Humanities:
This I Believe
I believe that an old man is essential to life. An old man is not necessarily smarter than me, he is probably not stronger, faster, or as quick a thinker. What he has that I don’t is that part of life that hopefully comes with age: Wisdom. Now not all old men are endowed with this gift. Some are, and are poor at expressing it, and some have it and disregard it. You should, depending on the guy’s story, avoid one that has been divorced three times and only regrets that all three made off with a significant portion of his money. Find one that has some money, kids, respect, and is still active, and is pretty much what you’d like to be at that age. The wisdom to be mined from these resources is vast.
The first old man I had was my Grandpa. My siblings and I would try to get him to tell stories of his time in the Canadian air force during WWII while we played cribbage with him. My Grandpa was eighty something at the time though and was moving slower and slower as I got older, and I really don’t remember what I learned from him. He died a few years ago and since then I have had two old men.
The first after Grandpa was my youth pastor. He was only about thirty but he was wiser than me. We would hang out in the afternoon and I would ask him questions about what I was studying in my bible. We would talk for hours on end, and he would teach me how to make hamburgers man-style, thick with grass fed beef, build a composter for his garden, and how to deal with people’s craziness.
The third old man I found I had for a very short time, and I wish I could have been with him more. He was about seventy, a lawyer, and smarter than I’ve ever been. He taught concealed handgun classes, and was on the National Rifle Association board of directors. He taught the sunday school class I was in, and was the best thing that ever came along at that church. From him I learned how to debate with people in a concise and intelligent manner.
My favorite thing to ask an old guy is how he met his wife. This is not because I particularly want to know how, but I have found that that is the best way to purposefully prise his story out of him. Sometimes his answer is a story that is as long as the day, sometimes its just a few words. Whatever he says, I know from it whether or not I agree with how he thinks and from that I can know if I want to listen to him. The latest guy I talked to was from Arizona. He was in the military until he got married. Once married, he went into the field of photography. He could not retire and now works in a trailer park. I think he has a lot of fun, and does not regret his choice, but I know that if I were to follow the same path I would not enjoy it. The moral of this story? For me at least, don’t go into photography. I like money, and there isn’t a lot to be had there. What I did learn from him, and intend to emulate, is that he joined the military to pay for his college education.
An old man is a compass. Not for morals, which position I believe is occupied by the bible, but a compass that points either toward where I want to go, or away from where I don’t want to go. Applied correctly, it is a great tool for planning my life, something that I consider to be very important. And yes, it was talking to a wise old man that helped me realize how important planning my life is. Because of an old man, I will be joining the military. Because of an old man, I will be an entrepreneur. Because of an old man, I am inspired to greatness.
The assignment was simple: choose what I believe, and write a paper about it. It was to help me discover my own beliefs, solidify them and share them with my classmates and the world. The first assignment was to brainstorm what I believed, and then write down short memos of what we believed. Once we had brainstormed and and captured our results, we expounded slightly on our beliefs in the forms of credos. Armed with credo, we then assaulted the task of expounding on our belief.
I had a hard time coming up with a belief to soliloquize. Not from a lack of beliefs, but simply because I couldn’t think of one that could be made succinct enough for 500 words. To come up with my belief, I analyzed what I do the most in my free time: talk to people. Going deeper, I realized that the people I learned from the most were older than I am, and those are the people that I have worked hardest to be with. From there it was simple. Here’s what I learned: First, I value people above most things. Second, I want to gravitate toward people I see as having wisdom. If someone annoys me, it is because I perceive that individual as literally, not meaning to be rude, a fool.
My pride in this essay mostly springs from the (lol) compliments on the content of my paper. I think that people were easily able to identify with the content of my paper because mentors are something everyone can relate to, for good or ill. I think that I was also able to emotionally impact one reader who noted that there was a hole in her life where her grandparents should have been.
Most importantly, when I need to send this paper to NPR, it needs more flow, and it also needs to be pared down to the regulation 500 words. I feel like my beliefs need a more minimal display, that my writing is getting in the way of my belief coming through. In a more general sense, I also need to work on the use of more writing props, especially alliteration and metaphors.
