introduces the idea of imperative which is essential commands/orders. That of which there are two: hypothetical or categorical. He focuses on categorical imperative, categorical being “in every context”. He essentially says that moral principles (maxims) that fall under the categorical imperative are to be followed (assuming one is acting morally good), under any circumstance. This in turn benefits society. He uses examples such as killing and lying, stating how if you, as a moral agent, lie or kill, then society should therefore be able to kill or lie, but this would cause the destruction of society and hence the idea that one cannot kill or lie (under the impression of good morals) become categorical imperatives.

He also addresses human obligations in regards to capability, stating how people of talent or prosperity have an obligation to help in the instance that they can because to not help, violates his moral logic. He argues that the end does not justify the means, and that the means are important to address if one wishes to act as a proper moral agent. Essentially your actions should lie within the realm of sense to which the action can legitimately be a universally accepted law of nature, and support human society positively.

While our class understood the essential ideas around Kant’s philosophy, we all had a hard time grasping it as a reality. Given examples such as killing in self-defense, cultural differences, war and other controversial topics, Kant leaves little room for variation in solution and devalues the importance of looking at things from a case by case basis. I too found myself struggling to come to terms with his belief. Generally the flaw in Kant’s analysis revolves around the fact that humans are far too imperfect to all follow the morals he proposes. People will take advantage of the situation regardless and although we should strive for general human societal balance and prosperity, internal competition sets forth barriers for people to come together and truly agree on moral values in which to follow. Also some instances of not “committing” an “immoral” action set under categorical imperative may cause a person to be harmed which is also seen as immoral (the act of hurting someone), such as in mental disorders. In general Kant is being somewhat idealist in his declaration, but the scope is too narrow to implement. (Although I understand that that is essentially what philosophy is for the most part).

This philosophy reminds me of the Ebola epidemic and how we should address it both overseas and nationally. As coverage on Ebola in Africa had lead to growing awareness, panic, and mockery of panic towards the disease, as well as the infections within the country, debates have started on whether we should encourage qualified people to go and combat the disease, and whether we have the right to restrict the entry of or quarantine those possibly exposed within our country. Kant states that those who are able bodied have an obligation to help if they can, yet this disease also can be a threat to their life. As for the quarantine, should people have the right to lock others up for a set period of time if they might threaten the well-being of society? Can we lock up people under assumptions of threat? While Kant may argue distinct answers to the problem, the complexity has lead to the controversy that has saturated our country.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/10/28/health-ebola-usa-idINKBN0IH27U20141028

James Rachels "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism"

James Rachels’ “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” is a critique of Cultural Relativism. Cultural Relativism is the idea that there is no such thing as universal truths in ethics; rather there are only various cultural codes. Rachels begins by addressing the idea of cultural relativism and the cultural differences argument. The cultural differences argument looks at the Greeks and Callations example. The Callations believed it was right to eat the dead and the Greeks believed it was wrong. Rachels states that Cultural Relativists would say eating the dead is neither objectively right nor wrong because eating the dead is a matter of opinion. Rachels argues that this argument is not valid because the premise simply does not follow the conclusion. He then looks at the claim that in some societies people believe the Earth is a sphere. Rachels argues that this does not follow the cultural differences argument because there is simply no objective truth in geography. There cannot be objective truth to everything, therefore peoples believes can be wrong.

Rachels next step in disproving the Cultural Relativism theory looks at what happens if we take the argument too seriously. He first states that we could no longer say the customs of our society are morally better than others. This means we would no longer be able to criticize other practices or say they were wrong. Rachels then states that we could decide whether actions are right or wrong by consulting the standards of our own society. So to determine right from wrong, one has to ask whether the action is in accordance with ones cultural code. This idea would forbid us from criticizing our own cultural codes. Lastly, all moral progress would be called into doubt. Under Cultural Relativism, social reform cannot be judged by the standards of different times.  This type of social reform means reformers would be unable to challenge ideals of the society because the society’s ideals are always correct. Therefore, social reform does not work under Cultural Relativism.

Rachels states that what we often think are dramatic cultural differences, do not differ nearly as much as we thought. This is the idea that most cultures have the same values. The only difference then lies in their beliefs and application of them. A really good example of this was the Eskimos who often kill their babies, mainly the girls. It appears that the Eskimos they don’t have as much regard for human life or care for their children very much. But the Eskimos have just as much regard for life as the rest of us do. They simply live under harsh, unsafe, and extreme circumstances that in order to sustain their population and provide for their families, they may have to kill their baby. Again, there is no difference in morality, but a difference in conditions. This brings up the idea of Universal truths. Our class was able to come to the agreement that there are some ideas such as regard for human life, and honesty that are Universal pragmatic truths/morals. Without these universal morals, no society would be able to function.  

