Philosophy Reflective Writing Assignment - Research Paper Example

Due Philosophy Reflective Writing Assignment Response The idea of whether or not human beings have free will or whether our actions and behaviors are only responsive to causes, or if natural instinct and biological imperatives control human beings. We all know we have choice. I choose to sit down and type this paper instead of doing something else. I choose what I will eat for each meal. I choose what time I will go to sleep at night, regardless of what time I have to get up If I am over tired, well it is my own poor judgment that led to it. I did not have to stay up so late and it certainly was not in my best interest; however I still chose the course of action. However, once you make that decision you are responsible for whatever happens as a result of that action or behavior. The idea that mankind has no free will is overall, both, frightening and dangerous perspective. If people are guided by a hand of fate and destiny then no matter what actions you take in the end you will always find yourself exactly where you were always going to be. In other words your actions are irrelevant, what will be, will be, regardless of one’s efforts or goals. This could easily breed generations of laziness. Why bother to try when it will all turn out the same no matter what we do. It, also, speaks to a lack of responsibility and accountability in our actions. In determinism for example, our decision are not really our own. We choose the only way we can give the choices before us. In other words, when a man kills another, the murderer is not rally responsible; he had no choice but to as he did. No one would ever be held truly accountable for their actions (Greenstreet 1).We make choices, everyday, on subjects both simple and grand, and we are responsible for those decisions and their outcomes. Without free will there could be standards of living, no societal structure, and no means to protect people from others who are a direct threat for their health and safety. For example, pedophilia is a continuing mental disorder that is creating more and more predators stalking children. Because they use the excuse that they are mentally unstable or that their decisions were outside their control they are freed from responsibility. What, biological imperative are we justifying in these cases. If they are not responsible for their actions then how can we detain them or isolate them from the population. Many pedophiles admit that they know that their desire for children is not right, but blame their natural inclination as outside their control. But, they know the laws and ethics, yet they choose to continue to do hurtful and harmful things to chidden. Anything but free will releases them of that responsibility and that is not a worthwhile world to create or participate in. In the question it asks if it is a fair trade to exchange free will for paradise or have free will knowing bad things may happen as a result. Whether something is good or bad is relative to those involved. The cat failing to catch the mouse perceives this outcome as bad, while the mouse thinks of it as pretty good. So every action, behavior, and choice has the potential to have good and bad results, regardless of intention or purpose, to different people all at the same time. (final word count 572) Response 2 First and foremost, it is never going to be okay to sacrifice, lose, or in some way, cost the lives of others. In most cases those situations result not in if the decision is right, or good, but on how it rates on a scale as “lesser of two evils.” The alternative to that choice was much, much worse. However, when asked is it acceptable to allow the loss of one life in order to save the lives of 1000s? Yes, honestly, it is something that happens every day, usually voluntarily (Rosenstand). Many heroes, rescuers, and brave individuals have sacrificed themselves to save others. Assassination as a viable practice of resolving problems carries a whole other set of issues involving the taking of lives. However, for example if one could go back in tome and end the life of Adolf Hitler before he could massacre the Jewish people in Europe then, yes, in that case many would agree that it may be beneficial. However, if we look at the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, most people would feel differently. The man who assassinated him believed he was doing the right thing, but we perceive him as a villain, but if someone had been witness to hypothetical assassination of Hitler would be cheering. This creates a double standard that makes the issue far more complex. We are all familiar with the statement, “the needs of the many out way the needs of the few…” Is it acceptable to sacrifice a lesser number to save a larger number? In many ways logic would say yes, because it favors the course with the least amount off harm and loss. However, if that number is reversed, more people being sacrificed to save a lesser amount are ethically questionable. It places an unfair value on some lives over others. In a world working towards equality of life this hardly send that sort of message. Abortion is an issue with so many facets, but it has been acceptable medical practice for some time to allow a mother to decide whether or not to maintain a pregnancy of that pregnancy poses a risk to her health. In this case it is a matter of certainty. The women will certainly die if she carries the child, and the child’s life remains uncertain; it may not survive on its own that is yet