Changes to my thinking have mainly been in the sense that I now appreciate the worth of self-expression more. I also had my thinking expanded by the many papers I read about what people believed while I was familiarizing myself with the format of the paper. My perspective has been expanded so that I now realize how many different viewpoints that there are. I greatly appreciate the enlarging that has happened to my mind, and I now appreciate more fully the diversity that is humanity.
I believe that an old man is essential to life. An old man is not necessarily smarter than me, he is probably not stronger, faster, or as quick a thinker. What he has that I don’t is that part of life that hopefully comes with age: Wisdom. Now not all old men are endowed with this gift. Some are, and are poor at expressing it, and some have it and disregard it. You should, depending on the guy’s story, avoid one that has been divorced three times and only regrets that all three made off with a significant portion of his money. Find one that has some money, kids, respect, and is still active, and is pretty much what you’d like to be at that age. The wisdom to be mined from these resources is vast.
The first old man I had was my Grandpa. My siblings and I would try to get him to tell stories of his time in the Canadian air force during WWII while we played cribbage with him. My Grandpa was eighty something at the time though and was moving slower and slower as I got older, and I really don’t remember what I learned from him. He died a few years ago and since then I have had two old men.
The first after Grandpa was my youth pastor. He was only about thirty but he was wiser than me. We would hang out in the afternoon and I would ask him questions about what I was studying in my bible. We would talk for hours on end, and he would teach me how to make hamburgers man-style, thick with grass fed beef, build a composter for his garden, and how to deal with people’s craziness.
The third old man I found I had for a very short time, and I wish I could have been with him more. He was about seventy, a lawyer, and smarter than I’ve ever been. He taught concealed handgun classes, and was on the National Rifle Association board of directors. He taught the sunday school class I was in, and was the best thing that ever came along at that church. From him I learned how to debate with people in a concise and intelligent manner.
My favorite thing to ask an old guy is how he met his wife. This is not because I particularly want to know how, but I have found that that is the best way to purposefully prise his story out of him. Sometimes his answer is a story that is as long as the day, sometimes its just a few words. Whatever he says, I know from it whether or not I agree with how he thinks and from that I can know if I want to listen to him. The latest guy I talked to was from Arizona. He was in the military until he got married. Once married, he went into the field of photography. He could not retire and now works in a trailer park. I think he has a lot of fun, and does not regret his choice, but I know that if I were to follow the same path I would not enjoy it. The moral of this story? For me at least, don’t go into photography. I like money, and there isn’t a lot to be had there. What I did learn from him, and intend to emulate, is that he joined the military to pay for his college education.
An old man is a compass. Not for morals, which position I believe is occupied by the bible, but a compass that points either toward where I want to go, or away from where I don’t want to go. Applied correctly, it is a great tool for planning my life, something that I consider to be very important. And yes, it was talking to a wise old man that helped me realize how important planning my life is. Because of an old man, I will be joining the military. Because of an old man, I will be an entrepreneur. Because of an old man, I am inspired to greatness.
The assignment was simple: choose what I believe, and write a paper about it. It was to help me discover my own beliefs, solidify them and share them with my classmates and the world. The first assignment was to brainstorm what I believed, and then write down short memos of what we believed. Once we had brainstormed and and captured our results, we expounded slightly on our beliefs in the forms of credos. Armed with credo, we then assaulted the task of expounding on our belief.
I had a hard time coming up with a belief to soliloquize. Not from a lack of beliefs, but simply because I couldn’t think of one that could be made succinct enough for 500 words. To come up with my belief, I analyzed what I do the most in my free time: talk to people. Going deeper, I realized that the people I learned from the most were older than I am, and those are the people that I have worked hardest to be with. From there it was simple. Here’s what I learned: First, I value people above most things. Second, I want to gravitate toward people I see as having wisdom. If someone annoys me, it is because I perceive that individual as literally, not meaning to be rude, a fool.
