Truth vs Opinion

Truth verses opinion is a very interesting topic. I feel that some truths are base off of individual opinions. For example something can be true, but there is always someone who is trying to justify or prove why or why not something is or isn’t true. Take science and religion for an example. Those who believe in the scientific approach to things are always looking for proof or evidence to show that something that is said to be true is actually true. But, if you are more religious, these truths do not have to be proven. It is based on faith and not evidence. These truths also are based on the opinions of the individuals to believe in one or the other. No matter which concept you believe in you probably have an opinion about the other. Let’s say that a scientific person believes that the big bang created the earth and that’s what they think is true. They are going to have opinions about a religious person saying that God is the reason why the universe exist; since that is their truth. So really I think the truth of somethings are the opinions of these things. They go hand in hand because when you are dealing with truths not everyone is going to believe the same thing you believe. To me this is opinion. So saying something is true does not mean that there are not going to be opinions attached to the truths that people believe.

Tayler Hildreth

Power in Today's Society

One day as I was scrolling through social media, I found something that caught my eye. The title was “NFL or NBA? “Then it listed these statistics: 36 of its members have been accused of spousal abuse, 7 arrested for fraud, 19 accused of writing bad checks, 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 business, 3 have been in jail for assault, 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit, 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges, 8 have been arrested for shoplifting, 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits and 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year. It turns out it is neither sports league but rather the 535 members of Congress. Even though it is dated, it reminded of Thrasymachus known as the “bad boy” of the Republic and his quote on justice. He said that, “Justice is the advantage of the strongest”. What I don’t understand is how Congress could represent all of those statistics, yet no one even thought to assume it was them. The strongest, in this case is Congress, definitely have the advantage because they are the ones that make the laws and that can then benefit from them. Even when Congressmen do get pulled over, what makes you believe that they don’t then state they on Congress and claim immunity? In today’s world, you can be powerful and rarely pay consequences for breaking the law. And sometimes the only reason the powerful suffer consequences is due to the large amount of evidence stacked against them. Like another thing we talked about in class, most people don’t face jail time for crystalized meth because it is so expensive and if you do get caught, you can more than likely buy your way out of jail. Yet if you get caught with powder meth, you will probably face jail time just because you can’t afford to buy your way out of jail. I agree with Thrasymachus when he states that, “Justice is the advantage of the strongest” because this is very true in today’s society.

Glaucon

In Plato’s Repubic, Glaucon’s story about the ring that makes the wearer invisible presents some disturbing thoughts. Glaucon’s argument is that no one would act justly if there were no consequences or rewards. This would mean that justice is only an instrumental good rather than an intrinsic one. When asked the question about what we would do if we were invisible most of us were willing to do the wrong thing, but I believe that Glaucon’s idea of justice is wrong. If our justice system fell apart, chaos would surely ensue due to a lack of structure, but in a matter of time we would once again lay down a system that encourages justice because it is what the majority believes is valuable. In class we discussed the example of cheating as intrinsically wrong. Even if we were to never get caught, and there were no consequences for any actors in this scenario, most of us would still consider it wrong. To this we can mostly agree to add murder, stealing, lying, and plagiarizing. All of these actions are wrong in themselves, despite the reasons behind them. Though there may be a good reason to murder or steal, the action in itself is still wrong. We are born with a sense of what is right and wrong and therefore I believe that most of us would remain just even if we suffered no consequences from acting otherwise. Each of us has a moral compass that naturally points us towards what is right (though we do not always follow its direction). Because of these ideas of right and wrong that are within us, I believe that we would make just decisions for the sake of being just. We would not choose not to shoot someone because we were scared of being caught or to be praised as merciful- we would not shoot because we know murder is wrong. But maybe I’m being too optimistic.

Plato's Republic and a Just Society

In class, we learned that there are two types of “good”. Instrumental good is when people only doing good for the sake of something else. Intrinsic good is when people do good for the sake of good in itself. Glaucon’s philosophical look on the question of what is just and what is unjust is that there is never any true just to be found in a person. He believes that we only perform justice acts in order to reap the benefits or to not be looked down upon from the majority. It seems as though he looks at justice as anybody performing the instrumental good. In relation to this lesson, I found a current event that contradicts Glaucon’s philosophical look on justice. There is a Kentucky county U.S. clerk that refuses to marry same sex couples due to her religious beliefs. Now the Supreme Court has already ruled that same sex marriage is legal and is a divine right of human beings to marry who they want to. Its ironic how this woman is going against the majority of people’s beliefs and judgements in order to uphold what she believes in. Which is going against the instrumental good idea Glaucon has due to the fact that she isn’t giving into the norms of society that is already ruled by the law. It also almost completely destroys the idea of justice because she is refusing to give other people their basic human rights. Justice is defined as having just behavior or doing the morally right/fair thing. It also brings up the ideas of how the woman is acting based off her religious beliefs. Finally I’m going to leave you here with the notion of if the woman is acting off her religious beliefs, is she being morally right?