Even though Rachels does not agree with Cultural Relativism, he believes there are lessons we can take away from this theory. Rachels first lesson states this theory warns us about “the danger of assuming that all our preferences are based on some absolute rational truth” (313). Lastly, Rachels believes that we need to keep an open mind. Regardless of how strongly we believe in something we need to acknowledge that our feeling are not always perceptions of truth or what is best. When what we believe in is challenged or said to be not the best, people become very defensive and close minded.  The Eskimo example shows how we must ask questions before assuming someone or a society is morally in the wrong.

I really liked “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” and agree with Rachels arguments. The critique of Cultural Relativism is kind of a “don’t judge a book by its cover” idea.  We should not assume that actions in different societies are wrong or immoral at first glance. We must humbly and open mindedly go about asking questions to uncover the truth to the situation. Often what appears to be a difference in morals in really just a difference in beliefs. Most cultures do have the same morals or value the same things. This idea is so applicable today. I feel like too many people judge other cultures so arrogantly, however, don’t know the facts. To me this reading really shows that there are universal morals and the importance of valuing beliefs of other cultures. In class we talked about the Burqa Bills that France had implemented. This article focuses on the Burqa bills in Australia. This article critiques the ban and explains the negative impact of it.

http://www.womensagenda.com.au/talking-about/opinions/banning-the-burqa-is-not-the-answer-to-fears-about-public-safety/201409224642#.VEju7iLF-So

Immanuel Kant' "Critique of Pure Reason"

Immanuel Kant- “Critique of Pure Reason”

In “Critique of Pure Reason”, Immanuel Kant explores the idea of complex predetermined thoughts that are known prior to experience. He agrees with much of what Hume has to say about thoughts. They both agree that you are able to have basic thoughts that are known to be true even without experience, basic thoughts that require experience, and complex thoughts that require experience. The place they differ is when it comes to complex thoughts that can be known prior to experience. Kant explains that these thoughts include metaphysics, physics, science and math. Kant uses four different phrases to explain his idea; a priori, a posteriori, analytical judgment, and synthetic judgment. A priori means to know prior to experience. A posterior means to know after experience. Analytical judgment is to be able to understand a sentence or thought without having to connect two things together. Synthetic judgment is when two ideas have to be combined together to understand the sentence or idea. “All bachelors are unmarried”. This sentence can said to be a prior and analytical. The knowledge is there prior to the experience and the idea can be understood without connection two things. To be a bachelor is to be unmarried. These types of sentences can be considered kind of redundant. “Kelly is a mother”. This sentence would be considered an a posteriori synthetic thought. To know if Kelly is a mother or not you would have to know Kelly. This requires experience. Once you have that experience you put two and two together which is synthetic. Kant and Hume agree on these two statements but Kant believes that you are able to have a complex thought that does not require experience. He uses math as his example. Kant says that addition or subtraction is an a posterior synthetic thought because you can experience the addition or subtraction of apples for example. Kant argues that multiplication is an a prior synthetic thought. There is no way to experience the multiplication but yet it is still known to be true. The multiplication of 7x5=35 is a known fact that can be proven but there is no way to experience it. During the discussion in class we talked about why Kant is hard to read and we came up with the conclusion that understanding Kant’s theory is hard because of the language and structure he uses. We talked about how this piece was translated from German to English and how that can effect and alter the message. Kant also wrote to explain and all the possible counterpoints. So as you were reading it felt like he would contradict himself. It was hard to follow and conclude a clear message from it.  

William James "What Pragmatism Means"

William James “What Pragmatism Means”

In “What Pragmatism Means”, William James expresses pragmatism as a method in which to make sense of facts, data, metaphysics and everyday experiences. A central question to James’s philosophy is, what is truth? While most philosophers preach an absolute truth, James sees the truth as “whatever works, whatever has the most cash value” (Furman 214). It’s basically whatever is the most logical, depending on the end goal.

In order to reach this truth we must turn to the pragmatic method, which according to James , “is primarily a method of settling metaphysical disputes that otherwise might be interminable” (Furman 214).  An example that James gives us in order to further understand the pragmatic method in metaphysics, is the story of the squirrel. In the story there is a dispute about whether a man on one side of the tree has gone around the squirrel on the other side. By using the pragmatic method, James shows how each argument can be explained in practical terms and that, “ [They] are both right and both wrong according as you conceive the verb ‘to go round’ in one practical fashion or the other” (214). James also brings up a point about disputes, that some of them aren't worth disputing, “ if no practical difference whatever can be traced, then the alternatives, then the alternatives mean practically the same thing, and the dispute is idle” (214).

