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

In class today we touched on the idea of philosophical zombies, creatures that have the same wiring and brain structure as “normal” humans but live their life with “the lights off”.  Could these beings exist?  I suppose this depends on how you interpret “lights off”.  We touched on that this could imply that the body is going through the motions, they receive input and generate output.  “Going through the motions” led to flashbacks of soccer practices when my coach would accuse of us doing this when going through drills.  What he meant by this was not necessarily that we were doing anything wrong (he said shoot, we would shoot; he said pass, we would pass) but we were lacking a focus or passion for the sport.  I suppose this would provide an example in favor of the existence of philosophical zombies, but I have trouble believing that you could “go through the motions” in all aspects of your life.  The brain is wired to generate emotion through action potentials and the release of neurotransmitters, so I think eventually the philosophical zombie would have to encounter a stimulus in which they would have a genuine reaction to rather than just a generated output.

Someone in class had mentioned that there was a debate between Gallagher and Corvino online:

I feel like I know less about the argument against gay marriage, so I jumped to Gallagher’s starting arguments in an attempt to see the other side.  I didn’t watch the entire debate so some of my arguments may be repetitive of Corvino’s rebuttals.

One argument Gallagher makes concerns the need for children to have a mother and father figure.  This debate was posted in 2013 so at the time studies may have supported this but I believe in class we discussed recent studies showing the success of children coming from same-sex homes.  Gallagher puts a lot of confidence in the institution of marriage to provide a father figure for children.  Just because your parents are married does not guarantee that you will have a father figure in your life.  What if your father is constantly at work?  I think that the issue having both genders represented is less important for the success of the child and rather the stability and love found in the household has more influence.

In the article titled, “People for the Ethical Treatment of Zombies (PETZ)”, Hinzman states, “the more consciously aware something is, the more rights and privileges and, therefore, the more it should be treated with dignity and respect”.  I thought this idea provides good reasoning behind animal rights.  For example, say a harmless spider (who doesn’t belong to anyone) wanders into a person’s house and they smash it.  Now say a harmless dog (who doesn’t belong to anyone) wanders into a person’s house and they smash it.  Why is the dog scenario so much worse than the spider?  According the phrase above it could be because the dog if more consciously aware than the spider.  However there is a potential flaw to this theory.  Now say the person continues to leave their door open and a harmless chimpanzee wanders into their house and again the person smashes it.  I don’t believe that people would be more upset about the chimpanzee (more cognitively advanced) than the dog which perhaps implies that there is some sort of social impact that also plays a role in the development of animal rights.

I recently watched a motivational video that said quote,

“A lot of people become comfortable.  They stop growing.  They stop wanting anything.  They become satisfied.”

Wolf defines a meaningful life as one in which someone is actively engaged in an at least somewhat successful project.  What happens when say a person retires?  Or what if, for example, someone completed their successful project at a young age and spends the rest of their life partying?  Is their life still considered meaningful?  Do you have to be actively engaged in a project your entire life in order for your life to have meaning?

So my hours of Facebook browsing actually came in handy.  Sorry for the long post.

A story kept coming up about a 29-year old woman who is choosing to end own life.  Although a tragic story, I bring it up because I think it has a lot of relation to what we are discussing in class specifically regarding what is morally right and wrong and the meaning of life.  The link to the story is:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/opinion/maynard-assisted-suicide-cancer-dignity/index.html?c&page=1

The first topic: Is it morally wrong for someone to end their own life?

I’m not exactly sure what the Bible says about suicide but under the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” I would think that those who believe in the Divine Command Theory would view suicide as morally wrong.  After reading and watching Brittany’s story I find it hard to agree with this view.  I’m not exactly sure what category the basis for morality on this issue would fall under  (perhaps Divine Independence theory?) but, to me, her reasons seem justified for her actions.

The second topic:  The meaning of life.

In the video Brittany says, “The reason to consider life and what’s of value is to make sure you’re not missing out.  Sieze the day.  What’s important to you?  What matters?  Pursue that.” This puts an emphasis on the meaning of life being defined by the individual which would seem to contradict Nagel’s stance that “Life may be not only meaningless but absurd.”

In class today we discussed cultural relativism which implies that morals in a society are defined by the norms of that society.  Thus morals can vary from society to society or culture to culture.  What happens if someone travels?  Say for example that a person from country A travels to country B.  Do they follow the laws of country A or B?  I suppose the simple answer is that you respect the society that you are currently in, so in this example the person would follow the laws of country B.  But what does this say about morality in general?  Your actions regarding morality can change simply over the course of one plane ride?

In class we reconstructed Nagel’s argument regarding the application of the golden rule to the scenario of stealing an umbrella:

1. I would resent it if someone took my umbrella.
2. If I resent someone’s action, I think they shouldn’t have done it.
3. Premise 2 applies to any agents.

Therefore, I should not take someone else’ s umbrella.

If we were going to attack  this argument I think the weakest premise is the third.  What if agents have dramatically different characteristics?  What if the umbrella you were going to take had been stolen in the first place? What if the person whose umbrella you were going to take didn’t really mind walking in the rain?  Does this change what is the morally right thing to do in this situation?

In class we discussed the Divine Command Theory which states things are good because God permits them; things are bad because God prohibits them.  I would like to look at this theory from another stand point.  Are things good because the law permits them and bad because the law prohibits them?  Kurtz states that “each person is capable of making moral choices and of behaving morally”, but what happens if people disagree on what is right and wrong?  Should someone be punished by the law for what they believed was morally right?