My pride in this essay mostly springs from the (lol) compliments on the content of my paper. I think that people were easily able to identify with the content of my paper because mentors are something everyone can relate to, for good or ill. I think that I was also able to emotionally impact one reader who noted that there was a hole in her life where her grandparents should have been.
Most importantly, when I need to send this paper to NPR, it needs more flow, and it also needs to be pared down to the regulation 500 words. I feel like my beliefs need a more minimal display, that my writing is getting in the way of my belief coming through. In a more general sense, I also need to work on the use of more writing props, especially alliteration and metaphors.
Changes to my thinking have mainly been in the sense that I now appreciate the worth of self-expression more. I also had my thinking expanded by the many papers I read about what people believed while I was familiarizing myself with the format of the paper. My perspective has been expanded so that I now realize how many different viewpoints that there are. I greatly appreciate the enlarging that has happened to my mind, and I now appreciate more fully the diversity that is humanity.
Summary:
In this project, four moral philosophies were covered: Libertarianism, Utilitarianism, Rawls’ theory of moral philosophy, and Deontology. I see these philosophies as a common language between atheists and those with religion, enabling them to debate ideas using logic. Instead of "My God said thus, and so it is." Rather, "My God said thus, and so I will believe, but I will justify it through logic." Using our knowledge of these philosophies, we were to select a current political issue and examine it that issue through the lense of one or more of the philosophies. I chose to cover all four.
Before we go on, however, let me explain what each of these philosophies is. I will start with libertarianism. In short, it is the Harm Principle, which states that I can do whatever I want as long as it is not hurting someone. Utilitarianism is the idea the whatever is best for the majority is the moral thing to do. Rawls' theory of moral philosophy is based on a concept called the veil of ignorance. The veil of ignorance removes a lawmaker from his identity so that when making laws he does not try to benefit himself. When he does not know who he is he tries to make laws that help everyone. Deontology is literally the study of duty. The thing that is right is what logically benefits everyone, and is not justified by the results, but must be justified by logic all through the process.
I think that the biggest thing that I learned was that there is a language for communicating with people of a different religion than I am. The realization that there were other people out there who wanted that and devoted their lives to creating it was actually very encouraging. I also refined my ideas somewhat. I started out of the opinion that abortion is always wrong. I have somewhat refined my ideas so that I now think that in one instance, rape, it is acceptable. I would not recommend it, but women do have a right to liberty, and there is no choice to give up that freedom from rape. That choice needs to be balanced with the fact that abortion is extinguishing a life. I already covered it somewhat, but I really appreciated how these ideas from a bridge between different religions. It has really helped me because I can express my views to people whose religion I do not know, in a way that they do not know my religion, and therefore have no bias against me. Habit of Heart and Mind Habit of Heart and Mind Habit of Heart and Mind Habit of Heart and Mind Habit of Heart and Mind. I also learned to listen for the oppositions opinion before I voice my own. There is a chance that there will be a change in my opinion because of their opinion. When I have heard their opinion, my opinion can address theirs, and both parties benefit. The most challenging part about this assignment was overcoming the fear that my opinions would start a shouting match. They proved groundless. I learned to ignore my fears of others opinion and focus on mine. I would like to say that my fears were not a big thing, they did not petrify me in the least, but they were there.
I think that my project is strongest in its connection to the moral philosophies that we covered. I covered all of them, a small part of the background on them, and tied them into my subject very strongly. An example of this is one of the first paragraphs after the opening:
So, let us look at Utilitarianism, the best thing for the majority. 50% of the 2% of America’s women who have abortions every year are having their second or third abortion. Lets stack that up: one mom, two or more babies killed. One easier life, two or more lives lost. For every mother getting an abortion, 1.5 and higher ratios are killed. Scientifically and statistically, abortion fails Utilitarianism.