Our class had mixed views during our discussion of James. Many liked how simple and easy it was, while others had difficulty removing morals from decisions. A topic that struck a chord during discussion was drones. They are practical for the US because they minimize the amounts of US citizen deaths and the amount of civilian deaths but these data points didn’t stop people from expressing that from a moral standpoint, drones are a bad thing. They still kill innocent people and have negative impacts on the people who sit in buildings and kill people on the other side of the world, like a video game. In discussion, the biggest issue with pragmatism was how it required you to remove emotion from decision.

For me, in the beginning I liked his views, I liked the whole ‘it doesn’t matter’ attitude, it’s a very American view. But once we started discussing emotions and morals my views on pragmatism changed. It seems like a very selfish philosophy, especially if you look at it from the point of the US and drones. We use drones because it benefits us, but it’s still detrimental to other societies, but since it works for us, we continue. Pragmatism seems more like an easy way out, rather than actually hashing out issues and that mindset turns me off from this philosophy.

Below is a link to Huffington Post Article containing a video of John Stewart critiquing drones strikes; indirectly critiquing the pragmatic method

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/20/jon-stewart-obama-drones_n_4825472.html

Narcissism and Age

http://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/do-we-get-less-narcissistic-as-we-get-older/?_php=true&_type=blogs&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&smprod=nytcore-iphone&_r=0

Social Class and Relationships

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/opinion/sunday/crossing-financial-lanes.html?smid=nytcore-iphone-share&smprod=nytcore-iphone

Positive Stress

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/04/your-money/the-contrarians-on-stress-it-can-be-good-for-you-.html?smid=nytcore-iphone-share&smprod=nytcore-iphone

Slang for the Ages

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/04/opinion/slang-for-the-ages.html?smid=nytcore-iphone-share&smprod=nytcore-iphone

Best Possible Day

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/opinion/sunday/the-best-possible-day.html?smid=nytcore-iphone-share&smprod=nytcore-iphone

A New Approach to College Admissions?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/opinion/sunday/throw-out-the-college-application-system.html?smid=nytcore-iphone-share&smprod=nytcore-iphone&_r=0

Paul Feyerabend "Against Method"

“Against Method” by Paul Feyerabend

Separation of church and state is an attempt to remove religion from our social norms but philosopher Paul Feyerabend also believes in a separation between state and science. His philosophical point of view stems from the ideas that people are teaching science similar to those who forced religion onto people like non-Western tribes. This connection between religion and science seems to make up most of Feyerabends argument allowing him to question the purpose of schools forcing kids to learn sciences but never promoting or including the studies of other things. His apparent mockery of science relates the sciences to things like magic as well. He states “Thus while an American can now choose the religion he likes, he is still not permitted to demand that his children learn magic rather than science at school” (220).

Feyerabend’s ideal society, he claims, would be something similar to a marketplace of teachings. The society he desires is where humans at a young age would have the ability to learn many different types of knowledge and then choose which seems to intrigue them. Each method of learning whether science, magic, religion or excreta would help individuals get closer to the truth of life whatever they believe that is. Each practice of knowledge has to be set into specific parameters allowing humans to understand things not only from one type learned. Science he believes was so forced into our minds we are unable to make a distinction between what is true and the science we have learned.

My views on Feyerabend’s article are mixed. Where I do like the idea for children to have experience in more subjects than just science, I believe science is a crucial part of schooling. I also feel as though it is not just science that kids are learning but methods of questioning and problem solving that without the required science classes would be forgotten. The marketplace in his ideal society is a good notion but the amount that you could practically do with things like magic is hard to come by. His perspective is good to value though because a well rounded individual is in my perspective the best kind of individual. In society today I think that schools that offer a wider spectrum of courses such as liberal arts schools are a more practical way to learn deeper than just a core curriculum.

Below is a video from Harry Potter teaching magic similar to how we teach science in schools.

David Brooks on the Problem with Pragmatism

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/david-brooks-the-problem-with-pragmatism.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region

Why The Giving Tree is a terrible Book

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/books/review/the-giving-tree-tender-story-of-unconditional-love-or-disturbing-tale-of-selfishness.html?hpw&rref=books&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpHedThumbWell&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0