-Author: Jade Housewirth
-Phil MWF 9:00am -090215

Welcome to Class!

Welcome to the blog-home for Dr. J's Fall 2015 Contemporary Moral Problems course! This site will serve as a forum for students to discuss the material we cover in class, as well as a place to raise questions we may not have addressed in class or to make connections between our material and current real-world events. Each week, students will be divided into two groups, with half of the class designated as "Authors" and the other half designated as "Commenters." In any given week, "Authors" will post a short essay (minimum 300 words) related to the course material before Friday at 5pm. "Commenters" will respond to at least two of that week's Author-posts before the beginning of the next week's class.  Students are encouraged to post or comment beyond the requirements stated here, as frequent and quality blog activity will be rewarded in the final grade.

First, if you don't know ANYTHING about blogs or blogging, there are (fortunately) lots of tutorials out there to help!  If you have a specific question, you can usually find the answer to it at the Blogger Help Center.  For a quick YouTube introduction to blogging, I suggest this video and this one.  There's also a "Complete List of Blogger Tutorials" available.  That's the amazing thing about the internet, of course... you can learn to do almost anything with a few clicks!

Second, you will notice that there are already many posts on this site. Those are from students who took this course before, and you are welcome to scroll through and take a look at what others have said about the course material.

It's important to know that blog-writing differs from the writing you might do for "traditional" papers in some ways, but not in others. Here are some things to think about as you compose your posts and comments:

FOR AUTHORS:

• Do not wait until the last minute to write your post! Students should think of the blog as a community exercise. In this community, Authors are responsible for generating that week's discussion and Commenters are responsible for continuing and elaborating upon it. In order for the Commenters to be able to provide the best commentary they can, it is necessary that Authors do not wait until the last minute to post entries in any given week. Like traditional papers, it is almost always obvious when a student has elected to write his or her blog-posts at the last minute, as they end up being either overly simple, poorly conceived or poorly edited. Your contribution to the blog discussion is important, so take care to show the respect to your classmates that you would expect them to show you.
• Be concise, but also precise. The greatest challenge of blog-writing is to communicate complex ideas in a minimal amount of words. It is important that you keep your posts short, in keeping with the blog format, but also that you do not sacrifice the clarity or completeness of your ideas for the sake of brevity.
• Be focused. If you find that your blog-entry is too long, it is likely because you have chosen too large a topic for one post. (Consider splitting up long entries into two or more posts.) It should be eminently clear, on the first reading, what your blog post is explaining/asking/arguing. Use the Post Title to clearly state the subject of your entry.
• Choose a topic that will prompt discussion. The measure of a good blog post is how much commentary it can generate. To that end, do not use your blog posts for simple exegesis or to revisit questions already settled in class. Good discussion-generators often include bold claims about, or original interpretations of, our classroom texts. Connecting the course material to current events or controversies is also a good way to generate discussion. Pay special attention to in-class conversations, as many of the issues that generate discussion in class will also do so on the blog.
• Proofread. Proofread. PROOFREAD. As a rule, blog-writing is (slightly) less formal than the writing you might do for a paper you hand in to your professor. For example, you may write in the first person, and a more "conversational" style is usually acceptable. However, ANY writing with glaring punctuation, spelling or grammatical mistakes not only will be difficult to read and understand, but also will greatly diminish the credibility of its Author. It is NOT ADVISABLE to "copy and paste" the text of your post into blog's "new post" box, as you will inevitably end up with a format that is difficult to read. Be sure to familiarize yourself with the formatting buttons above, and always preview your post before publishing it.
• Make use of the "extras" provided by new technology. When you write a traditional paper for class, you don't have many of the opportunities that blog-writing affords. Take advantage of the technologies available here to insert images, embed video or employ hyperlinks to other relevant materials.
• Respond to your commenters. Authors should stay abreast of all the commentary their posts generate. If you are asked for clarification by a commenter, or if one of your claims is challenged, it is the Author's responsibility to respond.

