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.

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.

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.

This week we have been discussing the mind and the body and its interactions with each. At the beginning of the week, I had difficulty perceiving the mind as a mysterious thing. But after discussing the different theories of the mind and body I have grown to realize that there are many things that science cannot explain, such as the internal monologue/thoughts within each of us. Although this has been difficult for me to fully grasp, it has been an interesting question to ponder.

Back on the science note, there have been many miraculous things in science that have enhanced peoples lives involving their senses. For example, in the link provided, Neil Harbisson was bon with greyscale vision, but with the attachment of an electrical device that sends signals to his brain, he can hear the frequencies of colors, and thus identify them. This video is very interesting because his perception of color is through sound, and sometimes his perception of sound causes him to see/think of a color. He can listen to paintings. It is interesting to wonder that if I had that device as well if I would perceive color and sound the same as he would.

As our professor said in class today, there are some people who struggle with the mind-body concept since they rely on science to explain things. That was one of my struggles during class today. Being a student of neuroscience, I had a hard time agreeing with Nagel’s concept that science will never understand why chocolate has a different perception to different people. This can be explained by the different taste receptors on the tongue, different humans have different numbers of taste receptors, causing some people to be very picky eaters and others not so picky. However, I do agree with Nagel that I personally will never be able to experience how someone experiences chocolate.

We also talked about the article by Frank Jackson “What Mary Didn’t Know.” This was about how a young girl never saw color, but learned everything about color. Once she left the colorless room and experienced color for the first time she would not know what to call each color by name, Jackson argues that this shows that the brain does not know all, the mind must perceive color. However, I could argue that color names are learned by association. As is the perception of taste. If you associate chocolate with that time you ate too much chocolate and got sick, you will learn to not like chocolate. The brain has association mechanisms that allow for a certain color to be perceived and felt a certain way.

Overall, I agree that I may never be able to taste, smell, or see something the same way as someone else, but I do believe science can explain why we perceive things a certain way sometimes.

Marriage is a concept created by humans, it is not something that is needed, but yet most humans would like to get married. Sometimes, depending on the culture, there is a pressure for people to get married, a societal standard. This may cause homosexuals to marry heterosexuals in pleasing their parents. However, if homosexuals were permitted to marry, this would not be of concern.

There are many injustices of marriage. Homosexuals are wronged by not having the permission to marry. If heterosexuals were banned from marriage, there would be an epidemic, why? Since it is their right to marry, heterosexuals would be upset if they were banned. What is the logical reason for homosexuals not to marry? Before and after watching John Corvino’s videos defending gay marriage, I still do not see a reason for them not to be allowed to marry. If the religion and state were fully separated I can not see how gay marriage would be banned. If a religion prohibits gay marriage, then that should be separate from the governments view. The banning of gay marriage is an injustice, for we humans created the idea of marriage ourselves, and not allowing someone the right to it is not justified.

In class this week we discussed the article by Tom Regan, “The Case for Animal Rights.” Many students in the classroom had difficulties debating on if eating meat is ethically right or wrong, perhaps if the animals’ living conditions changed would it be more morally justified? Regan, and I, view the answer to the question as no, it is not morally justified. It is not morally justified to use other species as a resource that is not necessary. Humans are developed to not need meat, whereas other species require meat in their diets.

It is interesting to me to think about if you had to hunt your own food, kill and skin the animal yourself, would you be able to do this morally? It’s no different than eating a steak, its just situationally different. The hard work is done for you. Would you still do it or would you just take the gatherer approach and eat fruits and vegetables?

The only situation I find myself in a moral dilemma about is Regan’s view on animal testing. Animal testing itself is still using animals as our own resources to find cures or treatments for our own species. I would suggest on testing on consenting humans, but not much testing would get done. Also, smaller animals like rats have a quicker generation time than humans. It takes about 20 years for a human to fully develop but only a few months or so for other animals. So the short generation times seems ideal for research, but if it can be morally backed is another question.

Kantian ethics is apart of deontological ethics, where the act of duty and responsibility is looked upon, not the consequences of a decision. In class we talked about the issues of utilitarianism but not the possible issues of Kantian ethics. Below is a scenario found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Deontological Ethics. The results of the situation are very large, but Kantian ethics does not consider the consequences.

“[S]uppose that unless A violates the deontological duty not to torture an innocent person (B), ten, or a thousand, or a million other innocent people will die because of a hidden nuclear device”

If person A in this situation knew the disastrous outcomes that would happen to so many innocent people, is it still his duty not to torture the person B? Since Kantian ethics does not consider the consequences, most answers to this questions would be that person A is still acting ethically and upholding his duty, but I hope there is another explanation to help support which decision to make.

Continuing briefly off of my last post, What to do Concerning Meaningless Lives, while it may be inappropriate to tell someone their life is meaningless, it is interesting to think in the point of view of the Blob. After reading, “The Importance of the Afterlife. Seriously.” by Samuel Scheffler, it is easily compared to “The Meaning of Lives” by Susan Wolf. Scheffler claims how the afterlife for an individual is more than just one’s personal death, but what is left of the human race afterwards. If humanity was doomed to end 30 days after you die, and everyone knew, what would prevent everyone from becoming the Blob described by Wolf? Is this the same view that people who are the Blob currently have, that humanity is doomed so why try?

Most everyone’s goals and aspirations would be gone since humanity could not continue, but it is horrible to think of humanity sitting around, drinking beer, watching sitcoms, and waiting for its impending doom.

Recently we read Susan Wolf’s “The Meaning of Lives.” In this work, she discusses how the question of the meaning of life is too general to be completely answered by philosophers. She does however talk about what makes a life meaningless or meaningful. Those that are meaningless are either not active and not engaged (the blob), active and not engaged (useless) , or failures (bankrupt). But what if you, or someone you know, is leading a meaningless life? The answer of how to help their lives become meaningful is not explicitly answered. Trying to get people to care whether or not their life is meaningful may seem to be a big issue. Perhaps meaningless lives can turn into meaningful lives with the help of loved ones and friends encouraging and being meaningful to these meaningless individuals.