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)

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.

In Nagel’s What Does It All Mean, chapter 6 discusses the idea of free will. Nagel proposes several different theories in this chapter; yet, he ultimately seems to disagree with all of them. The first is the idea of determinism: “circumstances before an action determine that it will happen, and rule out any other possibility”.  This theory poses serious problems, not only with the idea of free will (which wouldn’t exist), but also for the consequences of actions. Based on this idea, punishing someone for their wrongs would seem cruel, since it was already determined that they would preform those wrongs. As an alternative, Nagel offers the idea that perhaps nothing determines our actions. Unfortunately, this leads to “a dead end” because it offers no explanations for our actions. His last proposition is likely, in my opinion, the closest to the real explanation. Nagel says that causal determinism may be necessary in order to claim responsibility for actions. However, with this explanation he emphasizes psychological inputs/explanations. Personally, I disagree with determinism. I think that people do have free will and choices. However, I do agree that psychological explanations are very important. I think that our actions are based on the sum of our past experiences and our current circumstances. Based on the summation of all of this, people evaluate a situation and make, what seems to them, the best choice. I don’t define this as determinism because even though one’s decisions are based on past experiences, one still has the decision to make.

In class we have recently been discussing philosophy of the mind and debating whether it is possible for science to learn all there is to know about the brain. Although it is an unpopular belief, I still believe that science can teach us all there is to know about the brain. I think that consciousness is tied to the brain, even if we can’t understand how. Neuroscience is a fairly new field, only having been around for the last 100 years or so. Already, neuroscience has explained many aspects of the brain that previously were not understood. Memories, for example, can be stored in the brain, but they can also have a direct impact on the brain, altering neural routes and pathways. This can be applied to the Mary discussion that we had in class. The reason that Mary does not know about colors before leaving her black and white world is because she has never seen colors and therefore they have never been processed in her brain. However, upon seeing color, her neural pathways will be altered and she will now have the experience and understand what it is like to see color. She cannot perceive colors before she has seen them because her brain cannot imagine them until the proper neural connections have been established. This argument may not convince everybody and I understand. However, 500 years ago if you described electricity or smart phones, people probably would have claimed you were crazy; yet, now these advances are reality. Although it may not be imaginable now, I believe that one day science will make the necessary advances to understand the brain and consciousness.

In class, we brought up the discussion of Mary, a hypothetical girl who has been locked up her whole life in black and white. Now, throughout her whole life, Mary has learned everything there is to learn about the world, except she has never seen color. She has read about color and learned about its properties, but she has never seen it. One day, Mary finally enters the real world and sees color; has she learned anything new? Personally, I would argue yes. Neurologically, the perception of color will activate new regions of her brain, likely activating new neural paths and altering them (therefore causing learning). In addition, seeing colors will give Mary new insight into the lives of other people. This idea is also mentioned in Jackson’s article “What Mary Didn’t Know”. Because she has now seen color, she will better understand other people and how they perceive the world. Although some people may argue that since she has read about everything she knows everything, I think that new experiences add layers of learning. For example, imagine driving a car. One can go to driver’s ed and watch your parents drive for years, but until you get behind the wheel of a car and drive yourself, you don’t truly know what it is like to drive a car. I think that these examples show that experience is a teacher that has no replacement and that new experiences give one new knowledge.

In class we have been discussing consciousness and the rules of its existence. Although many people in our class seem to believe that consciousness cannot be studied by science, I disagree. I believe that the science can still be used to study consciousness. I think that rather than being separate from the brain, consciousness may result from the interaction between the brain and the body. The brain is a neural system that contains all of the abilities to see and perceive the world. However, the brain needs to be “hooked up” to do this. In other words, the brain needs to be connected—via neural pathways, muscles, etc.—to the outer world. Each individual’s brain forms a bond with their own body, learning how to see and perceive the world through that body. The body relies on the brain to give it direction, but the brain relies on the body to provide and preform actions. Based on this, it makes sense that consciousness is personal because everyone’s bodies are different so their perceptions of the world and therefore consciousness will be slightly different. Yet, this does not mean that consciousness cannot be studied. Society is formed of individual people, all different, all going about their own lives. However, sciences such as anthropology sociology exist that point out the similarities and differences between groups of people. Science may not be able to explain each person’s individual perspective, but it may be able to explain overall rules/characteristics of consciousness by studying the bonds between brains and bodies and reality.

In Regan’s article “The Case for Animal Rights” he makes the claim that hunting animals and farming them for agriculture is immoral. He backs this argument by stating that all animals and people both have innate value and, therefore, should be treated equally. Personally, I agree with Regan; I do think that animals have certain rights and that using them for research and experimentation is somewhat immoral. However, one key aspect that Regan does not address in his argument is the fact that animals eat each other. If we all have the same innate value, then shouldn’t animals consuming each other also be immoral? Or, if Regan would claim that this is not immoral, then what exception applies to animal that does not apply to humans? This flaw in Regan’s argument seems to lend itself to one of two conclusions: either all animal consumption is immoral (regardless of who (human or animal) is consuming) or animal consumption is moral. To say that all animal consumption is immoral seems too far-reaching. Therefore, this seems to be a flaw in Regan’s argument. Although the methods in which some animals are farmed does seem immoral, animal consumption as a whole, in my opinion, cannot be called immoral.

Lately in class we have been discussing afterlife and how humans depend on future generations. Scheffler argues, in his paper, that without future generations life would lose purpose/meaning. He claims that we rely on the continuation of the human race to shape our world perspective. I agree with Scheffler that the future existence of humans does effect how people view life and the world; however, I do not agree that without future generations life would lose meaning. If humans had time to adjust their perspective of the world, I believe that we could still find meaning in life. It is important to note, that a key aspect of this claim is time. If we all learned that the world would end in 30 days, there would probably be widespread hysteria. On the other hand, if we learned that in 1000 years the earth would explode, I think that people would have time to alter their world perspectives and that people in future generations would not view life as hopeless, but would manage to find alternate explanations/ways to find meaning in life. This argument does not necessarily negate Scheffler’s argument because I do agree that in our current world we do rely on future generations, but I do want to point out that, in time, humans could adjust to the idea of no future generations and would find some hope and some purpose in life.