Posts

Going back to the topic of social justice, we talked about the equality of same sex marriage, and briefly talked about the equality between humans. It is interesting to think of this topic again with a lot of events happening in the United States, including the Eric Garner case and Michael Brown case. There have been marches and protests across the nation, including here at The Ohio State University.

On my way home from class, I encountered a group of people crossing the street yelling “no justice, no peace.” This is referring to how both of the officers in both cases were not indicted. However, it is interesting to think about what justice would be in both of these cases. While evidence was not clear in the Brown case, thousands rioted over it. They thought justice was not given. It is also interesting to see how the United States may be changing because of these two cases, which refers us back to cultural relativism. Perhaps our culture is slowly beginning to change again due to these events.

I recently read the Australian study regarding same-sex couples and their children (it is on Carmen). This article was very interesting because it dispelled a common rumor: children with same-sex children are disadvantaged. This study compared children from same-sex families to those from families with heterosexual parents. Surprisingly, children with homosexual parents were actually happier and healthier. These results remained even when controlling for variables such as socio-economic status. Some proposed reasons for this difference is that homosexual parents may split work more evenly. They may be more inclined to do work that suits their skills rather than their prescribed gender. This study also helps provide support for the argument that same-sex marriage should be legalized. Although children with homosexual parents may face a stigma, this stigma is less influential on childhood well being than family cohesion. In conclusion, this study helps show that children in homosexual families may actually be better off than those in heterosexual families and can be used as support for the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Earlier in the semester, we did short research projects on different ethical theories. Looking back on my notes, I thought it was interesting to see how virtue ethics could be paired with the idea of SFAs, self-forming actions. Virtue ethics is based on the idea that you should try to be moral for yourself. I think that this idea works very well with the concept of self-forming actions. Self-forming actions are actions in which individuals can exercise their free will and make a decision. These types of actions work well with the concept of virtue ethics because virtue ethics can be used as a factor in making a decision. In other words, the concept of virtue ethics, that people should be moral for themselves, may influence their decisions regarding self-forming actions.

Now that we have finished discussing free will, I think it is interesting to look back on previous topics and see how free will applies. One topic that is particularly intriguing is morality. When discussing morality in class, we usually focused on how to define/determine what is moral. However, there is another important question to ask: can people be held responsible for their morals? Is it fair to hold people responsible for their moral or immoral actions? I think that most people would likely say yes. People who commit immoral actions (Hitler, for example) are usually punished whereas those who commit moral good actions (such as Mother Teresa) are often applauded for their efforts. Yet, if determinism were true, punishing or applauding behavior would be essentially pointless because they are predetermined. In this case, Hitler was destined to sentence millions of people to death and Mother Teresa was determined to help the poor. Although determinism works well in Mother Teresa’s case, it is very problematic when discussing Hitler. According to determinism, Hitler had no control; he was born immoral. This then begs the question, if Hitler couldn’t help acting how he did, should he be punished? Once again, I think most people would say yes, but this creates its own problems. Is it moral to punish someone who is predetermined to act in a certain way? Personally, I believe that determinism does not work well with other topics such as morality, so I am inclined to believe in indeterminism or self-forming actions. I believe both of these theories provide humans with the freedom to choose how they want to act. This, in turn, allows for accountability so that people can be punished or rewarded for their actions. (If anyone believes in determinism and can offer an explanation, especially to the question “is it moral to punish someone who is predetermined to act in a certain way?” please do; I just couldn’t think of one)

In thinking about the topics we covered this semester as a whole, I was trying to determine how free will and morality influence each other.  If determinism is true (all of our decisions are decided for us), does morality even exist?  I find it hard to see how it would.  How can you say someone is being immoral or moral if they have no control over their actions?  If indeterminism is true (all of our decisions are due to chance), I also don’t see a very strong case for morality.  Thus I think the idea of self-forming actions provides the best case for the existence of morality.  Perhaps with each decision you make you are creating your own set of morals which will influence the choices you make in the future.