I think that I was able to tie this in so well because I understood the material very strongly. I found it engaging, pertinent, and fascinating. I think that the weakest part of my paper was ethos. I did not have as much citation as I or my brilliant teacher would have liked. If I had had a different focus, I would have had more of this. I did not focus on it because I had the citations I needed to provide context and I felt that the discussion was mostly rooted in pathos. If I had had a larger word count and more time, it would have been different. It is a problem because the lack of ethos could be counted against it, but I do not think that it is that great of a weakness because of the content covered.
The Paper:
Abortion Must Die
Abortion is a blatant violation of a baby’s right to life, liberty and happiness. Yet while Americans idly read the statistics, thousands of lives are lost every day. The common, ordinary occurrence that is abortion is defended with the extraordinary: the mother was raped, or will die if she does not have an abortion. If she cannot choose, that is wrong, right? However, this argument is flawed. The majority of abortions are the result of unprotected sex and assumptions that pregnancy would not happen to them. It did happen, they are pregnant, and now a trip to the doctor is in order, a life is to be treated like a cold is treated, so that she can get better and go about her normal life. Why? Because America doesn’t see it as a problem.
Fetuses have no rights.
The common pro-choice position on abortion, if for some reason someone stopped and considered that it might be an issue, is that a woman has a right to her body. And anyway, the Supreme Court ruled that it was legal so it must be right... right? And why is it my business anyway? I’m a male- its not my battle.
These issues are important to the common man because of the impact they have on society’s perception of what is right and wrong. In my examination of this issue, I will look at it through the lens of the four moral philosophies: Utilitarianism, the belief that humans should always do what is best for the majority; Libertarianism, the belief that people should be able to do anything that does not hurt other people; Rawls's theory of moral philosophy, a system of lawmaking that is blind and therefore unbiased and not self-beneficial; and lastly, Immanuel Kant’s philosophy of Deontology, which states that people should do the right thing not because of the product of an action, but because it is the right thing to do.
In all my discussion I will be assuming one thing: Life starts at conception. Science has proven this without question, based on this definition:
1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.
An embryo fulfils all of the above criteria.
According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.(When)
So, let us look at Utilitarianism, the best thing for the majority. 50% of the 2% of America’s women who have abortions every year are having their second or third abortion. Lets stack that up: one mom, two or more babies killed. One easier life, two or more lives lost. For every mother getting an abortion, 1.5 and higher ratios are killed. Scientifically and statistically, abortion fails Utilitarianism.
Libertarianism is the most commonly used argument in favor of abortion. I would like to turn this argument on its head. Libertarianism states that I should have the right to do anything I want, excepting what falls under the harm principle, which states that if doing something causes physical damage to someone, it is morally wrong. That doesn’t apply, you say, abortions don’t injure anyone--fetuses are not people, are they? Yes, I believe they are. Here is why: consider a crime scene. There is a criminal, a dead guy, and no witnesses. How do police officers make sure that they have the right guy? Fingerprints and DNA, mostly. What differentiates a child from its parents? DNA--so why, when there is a unique life form that has the capacity for genius and emotion does America say that it is not a human being, and that it may be killed on the basis of convenience?
Again, let me put it this way: suppose you had an object that in and of itself was worthless, but had the capacity for value-- say a $100 bill. It is only valuable because of its potential: the potential to pay for heat, phone service, coffee. Now you will ask me to burn it for you because it is heavy, and you don’t want to carry it, don’t want the responsibility of a phone bill, want to get off free of responsibility. That would be stupid. Now suppose that you are that bit of green cloth-- smugly sitting in a mother’s womb, waiting to turn into something of value. And then you are burned. Because you are a problem-- you are heavy, you involve responsibility, and are difficult to handle wisely. The value of a human child is not recognized, while the value of a piece of cloth is.
Rawls’ Theory of Equality: the veil of ignorance. This philosophy, in my opinion does the most damage to abortion. The idea of the veil of ignorance is that to make truly just laws, a lawmaker must be so removed from his identity that he will not make laws that will benefit him exclusively or harm others-- Justice is blind. “Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.”(Rawls) I don’t know about you, but I would prefer not to be sucked out of my mom before I was born, and, were I truly wearing the veil of ignorance, I would not elect to have abortion legalized. The case could be made that a moral person, blind to their own identity, would not want to be the parent of a child that they would not want or would ruin their dreams, but that is no reason to abort the child-- in America there are many agencies willing and able to help put a child up for adoption or other such services if necessary. The root of the question is, would you want someone to treat you like you were worthless just because they didn’t want you? Isn’t a bad life in America better than no life?
