In her Ted talk, Chang explains the methodology of how you pick between two options. She says that between the two choices one has to be greater, lesser, or equal to the other in value. If the two choices happen to be equal a fourth option arises: being “on a par.” This means that at the point when the pros and cons of both choices equal one another, and thus the choices are equal, free will can’t totally determine what option one should pick. Free will appears somewhat as an illusion. On a par means that one alternative isn’t better than another, which is why the choice becomes hard. So the choice one ends up making tells a lot about that individual’s characteristics, motives, and purposes, etc.. But because we learn all of this about ourselves, part of Kane’s self-forming theory has to apply at some point. So even if it seems like you have free will, and when you actually do have free will, a choice shouldn’t be made lightly because it defines your personality.

Nagel presents determinism as “the circumstances before an action determine that it will happen, and rule out any other possibility.” These circumstances including an individual’s sum of experiences, knowledge, etc, all contribute to this. I think this is an accurate view to believe in but I disagree with Nagel’s point that if something was determined to happen because of one’s experiences it is okay. For example, if someone grew up seeing their parents always making poor decisions, it doesn’t justify them making poor choices when they grown up. Every individual needs to think about their choices and need to understand what is morally right and wrong. If we don’t point out someone’s faults they will be inclined to make the same mistake again.

I also really liked Nagel’s idea that “free action is a basic feature of the world, and it can’t be analyzed.” But in theory everything around a person dictates the course of an action whether it be circumstances, prior experiences, or even people around. For example, ask the question why someone would steal just to steal? Clearly it may be something they can’t afford, or they may have just lost their job. But every action has to have some precursor.

In his ted talk, I found the first theory Chalmers used to explain Consciousness to be very interesting. That consciousness is fundamental  and that it can’t be explained in terms of anything more basic and that any beliefs or ideas from their are simply built upon it just as anything relating to time or space can only be built upon them. I think it needs to be viewed this way because any of the studies done in this area have all associated some other variable with consciousness. And even the idea of one having a conscious is debated by some. No evidence for consciousness even exists in the physical world and when we try to find evidence all we find is more unanswered phenomena, Chalmers first theory therefore seems to make a lot of sense.

I think Corvino made some very interesting points in his videos. I specifically found his video about gay marriage being a threat to religious freedom very interesting. One thing he explained was the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage. While I understood what this meant, I never previously looked at the issue in this sense. Because of media coverage, I always just heard individuals bickering about it being wrong or right and individuals citing sacred texts such as the Bible to understand the definition of marriage. Another point he made was that he understands why people don’t want to recognize legal marriage for relationships they disapprove of. This made me think of the scenario in which a father doesn’t approve of the man his daughter may be seeing. In most cases the girl is going to continue to see the man she likes regardless of whether her father disapproves. The same goes for gay marriage, even if gay marriage is never fully legalized by the federal government, individuals will still find a way to be together. Corvino also specifically talked about what freedom of religion meant. And one point he made was that by being tolerant of all religions we need to be tolerant of what that religion believes in and approves of such as same-sex unions. We can’t pick and choose what we think is right or wrong. Of course if a religion says it is okay to physically harm someone, it is okay if outside forces intervene, but things like marriage I think fall into a different category and if freedom of religion is truly valued, people need to learn what it means to also be tolerant of the practices that take place in other religions.

Reagan critiques/rejects three different ideas reefing to the rights and place of Animals. In the indirect duty approach, humans have no duties towards animals, but to other humans concerned because of animals. Regain argues this approach to be invalid because torturing animals does not just hurt humans. In the second approach he explained the cruelty kindness view. This view holds that our behavior towards animals is fine as long as we aren’t cruel towards them. An action may be kind but it may not be right either. Lastly, he describes the utilitarian approach. This approach says that animals interests should be the same as human interests. It also believes to do the act that best balances between satisfaction and frustration. Reagan does however find to flaws with this view. It denies that individuals have inherent values. And also that any action can be justified if the end result is good (Aunt Bee example).

Reagan counters these views with his own thoughts. He argues that everyone (including animals) has inherent value and that it is wrong to treat anyone with value as a resource (exploit them). He also talks about right acts, which basically means treating all individuals with respect and not using them for some other gain.

One thing Reagan’s argument fails to explain is the idea that can’t someone be really concerned about the well-being of animals but at the same time use animals for human means (as a  pet).

In class on Friday we talked about the example of a child falling into a mirror lake and if a person is there and sees the child drowning it is there moral responsibility to help the child. This example in class reminded me of the bystander effect that I learned about in AP Psychology in high school. Specifically, the example of Kitty Genovese. She was a 28 year old woman who was returning to her apartment in Queens, New York after work at three in the morning. On her way back she was stabbed multiple times by a serial rapist and murderer. She screams for help, and the attacker finally fled after being seen by a neighbor. In actuality though there were numerous people who had heard her screams and not one came in her defense. Just as in the case of the individual witnessing the child drowning it was and should have been the witnesses moral responsibility to go help Genovese after they heard her screams even if they might inflict wounds trying to help her. They could have simply dialed 911 instead of watching. Moral responsibility in this case and in many other cases is overshadowed by a thing called “social proof”. When multiple people are around, each individual looks to see how another reacts because in social situations we don’t want to seem flustered. People therefore fail to act if they don’t see others acting. This social proof also creates a “diffusion of responsibility” which is that if someone else is present and they are probably doing something about it. “Moral responsibility” therefore seems nonexistent and in fact what exists is some ridiculous social mechanism.

