Not So Contemporary

Lastnight I talked to Aaron's Dad's friend Stacy who has a degree in Philosophy, and we talked about some things that aren't contemporary issues but more traditional questions. The theme of the night was why we are here. Stacy, who meditates frequently, doesn't follow any one religion ... So he explains that everyone should keep an open mind in order to gain a better understanding as to why are here. We talked about presupposes and opposites. For example, finiteness and infinity are obviously opposites. So if you think about reincarnation and time .. the two opposites are beginningness and endlessness. If you can find a way to merge things together, you can better understand our universe. It is easy to mesh beginningness and endlessness together because we have a concept of time. This moment right now, writing this blog, is both a beginning and an end because it is a point in time but we are obviously moving forward .. So that is where they merge together. We do the same with science and religion in subtle forms, but to ultimately mesh them together seems impossible. To one day understand the meaning of life would take a union of people with open minds who can find it in them to mesh these things together. He recommends meditating "What is the difference between the question and the answer?" and writing down every dream .. And keep the triangle of finding the median of opposites in mind.

pteradactyls are not buffalo-friendly.

Radical Egalitarianism

On the topic of economics a couple classes ago we went over a philosoher who believes 100% in socialism.. Kai Nielson. He believes in a world where everyone's needs are satisfied as much as possible. His argument for this is that the only want that everyone has in common is that we all want everything we need, and that is why we should all have what we need since a large portion of the world is living in poverty. He ends up giving inconsistent arguments because he has both Kantian points and Utilitarian points.

Paul Taylor

Last Thursday in Philosophy we went over a life-centered envornmentalist named Paul Taylor, who does not believe in anthropocentricism. Basically he believes that all species that exist .. even useless polar bears .. play a vital role in nature. His argument is that every species has intrinsic value and deserves concern and consideration of all moral agents. Since he believes that everything is inherantly valuable, this is a Kantian argument. His faults are, though, that his reasons are normative and cannot be measure emperically. He assumes that everything plays a role in nature without any true evidence and refuses to consider the teleological fact that biologically everything's purpose is to breed and keep their species alive. His biocentric outlook is that we are all part of a complex web and losing a species would cause a domino effect and result in the downfall of life. I do not believe in this because we lose species all the time and we are not affected by it. We lost the dinosaurs ages ago and we're fine. We would be fine wtihout seagulls, wouldn't we?

Euthanasia

One theorist I don't agree with in the euthanasia debate is J, Gay Williams. He argues that passive euthanasia does not exist. He also says that euthanasia goes against nature, therefore it is morally wrong since you are "taking away someone's dignity" (J. Gay Williams' Argument). I believe that if the person is not going to recover and endure more pain than happiness, than to euthanize them would be the morally better than to let them suffer.

Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

I believe abortion should be a personal choice, not a legal issue. There are many different debates as to why abortion is wrong, but I agree with Mary Anne Warren's argument. She argues that biologically the fetus is a person, but does not meet all the characterisitics of a human being in a moral sense, therefore it would not have the full right to life. The characteristics she uses to define a human being are having the ability to reason, the ability to feel pain consciously, the ability to have motives and goals, to ability to communicate and having a sense of itself, none of which a fetus would meet. Her point is that to act morally, a person must be conscious and aware of themselves and have the ability to reason. One might say this is not a stable argument, because the fetus has the potential to develop these characteristics, and Warren takes this into consideration. She argues that while they do have the potential, they do not hold the capacity of any of these characteristics. For example, while someone is asleep, they meet none of these ... but they DO hold the capacity. Then is infanticide acceptable? Surely the infant does not meet all of the characteristics. But Warren notes that not all the the guidelines have to be met. Babies are conscious and feel pain, and they are independent from their mother. Babies have the ability to reason, whereas fetuses do not. I think her argument is consistent, being that of a Utilitarian's, but there are faults in her debate. She depends on the fact that infanticide is wrong solely because people would prefer them not to die, which is not a supportive reason, but at least she sticks to Utilitarian points of view.