I recently heard about a story that reminded me about our discussion on free will and responsibility.  The story occurred in 1975 concerning Patty Hearst.  Hearst was kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army and brainwashed into robbing banks.  Despite claiming to have been brainwashed, Hearst was sentenced to 7 years in jail.  After 2 years, President Carter commuted her sentence and she was pardoned for her offenses.  I would say that in this scenario, Hearst had free will but due to brainwashing this free will was taken away.  However, determinism follows that all of our action are pre-detemined, essentially we don’t have free will.  Does this mean that decision making under determinism is the same between someone going through everyday life and someone who had been brainwashed?  Wouldn’t this mean that the act of brainwashing is, in essence, useless?  Hearst was pre-determined to rob the banks?

The complete story can be found here: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/patty-hearst-kidnapping

Last week in class we were discussing Daniel Dennett’ article “Where Am I?” In this article he tested the different theories of the mind with his elaborate fictional story. However, recently in my biology class we read an article about the nervous system potentially being hacked. Researchers have found ways to send electrical pulses in the nervous system to regulate the immune system. What is interesting in the article is that they also talk about using these electrical signals to regulate each person, kind of like having a computer for a mind.

This brings up the question if the mind would truly still be yours, especially if it could be modified by the click of a button by another person. Your actions wouldn’t be you own, so would you have free will? Most would agree no, since another person is controlling you. However, does the person controlling you have free will? Or were they determined to have this power over you? I think that we will never fully know the answer to the question of indeterminism and determinism, no matter what the situation.

After re-reading the chapter on Free-Will from Nagel, I believe he brings up a very interesting point that I would like to delve deeper into.  With absolute determinism, every action by a human could be theoretically predicted, even before you are born.  However, this seems to be a very negative view of human nature:  in absolute determinism, we theoretically do not have the ability to control our actions to be “good” or “bad” people.  Furthermore, if people are acting from a predetermined notion, how could we ever criticize them for doing something wrong?  For example, if absolute determinism is correct, Hitler was bound to be an oppressive ruler who would murder millions of Jews even before he could walk!  On the other side of the spectrum, how can we look up to “good” people when that is just how they are “programmed”, if you will.  Mother Teresa gave up her life for service:  if absolute determinism is correct, then we can’t say she did anything extraordinary, just want she was meant to do in the big scheme of things.  This is why I find absolute determinism even plausible, because it is takes away everything that makes humans unique and treats us all as if we are puppets being controlled by some outside force.

After reading Kane’s article about free will, I am thoroughly impressed with his proposal of self-forming actions. According to Kane, there are certain actions in our history (SFAs) in which we could have done otherwise that have formed our present character. Kane argues that these essential decisions help form the people we are today. I think that Kane’s argument is an effective alternative to determinism. Personally, I find it difficult to believe in a world in which all of our actions are predetermined and controlled. I believe, like Kane, that our past decisions and experiences create who we are today and that we base our current decisions off of these experiences. One key aspect point that Kane makes is that free action is not the same as free will. Many arguments center around the question “could he/she have made a different choice?”, but that does not encompass all of free will. Free will is the ability to form ourselves, our wishes, wants, and motivation and purposes. Kane’s theory does a very good job of explaining this view of free will. In my opinion, this is why Kane’s explanation is better than others we have read; it covers all of free will and addresses the internal aspects-motivation and purpose. In addition, Kane notes that actions must be voluntary; involuntary actions or accidents are not the same as free will. This distinction seems important to me; yet, other theories don’t seem to address it. Overall, I think that Kane’s proposal of SFAs and indeterminism is a very plausible explanation of free will.

Today in class we discussed free will and determinism and indeterminism. I am glad that we saved free will as the last section that we cover this semester because it seems to relate to ever other section that we have covered.  Everything: morality, right from wrong, the mind and its processes all depend on free will. However, we had a dilemma today about free will and determinism and indeterminism and responsibility.

If you were determined to do an action, are you responsible for it? Or if an action was indetermined, by chance, are you responsible for it? These are both interesting questions. I would like to support the first question, that you would be responsible for you action, even though it was predetermined on your past experiences. This is because you have formed other decisions that affect your future. By determining your character, you actions will be determined also.