to be seen. The better odds, technically, are on the mother if she aborts the pregnancy. Again it should never be “okay” or easy to sacrifice anyone for any reason, even if that ends up being the course of action chosen. But in reality, we already sacrifice some members of society over others. We may not send them to the Executioner, but it is essentially the same. The homeless, the poor, those with less opportunities, fall by the wayside of society everyday and those in the highest positions of society are not going to give up what they have to save them. So it really depends on ones definition of “sacrifice.” We speak of equality of life yet that is clearly not true, all you have to do is look out a window. Some people are already being sacrificed; it is just that their sacrifice will come slow over the course of their life. (total word count 546) Response 3 Unfortunately proof of God’s existence can be practically, mythological, and religiously explained, however tangible evidence is another story. The idea of God, in general, is that there is an immortal, all powerful, omnipotent being that created the universe, the world, and the human race. This being takes on many names and forms in different places, religions, and ideologies all over the world; the only thing they all really have in common is that they all believe in something. For generations the perpetual stalemate between science versus religion has kept the two sides from ever seeing eye to eye. Form the origin of man, creationism versus evolution to the age of the Earth being a few thousand to a few billion years old. However, there are some hardcore scientist today who have changed their minds about the idea of God They admit hat in the beginning of their careers they were dedicated to logic and scientific principles, many were confessed Atheists. However, some of these scientists, after years of research into the origins of the universe, this planet, and of life on Earth have led them to a fascinating discovery. They claim now, given the finite and very specific elements needed, timing, chemicals, sunlight, locations, and so many other aspects have to be in just such precise amounts that the likelihood of life ever being possible by chance is mathematically impossible and scientifically implausible. They now believe that there has to be a God, or at least, something that participated making it possible for this universe, world, and life to exist here on this planet (Harte 1). That said, if hard core atheists can be converted then there is a good chance there is a God. Whether or not there are limitations to God is not really something that can be answered. If God does have weaknesses it would be likely something that we would either not understand or do not need to. It is interesting that when one presents an ageless, omnipotent, and all powerful being and then represent it as being a white bearded elderly man, as they do in Christianity. Why is he old? Why is male? These speak to the limitations that each of these beings is not supposed to possess. As a male this God is limited by whatever limits any male, in the same way, by aging him it infers that he is not immortal and that what changes in age, eventually dies. That is a strange imbalance present there. Given that evidence can be given to, both, justify the existence and non-existence of God beings there is likely to be no definitive resolution for some time to come, if ever. The more historians, scientists, and researchers learn about human development, history, and behaviors, new things are being discovered every day. That said, there is a lot about ourselves as species that we do not yet understand, but if in this search of self understanding we discovered proof of God it would not be at all surprising; frankly it is no less likely that it is unlikely. (total count 510) Response 4 Ignorance is bliss for the ignorant. Unfortunately, that statement is entirely true. Most people do not suffer much from something they do not know they should be suffering from. There are many ignorant people out there, some people probably do not even realize how ignorant they are. While others choose to be ignorant so that they do not have to tackle difficult issues and face difficult decisions that require them to commit real and sincere thought. This sort of ignorance is a side effect of laziness and nothing more. So in this case, the American proverb proves quite accurate. However, for those who are not ignorant, the ignorance of others can be aggravating, frustrating, and down-right intolerable. From the perspective of those who are not ignorant, but gifted with the ability to analyze and comprehend their reality in ways those who are ignorant can ever hope to. For them Holtby is far more accurate. Because they are not ignorant they can see how the ignorance of others contributes to a dissatisfying world and unhappy lives. It is the fault of the ignorant, who fail to adhere to the advice and logic of better, more open, and aware minds. They see the violence, their cowardice, and their superstition as foolishness as a side-effect of an ignorant mind. There are many experts that claim that ignorance is sometimes very voluntary (McKay, and Nelson ). Sometimes we do not want to see the reality, if that reality proves to unpleasant or reflect an undesirable outcome. For example when a spouse manages not to see all of the obvious signs that he was cheating on her, because she did want to face that reality. It was Socrates that said that, “the unexamined life is not worth living.” He