FOR COMMENTERS:

• Read carefully BEFORE you comment. The biggest and most frequent error made by commenters is also the most easily avoidable, namely, misreading or misunderstanding the original post. Don't make that error!
• Simple agreement or disagreement is not sufficient. Sometimes it will be the case that you fully agree or disagree with an Author's post. However, a comment that simply states "I agree" or "I disagree" will not count for credit. You MUST provide detailed reasons for your agreement or disagreement in your comment.
• Evidence works both ways. Often, the source of disagreement between an Author and a Commenter will involve a textual interpretation. If an Author claims in his or her post that "Advocates of the death penalty are obviously operating within a Kantian moral framework," the Author should have also provided a page citation from Kant supporting that claim. If you (as a Commenter) disagree, it is your responsibility to cite a passage from Kant that provides evidence for your disagreement. For disagreements that are not text-based-- for example, disagreements about statistical claims, historical claims, claims about current events, or any other evidentiary matters-- hyperlinks are your friend.
• NO flaming allowed!:  Engage your classmates on the blog with the same consideration and respect that you would in class. 

Although this blog is viewable by anyone on the Web, participants have been restricted to members of the PHIL220 class only. This means that only students enrolled in your section of PHIL220 this semester at CBU can post or comment on this blog. However, anyone can read it, so students are reminded to take special care to support the claims that they make, to edit their posts and comments judiciously, and to generally represent themselves in conversation as they would in public. If you are new to blogging, you can visit the sites for other CBU course blogs listed in the column to your right.

I look forward to seeing your conversation develop over the course of this semester!
--Dr. J

Black Mirror: Be Right Back.

Honestly, I agree that this gave me the feeling of "the uncanny" because I felt it throughout the entire show. I think it might help to have a robot version of someone for certain things, but I also feel like it is wrong in many different ways. I feel like if all you have to do is pay money to basically bring someone who isn't going to age or anything back, then you're not allowing for the family and loved ones of the deceased to move on; thus, they'll be stuck in this weird place, unable to move on. I also feel like it is wrong because it becomes a burden on the people who have the robot. For example, the woman in the show felt like she couldn't have her friend over because she had a robot there which looked and acted almost exactly like her dead husband. This probably would have concerned everyone more than they already were. She also ended up having to keep him in the attic for basically the rest of her life as far as we know. And not only did it affect her, but it affected her daughter as well. The daughter now has to keep robot daddy a secret as well, which is a lot to ask of a child.

I would like to know your feelings on this as well.

Personal ID: Black Mirror

In the last two weeks we've watched episodes from Black Mirror. The first episode was called White Bear and it deals with punishment. To specify, the form of punishment represents the code of Hammurabi, "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." It makes the punishment match the injury. The woman involved in the kidnapping and murder of a little girl had to endure suffering similar to what the little girl went through. The only thing is the woman's memory is erased everyday so that she has to experience the torment again. This raises the question, when will the punishment end and more importantly how can the woman learn her lesson if her memory is constantly being erased.

The next episode, Be Right Back, deals with something less disturbed. However, it can be a little creepy. When a woman's fiance dies, she can't handle the loss and resorts to using a program ,recommended by a friend at the funeral, that allows her to still talk to her lover through technology. Before long she becomes attached to the program and even springs for a synthetic version of her dead fiance. She was pleased with it because it reminded her of her fiance. However, this didn't last because the program didn't have spontaneous reactions like the original person. She had to constantly tell it what her fiance would usually do. In the end, she had to keep the program and it now lives in the attic of her home. This movie deals with the uncanny valley. The program became so much like the genuine that it was seemingly real. The program was creepy because it was supposedly a dead man brought back from the dead. I'm sure at one point the woman forgot that her lover was dead. This is how scary technology can be at times. What will happen once people start using fully robotic duplicates of themselves?

Personal Identity Week 1

Over the past couple of weeks we have discussed personal identity. Within those weeks we have seen movies that display these lessons in different ways. One example of this is the movie Catfish. In this movie, Ariel and Henry were filming a documentary about Nev. However, another story was starting to unfold when Nev starts interacting with a family from Ishpeming, Michigan. He starts sending pictures to a girl named Abby, who we thought was a talented painter. He then starts interacting with her mother Angela and older sister Megan. After months of talking to her, something happens during their Facebook chat that makes Nev suspicious. When Megan told Nev that she was a singer, Nev wanted hear her sing. Megan would send him songs that were supposedly recorded by her. However, when Nev looks up the songs on YouTube, he notices the songs sounded exactly the same, except the person singing it was Megan. This was the moment that made Nev wonder, "what else has she been lying to me about?" As the story unfolds, we find out that Megan wasn't even a real person. She was someone made up by Abby's mother, Angela. Throughout the movie, it is revealed that Angela has a community of made up Facebook accounts. The reason why is because she doesn't enjoys her real life in Michigan. In reality, she is constantly taking care of her husband's sons, while the husband doesn't really do anything. She isn't happy with the life she's living so she makes up a fake life on Facebook. However, after spending time with Nev, she realizes that she could still do what she loves which is painting. The movie ends with Angela pursuing her career and a scene of her husbanding talking about catfish.