I definitely agree with Scheffler’s article that the existence of future generations helps give our life purpose and meaning. What we leave behind – values, norms, inventions, etc., – are what future generations will learn from and will expand upon. This is why individuals care so much about the legacy they will leave behind. There was one point in Scheffler’s article in which he mentioned the importance of religion and the consolation one receives when they think about death/afterlife in a religious perspective. Here I would like to discuss the Hindu religion and its unique beliefs about afterlife and death. Most Hindus believe in reincarnation of the soul which is immortal in a sense. The soul is part of this “jiva” or being that is liberated over and over again and allowed to return to Earth. Because one is liberated over and over again, one’s karma although important seems somewhat insignificant. The purpose of this “jiva” or being is to ultimately reach and understand what is means to be whole (pure). Afterlife therefore is a nonexistent concept. Hindus therefore believe that they will have a chance to contribute over and over again in society. Many find comfort in this idea and therefore leave for various pilgrames in their later life in which they truly devote themselves to the study of god.

I agreed with many of the points that Wolf made throughout her article. While the article was engaging, it was also very ambiguous at points and got a bit confusing. Starting at the beginning though, I think Wolf was right when she says that people only ask about the meaning of life when they have some sort of concern. As a freshmen in college, I am confused about what exactly I want to do with my life which is why I constantly keep asking myself what purpose will this (what I am doing now) have in the future or how will this affect my life later on. I am therefore constantly questioning the meaning of life and I think this is important even though Wolf disagrees to some extent, because I think it helps in organizing one’s thoughts. I also therefore disagree with Wolf’s point towards the end that the meaning of life doesn’t matter.

Early in the article, Wolf made a point about professional philosophers and their belief that all depends on the existence of god. I really liked the evidence Wolf used throughout the article to defend against this idea. She talked about how thinking changes from person to person and while providing the pessimist view also provided a rebuttal to it by highlighting the significance of an individual.

Wolf also provides a definition for a meaningful life which is “one that is actively and at least somewhat successfully engaged in a project of positive value.” I like that she talked about the weaknesses of this phrase even though it happens to be the best way of describing a meaningful life. She talks about “projects” in a broad sense and the the correlation between being actively engaged and emotional sentiment. I think one thing she left out however was to incorporate the idea of time as in “now” into the definition. Because as she points out through many examples anything can happen in the future and one’s hard work could all be lost (bankruptcy example).

The last point that stood out to me the most was that we wish for both kinds of meaning (meaning of life and in life) to be evoked by the same thought. This point seems valid because individuals often have a tendency to try to hit two birds with one stone.

I think Benedict’s arguments put up a good argument for the existence of morality without the need for god. Benedict talks about how a thing that is normal in one culture might be abnormal in a different culture and therefore god does not decide what is objectively moral. If we use the Eskimo example from Rachel’s piece, the concept of infanticide may not make sense to us at all but for them it means survival of the general population in a way. This difference in thinking also provides a good example for the argument against cultural relativism, which is what Rachel’s tries to do throughout the piece. Her argument seems valid because humans have free will which is the ability to decide for oneself what actions are appropriate and what to or not to believe in. Free will also explains for the change in ideas and beliefs over time. The role of women for example has changed over time. Women were at first thought to be child bearers and only in charge of household chores. Today however they have more freedom, work, and can even vote. Because of changes in thinking like this, the idea of cultural relativism is disproved.

Another point I want to make is that although there may not be objective moral values there does seem to exist some objective standards. With the eskimo example of infanticide, although their reason of trying to save the population by killing infants might seem weird and weak to us, if a situation relating to survival arose, we too would take whatever necessary measures to protect ourselves and our families. The idea of survival is therefore an objective standard. Rachel’s article provided murder and lying as potential examples as well.

While trying to understand whether morality can or can’t exist without god, one thing I think we forget about is the role of society in this argument. In Kurtz vs. Craig debate in class this week we talked about atheists who helped found our country, statistics, human evolution, and many theoretical examples such as rape and murder. Society however fails to be mentioned when in fact society causes this divide. The Constitution specifically states the separation between the Church and State. Yet, politicians on numerous occasions cite the Bible as a reason to halt the passing of laws that they seem to find associated. One example of this is gay marriage. The Bible says that marriage is a sacred vow between a man and a woman. Politicians use this to justify that two individuals of the same sex should not be together and that is immoral and defies religion and therefore should not be allowed. However numerous examples can be cited where individuals heavily advocated this same point but when they found out someone they knew or had a relation with was part of this community they changed their opinion. An example of this is Ohio Senator Rob Portman who advocated against Gay Marriage and then suddenly changed his stance when he found out his son was gay. When our country’s leaders come out in public and state their views about sensitive issues such as gay marriage they create a divide in society. It is people and their actions that help explain what is moral and not moral. If someone who is super religious can change their views for a family member what does that say about the strength of religion in people’s life? How does something that was once a sin suddenly become okay?