The fourth moral philosophy is Deontology. This philosophy states that we should do what is right out of duty, not because the action makes us look a certain way in people’s eyes; that the ends do not justify the means; and requires specifically that people be treated as ends and not means to an end. We must do what is right, and choose what that right is and then do it regardless of whether or not it hurts.The process of choosing what is right must not be an emotional choice, it must be from reason and duty. Examine the issue like Spock, all logic and no emotion. So, what is the end of abortion? Usually an easier life for the mother. Definitely not an easier life for the baby- it gets no life at all! Maybe a woman `1does not want to be seen as someone who got pregnant in their parent’s eyes- the obvious choice is to end the pregnancy. But, under deontology, that is wrong, and the end did not justify the means. It was not a reasoned decision. It was an emotional decision, fueled by a fear of the pain of a child waking you up with its screams at three o’clock in the morning, or not accomplishing your own goals and dreams.
But what, you say, if the mother was raped? It would be wrong to force her to carry the child. First let me deal with a logical fallacy here called “hasty overgeneralization.” You are justifying a broad practice by the minority of occurrences. This makes no sense. Now that we have that out of that way, let us examine this issue. If a wrong was done, than it is already done, and there is nothing that can be done about it. Killing the child will not pay for the crime, and keeping the child is an opportunity to make something good out of something bad. That being said, I think that it should be the woman’s choice as to whether or not to keep the child. She did not make the choice to have sex and risk pregnancy, and should not necessarily have to carry that burden.
If the woman will die if the child is not aborted, than I think that this should be categorized as miscarriage, not abortion. The mother is already loved by people, the child in not known and the mother is. The mother’s death will hurt more people, more heavily, than the child’s death.
In light of these moral philosophies why did the supreme court rule the way it did? The supreme court was not able to do DNA testing at the time, it was only used in 1985, while abortion was legalized in 1973. They did not know that scientifically the fetus was not part of the mother’s body. While it is true that the woman technically has a right to decide what her body holds, she made the choice when she had sex, and it is not within her rights to kill a human being, since that is unjustifiable by any moral philosophy that has been widely accepted as plausible in the creation of a just world.
Why then has the Supreme Court not overturned their decision? In part it is because a lawsuit has never had a strong enough backing by significant evidence. I have only made my judgement based on what I know of moral philosophies. There are more philosophies, and the philosophies that I did cover have many more facets than what I have covered here. However, on reading some of these positions that are based on a defence of abortion, I feel confidant that I can defend my position intellectually.
The Supreme Court has also not upturned their decision because of democracy, which illustrates democracy’s greatest weakness: uneducated people are allowed to make decisions. Thus, the voting populace decides that abortion is moral because they are uninformed, have not been taught how to think, and may simply be apathetic. As stated earlier, most ask why it is their problem and no one answers. I will answer now: it is our problem because we are humans. We have made it this far without becoming extinct because we have and instinct to protect one another, and that urge is falling apart because we are proponents of free choice. If things go on their present course, and I hope that they will not, three year olds may next be on the sights of proponents of freedom of choice. Late term uteruses are already in the crosshairs of extremists, and it is usually the extremists who hold the most power.
“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”
--Adolf Hitler
Adolph was an extremist.
Adolph knew.
In this project, four moral philosophies were covered: Libertarianism, Utilitarianism, Rawls’ theory of moral philosophy, and Deontology. I see these philosophies as a common language between atheists and those with religion, enabling them to debate ideas using logic. Instead of "My God said thus, and so it is." Rather, "My God said thus, and so I will believe, but I will justify it through logic." Using our knowledge of these philosophies, we were to select a current political issue and examine it that issue through the lense of one or more of the philosophies. I chose to cover all four.