The movie showed how one person is different from the other. Angela had different versions of herself displayed through Megan and even Abby. Abby was made up to be a painter, but it was really Angela, more specifically "Angela the Painter." Megan displayed Angela and how she sees herself on the inside. At least that's my view on it.

Our Public Identity

     After watching the Black Mirror story about Ash and his wife, and then Ash 2.0, we discussed in class the concept of our public identity. In the film, it was Ash's public identity that he formed online that was programmed into Ash 2.0. The company or whoever provided this service took all of that information and formed a person so to speak including the attitudes, feelings, and responses that were deduced from Ash's online profiles. In our society the idea of how we present who we are online is a pretty big deal, being as everyone can monitor the actions we post. This is something to keep in mind since today more and more employers judge applicants thoroughly by using our online identities.
     So is it really our "best" self we try and put online? I agree in that we tend to promote what we find best about ourselves online. Our best thoughts, moments, pictures, achievements, etc. The reason we do this may vary, but personally I see it as the over arching thought that we all care what others think of us. That may not be a popular opinion but it is the truth and in some instances it is important to keep in mind what others think of you. That is not to say base your actions on what people think, but just know that people are gong to observe your actions and form their own opinions. So in order to ensure that people form positive opinions is the reason we tend to show our "best" selves online.
    
     

A little Late: White Bear

The women who had watched and filmed the little girl being killed was put through some cruel and unusual punishment for her actions. It was literally taking the saying "an eye for an eye" and putting it into effect. She went through her punishment day after day, but not remembering anything that had happened the day before because they would erase her memory, so that she would experience fear as well, just like the little girl. If punishment is supposed to make you a better person, how was this if she could not even remember what she had done until the very end of each day? She was not able to grow from her punishment or even realize what she had done. Yes it allowed her to experience fear  but her punishment become an object of their pleasure. It became a show and a way to make money. This type of punishment could never work. I say just send the person to jail or whatever and allow God to handle their eternal punishment. In the end, they will get theirs and it will be worse than anything we could do to them on this earth.

Unnessesary Punishment in Black Mirror

To start off i would like to say that the movie kept my attention the whole way. I did not realize until the end that everything i had been seeing and questioning was false information. The director did a great job with that part of the movie. As for what the movie was centered around i did not feel a sense of attraction toward.

The main character of the story for me was not believable. If she had been a murdered and killed this little girl as was told in the movie, then she should at least have some set of skills that could prompt for survival. This was not the case and the whole movie she was just seen as a whiny cry-baby. This made if unbelievable for me. Even with the memory lose that had happened for multiple straight days, there would have still be some form of inherent skill set or thinking that would have lingered with her.

As for the punishment i found it interesting. There was no lesson learned. The point of punishment is to teach a lesson the person who is being punished. For people in the old days who would steal they would get their hand cut off. Back in that day people would eat with one hand and wipe their ass with the other. The punishment would be to cut off the hand that they eat with. This was a severe punishment but it definitely got the point across, don't steal. For the girl she never learned. The would punish her and take her memory of being punished. This is the equivalent of beating a dog because it woke up in the morning. Then you are nice the whole day only to beat it up when it wakes up the next day. There is no reasoning behind it other than you just want to show your dominance. I would like to know what others think of this.

Catfish, a week later. . .

            In class we watched the film, Catfish; although, there were many psychological themes throughout this film, there were also many philosophical themes as well. As we spoke in class, there were many things that appeared to be morally wrong and upsetting. One theme was the relationship between Angela and her husband, and if what she did constitutes as cheating. I believe cheating in any way or form is when an individual is unfaithful to their significant other. Since Angela was seeking happiness and pleasure elsewhere and lied to her husband as to why she was contacting this other male, I believe this was her being unfaithful to her husband. Lying to her husband not only breaks the trust between the two of them, but their communication was disrupted as well; a solid relationship is built on these two principles. Even though one could say Angela wasn’t in the right state of mind and she was caught up so deep in this false identity, she still was unfaithful to her husband.

            Another disturbing theme was the fact that Angela got her young daughter involved. It seemed like Angela had a pathological lying issue and would do whatever she could to keep this false identity alive. It’s really unfortunate to keep this false life going she had to use her 9 year old daughter and potentially get her harmed. It was not wise to let a complete stranger into her life and put her daughter in danger. It was asked in class after watching the movie if we felt like what the mother did was morally wrong? I would say yes, because not only did she do the things I mentioned above but she also manipulated and disregarded another’s feelings and emotions. I remember the question arose in class, “Do y’all feel bad for her, due to what she has to deal with?” Like many I said yes; then the next question was, “Does this change your mind if this is morally wrong?” Although she was dealt many hardships, just because we feel bad for all she has to go through; nonetheless what she did was wrong in my eyes.