I enjoyed Stich’s lecture and the examples he gave where really interesting. I believe that the main point or question of his lecture is if moral disagreement is fundamental. Many moral realists try hard to find evidence that suggests that moral disagreement is NOT fundamental. One of the examples that I found quite interesting was the study that philosopher Richard Brandt had conducted.The study was to reflect the idea that moral views across cultures are significantly different. The study focused on a certain people called Hopis. The Hopis have no moral qualms about allowing children to “play” with birds and other small animals in a way that causes the animals great pain and even breaking their bones, and ultimately the animals are killed. This situation was compared to how the contemporary white culture would see it. Of course, many people from the white contemporary culture were repulsed. especially since kids playing with animals in such a harsh way is seen as abnormal. Many believe that mistreatment of animals at an early age can be signs of the kid developing psychological problems. Brandt looked for evidence that the disagreement between the Hopis view and the contemporary white view is superficial. He did not find any evidence that would suggest that.
Punzo and Goldman
After the discussion in class I can truly say that my perspective on sex and its morals has slightly been impacted. I still stand on the firm argument that each person has a right to do what they wish with their sexual life. Personally, I agree with Punzo to a certain extent. Yes, you can have have a certain commitment with someone when you make the decision to become sexually involved with them but it does not mean that you should have that commitment. Another thing I would like to add is that commitment means something different for everyone. Commitment can mean a lifelong promise between two people, a temporary agreement that may not even last the night, or an agreement/compromise between two people that is believed to last for a good length of time.
Punzo states: “Sexuality has come to play so large a role in our commercial lives that it is not surprising that our sexuality should itself come to be treated as a commodity governed by the same moral rules that govern any other economic transaction” (126.1). We did not bring up this example in the class discussion but I find it very interesting. I believe that what Punzo means is that in today’s society many individuals see sex as a mere object that is thrown around like it is nothing. I do not think that everyone treats sex like that in these recent times. Yet, like I said before, each individuals sexual life is their own, and they should do with it what they wish. My opinion is that sex is something special but it is only special with the right person. Then there is casual sex, I believe that is just for pleasure and fun. I do not see anything wrong with that. As long as you acknowledge what it is that you are going to get into and that after your “deed” is done. you still have a strong self-concept and you know your morals. Also, there is no doubt that I believe in safety. Unprotected sex is something that I completely disagree with but since Punzo does not really touch upon that aspect of sex, I won’t build more on that fact.
Nussbaum- Beyond ” Compassion and Humanity”
Nussbaum introduces to us both Kant’s and Rawl’s perspective on the treatment of animals. Nussbaum then focuses on my favorite part of the reading, which is where Rawl’s approach is incorporated into the idea that animal cruelty is a justice issue. Nussbaum states that Rawl’s approach has a lot more to do with the emotional aspect of compassion and humanity for the cruelty of animals. Rawl does not really see the issue of animal cruelty as an issue of justice, rather he see’s it as as a moral duty. It is a human’s moral duty to know how the consequence and the true extent of the animal cruelty that is happening. Then Nussbaum incorporates compassion into justice. Nussbaum states that if if compassion is to become a moral duty, then it is wrong to cause these animals suffering. That then brings in the fact that animal cruelty does arise an issue of justice.
The reason that part is my favorite is because of the role that compassion plays into all of this. Compassion is defined as: a strong feeling of understanding, pity, or sympathy for the sufferings of another. This definition alone explains how humans should look at animals. We humans may believe that we are the superior race because we have cognitive functioning, but we did not start out with the advanced brain that we have now. We all really started out as cavemen. We lived among animals and in many ways we lived in peace with them. There was always a certain balance that was achieved when it came to humans eating animals and animals eating humans. Yet, I believe that so many humans today have just thrown away that understanding. This does contradict with my love for eating meat but I do believe that animal cruelty is an injustice. I don’t believe that there should not be none at all. In all honesty, even with all our technology advances, we still need a certain balance with animals and humans. Yet, the true injustice is the excessive cruelty. I believe that animals are an important balance to the ecosystem and that humans must have compassion. This also goes hand in hand to how humans treat other humans. We can treat each other in many awful ways but we are still able to find compassion in darkest times. Animals too, they have compassion for one another. So then, why can we not have compassion for them? They have as much right to be on this Earth as we do, even more.