is correct to a certain extent as well. Insects live very short lives. They are born, they breed, and they die. There is little difference between the life of one insect and the life of another. They certainly will never stop to examine, “what it means to be a bug?” We as human beings have that potential. To understand selves and the world around us, yet some people walk around this world ignorant and unaware; like insects they live, exist, and die without reflecting upon anything or contributing as an individual to society. Having these mental gifts that human beings seem to have is wasted if we do not make an effort to use them for what they are for. We were given legs to walk, lungs to breath, and clever brains to think. We are meant to use them, like any other attribute. So when people, through ignorance, fail to take the time to recognize the world, people, and themselves, and what all of that may or may not mean, then they are truly never really living the life of a true human being, but the life of an insect. Granted all of this awareness and freedom of ignorance prompting some of us to explore the thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and purposes of humanity on a different level may never yield the answers that we hope to gain, but it is the journey that Socrates was, primarily, talking about. In today’s world where the internet, television, and everyone and everything on them can be misleading. Much of what one sees cannot be believed realistically, but some people are so ignorant and uninterested thinking any deeper and believe what they see and hear as if it were new “Gospel,” so to speak. (total word count 582) Response 5 I disagree that everyone has the world that they have asked for. If that were true then I imagine there would be a lot more people living in mansions than living in cardboard boxes in back allies. Not everyone is the arbiter of their own destiny. They are accountable for their choices, but the options they can choose from are often, dictated and limited by others (Haight ). For example those who are born into a wealthy family, without any effort on their part will live a life where their wants are often more accessible, however that is not their doing but he lifestyle they were born into. They did not choose it, but they others have provided a certain reality for them. In the same vein, someone very poor from childhood may never have the opportunity, even in adulthood, to climb up above a certain income level. He may wish for a life that is less difficult and more secure. However, just because he hopes for it and would choose that reality for himself, does not at all mean that that is what will happen. We are never entirely in control of our reality, able to choose the world we most want. One of the most difficult emotional realties that many do not have the option to change, is that many people start to believe that the reality they have is the reality that they deserve. This can be pleasant for some, but not for others. For example, a wealthy person may start to believe that their materialistic and powerful economical position is something that they have “earned” or they “deserve;” however, for the poor, they may, also, come to feel that they are cursed, unloved by their God, or condemned to their life. They see it as a punishment, one they must have earned and deserve. Of course the latter, can lead to depression, which is another indicator that we hardly live the life that we would choose to if we were all asked and our requests were instantaneously answered. In truth the ideology behind the concept of deserving ones status in life is as self serving concept invented by those whose status places them perpetually in favor. In other words, of course they want to believe that things are as they should be, because they like the way things are. However, these same people can use this kind of thinking to secure their own status and, at the same time, infer that people whose lives are not so charmed, also are what they deserve. Ultimately discouraging them from ever hoping to leave their unpleasant side of reality. It is, also, very true that many people base their decisions on what they can gain from it. For example, Emily wants to be an actor instead of a nurse, because actors make far more money; the ultimate rewards guide the outcome. Also, if people could create whatever reality and world that they most desire then people would be able to do think not only logical, but also entirely impossible. For example it is down-right impossible for me to sprout wings and fly even if I wanted it more than anything else. At the same time, I tell myself that I cannot have acupuncture because I do not like needles. Now it is not physically impossible for me to go to an acupuncturist, however, my personal desire to stay as far away from needles as one can possibly be, acupuncture seems unlikely to be a part of my reality. (total word count 588) Work Cited Greenstreet, Stuart. "Free Will versus Natural Necessity?." Philosophy Now. 2012: 1. Web. 28 Nov. 2013. . Haight , Kelly. "We accept the love we think we deserve." The Digital Universe. Word Press, 19 February 2013. Web. 28 Nov 2013. . Harte, Shawn. "Is There A God?." Philosophy Now. November-December 2013: 1. Web. 28 Nov. 2013. . McKay, Thomas, and Michael Nelson. "Ignorance of identities." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. online: 2010. . Rosenstand , Nina. "The Ethics of Self-Sacrifice." Philosophy on the Mesa. Word Press, 25 March 2011. Web. 28 Nov. 2013. . Read More