Before we go on, however, let me explain what each of these philosophies is. I will start with libertarianism. In short, it is the Harm Principle, which states that I can do whatever I want as long as it is not hurting someone. Utilitarianism is the idea the whatever is best for the majority is the moral thing to do. Rawls' theory of moral philosophy is based on a concept called the veil of ignorance. The veil of ignorance removes a lawmaker from his identity so that when making laws he does not try to benefit himself. When he does not know who he is he tries to make laws that help everyone. Deontology is literally the study of duty. The thing that is right is what logically benefits everyone, and is not justified by the results, but must be justified by logic all through the process.
I think that the biggest thing that I learned was that there is a language for communicating with people of a different religion than I am. The realization that there were other people out there who wanted that and devoted their lives to creating it was actually very encouraging. I also refined my ideas somewhat. I started out of the opinion that abortion is always wrong. I have somewhat refined my ideas so that I now think that in one instance, rape, it is acceptable. I would not recommend it, but women do have a right to liberty, and there is no choice to give up that freedom from rape. That choice needs to be balanced with the fact that abortion is extinguishing a life. I already covered it somewhat, but I really appreciated how these ideas from a bridge between different religions. It has really helped me because I can express my views to people whose religion I do not know, in a way that they do not know my religion, and therefore have no bias against me. Habit of Heart and Mind Habit of Heart and Mind Habit of Heart and Mind Habit of Heart and Mind Habit of Heart and Mind. I also learned to listen for the oppositions opinion before I voice my own. There is a chance that there will be a change in my opinion because of their opinion. When I have heard their opinion, my opinion can address theirs, and both parties benefit. The most challenging part about this assignment was overcoming the fear that my opinions would start a shouting match. They proved groundless. I learned to ignore my fears of others opinion and focus on mine. I would like to say that my fears were not a big thing, they did not petrify me in the least, but they were there.
I think that my project is strongest in its connection to the moral philosophies that we covered. I covered all of them, a small part of the background on them, and tied them into my subject very strongly. An example of this is one of the first paragraphs after the opening:
So, let us look at Utilitarianism, the best thing for the majority. 50% of the 2% of America’s women who have abortions every year are having their second or third abortion. Lets stack that up: one mom, two or more babies killed. One easier life, two or more lives lost. For every mother getting an abortion, 1.5 and higher ratios are killed. Scientifically and statistically, abortion fails Utilitarianism.
I think that I was able to tie this in so well because I understood the material very strongly. I found it engaging, pertinent, and fascinating. I think that the weakest part of my paper was ethos. I did not have as much citation as I or my brilliant teacher would have liked. If I had had a different focus, I would have had more of this. I did not focus on it because I had the citations I needed to provide context and I felt that the discussion was mostly rooted in pathos. If I had had a larger word count and more time, it would have been different. It is a problem because the lack of ethos could be counted against it, but I do not think that it is that great of a weakness because of the content covered.
The Paper:
Abortion Must Die
Abortion is a blatant violation of a baby’s right to life, liberty and happiness. Yet while Americans idly read the statistics, thousands of lives are lost every day. The common, ordinary occurrence that is abortion is defended with the extraordinary: the mother was raped, or will die if she does not have an abortion. If she cannot choose, that is wrong, right? However, this argument is flawed. The majority of abortions are the result of unprotected sex and assumptions that pregnancy would not happen to them. It did happen, they are pregnant, and now a trip to the doctor is in order, a life is to be treated like a cold is treated, so that she can get better and go about her normal life. Why? Because America doesn’t see it as a problem.
Fetuses have no rights.
The common pro-choice position on abortion, if for some reason someone stopped and considered that it might be an issue, is that a woman has a right to her body. And anyway, the Supreme Court ruled that it was legal so it must be right... right? And why is it my business anyway? I’m a male- its not my battle.