Holmes Rolston- Eating Meat
There are usually two extremes when it comes to the argument of whether humans should eat meat. There is the vegetarian perspective: animals do not need the mindless suffering and meat is not an essential nutrient for human survival. Then there is the Carnivore perspective: humans are animals too, it is just part of our nature to eat meat and it is an essential nutrient for human survival. Holmes argument is interesting because it is not an extreme, rather it is like a mediator. It benefits both vegetarians and meat-eaters. Holmes brings into the argument the concept of domesticated animals like dogs, cats, etc. He argues that animals should not suffer so much because of meat consumption but that humans should also not see animals as part of a culture, they are basically just animals. Rolston argues that people easily mistake that people are animals as well. They just have cognitive function.
Personally, I love to eat meat. Yet, I always contradict myself because I do hate to see animals suffer. I agree mostly with Holmes, yes animals should not suffer but I do not agree with the claim that we should not consider animals part of a culture. I also do not agree with Rolston, I do strongly believe that humans are animals. My reason for these disagreements is the concept of natural instinct. When it comes down to it, I believe that humans will always choose their emotions or I would call it their natural reaction over cognitive thinking. In today’s society this concept is not easily applied because the world has changed, and I too have changed. I have had to adapt so yeah I do try to think in a rational way. Yet, I believe if we were ever put in a situation where we would have to survive like animals, then yes, we would put all reason aside and eat each other just to survive.
Another thing I do agree with is the fact that humans do not consider domesticated animals or pets as animals that they normally eat. I do believe that is true because it is all a matter of perception. If I had a dog, I would not look at him or her as just a dog, I would look at him or her as a member of my family who I would love, care for, and protect. Going back to the question of whether eating meat is morally wrong or right, I do not have answer with that. In all honesty, I love to eat meat but I stand in the middle of the argument. Yes I believe that meat should be eating, for pleasure or survival but I do always think of how much suffering the animals obtain form this.
Four Noble Truths- Buddha
The Four Noble Truths that the Buddha declares are quite straight forward. The first noble truth is that to live is to suffer (454.2). In other words, we can not live our lives without suffering. The second noble truth is that suffering derives from what our senses- sight, hearing, taste, smell,touch, and mind- seek for (454.3). The third noble truth is that the declining or the end of suffering can actually be reached or accomplished (456.1). As in it is possible. Finally, the possibility to accomplish the cessation of suffering is described through the fourth noble truth. Which can also be seen as the eightfold path. The path that guides us to the cessation of suffering (456.2).
Personally, what I get out of the Buddha’s Four Noble Truths, is that throughout out lives, which includes suffering, there must be balance. This balance is best described by the eightfold path. Also, when Buddha explains in the fourth noble truth how one should not have an excessive amount of pleasure in their journey and not have excessive denial of pleasure either. From this, I get a 50/50 perspective. Basically, I see balance. In many ways I agree with the Buddha’s four noble truths. The first three noble truths are truths that we, as human beings, must acknowledge. Not only acknowledge them, but know that they are indeed true. The fourth noble truth, is the truth that I believe is left in the hands of the beholder. The eightfold path is in between ideal and reasonable. Yet, in today’s society, only many know excessive pleasure or excessive denial of it. The balance for this life, according to the Buddha, is attainable. And with this balance, also comes the end of suffering. In today’s society it may seem impossible. Yet, like the Buddha, I believe that there is a certain balance we should all maintain. Too bad not everyone sees the same picture.
To add on to this post after our discussion in class. I understand more the message the Buddha was directing at us. Yes, to exist is to suffer. I agree 100 percent with that. What really amazes me though after we analyzed all the four noble truths is how every single thing we do is suffering. It kind of relates to how every little action or motion we make has a consequence, bad or good. Even our senses can cause us to suffer. I thought how he explained that was kind of crazy. Overall, I like the concept of the four noble truths and the eight fold path. Yet, I am human, so the eight fold path is somewhat flexible to me.
Pojman’s Ethical Relativism
I believe that the main point that Pojman was arguing was that, as it says in the reading, the morality of right and wrong depends on the culture it is based on. Thus, making the point that in reality there is not one common thing that is morally right or wrong for every single human being on this planet. The three theses’ that were discussed in the reading would be the Diversity thesis, the Dependency thesis, and the Ethical relativism thesis. Personally, the concept that I might associate more closely with would be the dependency thesis. I relate to all three of them but I believe the dependency thesis backs up more of my opinion that we all have different morals based on the way we were raises. The way we were raised is also dependent on the society that we live in. The reference that stuck out to me most was the Ernest Hemingway reference. Where Hemingway once said that: “Morality is in the eye of the beholder.” For example, if I see a man robbing a bank, I personally BELIEVE that it is wrong, yet in his eyes and mind, he believes he has the right to do it. Truth is, we do not know what goes on in other people’s mind and yes it can seem so morally wrong to us for what other people think and do. Yet, if we had their minds, we wouldn’t even be arguing the point of morality. This brings another point that I like so much. There are individuals who are different from the majority of people. This brings to my mind the concept of individual vs. majority. Even though we may all think and act differently, there are many things that we can agree on, and majority of people, as a whole, agree on what is morally right or wrong. What bothers me about this is that even though some of my view points can be considered part of the majority perspective, I may have a view point that is completely out the question. It is kind of like having one foot in the door and the other out the door. So if we all feel this way, then can morality also really just be based from person to person?