These issues are important to the common man because of the impact they have on society’s perception of what is right and wrong. In my examination of this issue, I will look at it through the lens of the four moral philosophies: Utilitarianism, the belief that humans should always do what is best for the majority; Libertarianism, the belief that people should be able to do anything that does not hurt other people; Rawls's theory of moral philosophy, a system of lawmaking that is blind and therefore unbiased and not self-beneficial; and lastly, Immanuel Kant’s philosophy of Deontology, which states that people should do the right thing not because of the product of an action, but because it is the right thing to do.
In all my discussion I will be assuming one thing: Life starts at conception. Science has proven this without question, based on this definition:
1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.
An embryo fulfils all of the above criteria.
According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.(When)
So, let us look at Utilitarianism, the best thing for the majority. 50% of the 2% of America’s women who have abortions every year are having their second or third abortion. Lets stack that up: one mom, two or more babies killed. One easier life, two or more lives lost. For every mother getting an abortion, 1.5 and higher ratios are killed. Scientifically and statistically, abortion fails Utilitarianism.
Libertarianism is the most commonly used argument in favor of abortion. I would like to turn this argument on its head. Libertarianism states that I should have the right to do anything I want, excepting what falls under the harm principle, which states that if doing something causes physical damage to someone, it is morally wrong. That doesn’t apply, you say, abortions don’t injure anyone--fetuses are not people, are they? Yes, I believe they are. Here is why: consider a crime scene. There is a criminal, a dead guy, and no witnesses. How do police officers make sure that they have the right guy? Fingerprints and DNA, mostly. What differentiates a child from its parents? DNA--so why, when there is a unique life form that has the capacity for genius and emotion does America say that it is not a human being, and that it may be killed on the basis of convenience?
Again, let me put it this way: suppose you had an object that in and of itself was worthless, but had the capacity for value-- say a $100 bill. It is only valuable because of its potential: the potential to pay for heat, phone service, coffee. Now you will ask me to burn it for you because it is heavy, and you don’t want to carry it, don’t want the responsibility of a phone bill, want to get off free of responsibility. That would be stupid. Now suppose that you are that bit of green cloth-- smugly sitting in a mother’s womb, waiting to turn into something of value. And then you are burned. Because you are a problem-- you are heavy, you involve responsibility, and are difficult to handle wisely. The value of a human child is not recognized, while the value of a piece of cloth is.
Rawls’ Theory of Equality: the veil of ignorance. This philosophy, in my opinion does the most damage to abortion. The idea of the veil of ignorance is that to make truly just laws, a lawmaker must be so removed from his identity that he will not make laws that will benefit him exclusively or harm others-- Justice is blind. “Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.”(Rawls) I don’t know about you, but I would prefer not to be sucked out of my mom before I was born, and, were I truly wearing the veil of ignorance, I would not elect to have abortion legalized. The case could be made that a moral person, blind to their own identity, would not want to be the parent of a child that they would not want or would ruin their dreams, but that is no reason to abort the child-- in America there are many agencies willing and able to help put a child up for adoption or other such services if necessary. The root of the question is, would you want someone to treat you like you were worthless just because they didn’t want you? Isn’t a bad life in America better than no life?
The fourth moral philosophy is Deontology. This philosophy states that we should do what is right out of duty, not because the action makes us look a certain way in people’s eyes; that the ends do not justify the means; and requires specifically that people be treated as ends and not means to an end. We must do what is right, and choose what that right is and then do it regardless of whether or not it hurts.The process of choosing what is right must not be an emotional choice, it must be from reason and duty. Examine the issue like Spock, all logic and no emotion. So, what is the end of abortion? Usually an easier life for the mother. Definitely not an easier life for the baby- it gets no life at all! Maybe a woman `1does not want to be seen as someone who got pregnant in their parent’s eyes- the obvious choice is to end the pregnancy. But, under deontology, that is wrong, and the end did not justify the means. It was not a reasoned decision. It was an emotional decision, fueled by a fear of the pain of a child waking you up with its screams at three o’clock in the morning, or not accomplishing your own goals and dreams.