Benedict’s ” A Defense of Moral Relativism”
The most interesting part of the article to me was the story of the Kwakiutl. The fact that they believe that they can take someone else’s life because they lost one of their own is pretty astonishing. Now personally, it is not that I think this act is right but I do feel like it is something that I can not really contradict. The truth is, this tribe does not know any better than to do the norm and to follow tradition. Many cultures have different traditions and the beauty of this world is the diversity we have obtained over the years. Yes, the tradition that the Kwakiutl practice is to me, wrong. Yet, I feel like to them it is not wrong because like I mentioned, they do not know any better.
Therefore, when we discussed in class about universally wrong versus personally wrong, a lot of thoughts came to my head. As I sat there and looked at the list before me, I realized that there really is not a thing as universally wrong. I mean that in the way that I don’t think there is one sole thing that every human being on this planet will agree is wrong. So, if that is the case, don’t all concept’s go under personally wrong? In reality, even though we are all the same, we do tend to always differ in opinion, and we are all raised in a certain way.
I did a bit of personal research. I asked my father if he thinks that there is one thing that all human beings can agree on that is universally wrong. He didn’t think of anything except for his ideas of personal wrongs like money and abortion. He believes that money is wrong because it has become the destruction of this world. Many would disagree with him. Also, he believes that abortion is absolutely wrong unless the fetus is from rape or involves risking the mother’s life. Many are pro-choice. I feel like a right or wrong varies within each person. Mostly because, I believe that none of us know what we are really capable of until we are tested.
William K. Clifford’s “The Ethics of Belief”
The example that Clifford uses with the shipowner and the shipwreck taught me the fact that our everyday beliefs shape our everyday actions. Since the shipowner’s rock solid belief that the ship was not going to wreck, his belief led him to take action of sending out the ship. The most interesting thing is when the wreck does happen and the shipowner’s reaction is hilarious, for he is shocked and quiet. As Clifford stated, ” he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him” (1.2). The statement is quite true, I believe the shipowner was reckless in not making sure that the ship was in top condition to travel out to sea. Karma decided to take control and by teaching him a lesson, he had the death of the families on his shoulders now.
Therefore, as I read on, I also got another message from Clifford. If our beliefs are firm and if we do not react on them with illogical acts, they serve to us as a sort of guide or path for the future ahead of us. This leads to another point that Clifford made. He pointed out that there really is not such a thing as “no real belief” because any type of idea can grow to invade our minds and become a very rooted and strong belief. Thus, if we do not choose to acknowledge the fact that our own belief is real, it can lead us to react without really thinking. By doing this, Clifford explains that we could have our character scared and changed forever. I completely agree with him. It’s kind of like the expression “do not have regrets because they make you who you are”. I find that this expression speaks to our character; and like the shipowner, I’m sure his biggest regret was when he had so much faith in the ship, that he let it sail and kill those on board. This regret of his changed his character and yet it held firmly to the fact that what he did was indeed wrong.
To add on to this post, after the discussion in class about this reading, my outlook on this article did change. Knowing now that Clifford’s message was mostly pointing to religion, the article seems different to me. The thing that impacted me most was the concept of luck. In this case, the Morality of Luck. After hearing everyone’s stories about something unfair that happened to them, I just thought how true it is that luck is always controversial. My main concern though is, if luck knocks us down more than once, is it for a greater and better purpose for our future?
Also, after re-reading the text, I have feel like Clifford is an absolutist. I came to that conclusion because of what he says on the second page. Clifford states: ” When an action is once done, it is right or wrong forever; no accidental failure of its good or evil fruits can possibly alter that” (2.1). After reading that sentence, I was just like “whoa”! He’s pretty hardcore. I like that about Clifford because it shows how strongly he stands behind his belief that once an something is done, it is done and it is either right or wrong. What i do not like about that is that I feel like he can be a bit narrow minded because many situations can be complex.
jenniferp95 