But what, you say, if the mother was raped? It would be wrong to force her to carry the child. First let me deal with a logical fallacy here called “hasty overgeneralization.” You are justifying a broad practice by the minority of occurrences. This makes no sense. Now that we have that out of that way, let us examine this issue. If a wrong was done, than it is already done, and there is nothing that can be done about it. Killing the child will not pay for the crime, and keeping the child is an opportunity to make something good out of something bad. That being said, I think that it should be the woman’s choice as to whether or not to keep the child. She did not make the choice to have sex and risk pregnancy, and should not necessarily have to carry that burden.
If the woman will die if the child is not aborted, than I think that this should be categorized as miscarriage, not abortion. The mother is already loved by people, the child in not known and the mother is. The mother’s death will hurt more people, more heavily, than the child’s death.
In light of these moral philosophies why did the supreme court rule the way it did? The supreme court was not able to do DNA testing at the time, it was only used in 1985, while abortion was legalized in 1973. They did not know that scientifically the fetus was not part of the mother’s body. While it is true that the woman technically has a right to decide what her body holds, she made the choice when she had sex, and it is not within her rights to kill a human being, since that is unjustifiable by any moral philosophy that has been widely accepted as plausible in the creation of a just world.
Why then has the Supreme Court not overturned their decision? In part it is because a lawsuit has never had a strong enough backing by significant evidence. I have only made my judgement based on what I know of moral philosophies. There are more philosophies, and the philosophies that I did cover have many more facets than what I have covered here. However, on reading some of these positions that are based on a defence of abortion, I feel confidant that I can defend my position intellectually.
The Supreme Court has also not upturned their decision because of democracy, which illustrates democracy’s greatest weakness: uneducated people are allowed to make decisions. Thus, the voting populace decides that abortion is moral because they are uninformed, have not been taught how to think, and may simply be apathetic. As stated earlier, most ask why it is their problem and no one answers. I will answer now: it is our problem because we are humans. We have made it this far without becoming extinct because we have and instinct to protect one another, and that urge is falling apart because we are proponents of free choice. If things go on their present course, and I hope that they will not, three year olds may next be on the sights of proponents of freedom of choice. Late term uteruses are already in the crosshairs of extremists, and it is usually the extremists who hold the most power.
“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”
--Adolf Hitler
Adolph was an extremist.
Adolph knew.
Korematsu Vs U.S.
The preparation for this project was a combination of research and learning how to act like a well trained lawyer. I did one cross examination, one direct examination and the closing statement. The research that I had to do for this was to learn what made my cross examination subject uncredible. This involved finding facts like his never having had military service, which reduces his credibility for determining military strategy. My direct examination was mostly the opposite. I needed to find a way to show my subjects credibility while getting his opinions out of him without leading him to say something out of context. The closing statement did not require a lot of research, but was instead a process of observing the trial’s path and emphasizing the strengths of my team’s case and pointing out the weakness of the opposing team’s case. The closing statement also carried over to the courtroom etiquette. The main lesson of courtroom etiquette was on how to submit evidence. The case was called Korematsu vs US. It was caused by executive order 9066 giving the military the power to create civilian exclusion zones. This caused Korematsu to avoid being relocated when the military made one such exclusion zone of his area. He was arrested and tried, the case eventually reaching the Supreme Court, the case which we reenacted.
Teamwork was integral to this project, especially when working with direct examination witnesses. In that case, it was important to make sure that the witness did not say something that could be interpreted as hurtful to the case, and also that nothing important was left out. I think that the biggest challenge we had was to make a unified case with all of the different lawyer-witness pairs. Our theme was strict scrutiny- the process by which an unconstitutional law is proven to be necessary because of a compelling governmental interest. In order to help the case be about how the internment camps that were part of the civilian exclusion zones were constitutional, we considered which of the witnesses best showed how the action fit into strict scrutiny.
The research was fascinating, and at the same time frustrating. The witnesses for the prosecution were absolute racists. This made sure that everyone on the team had to do some careful editing to shush the racism.
“What role did you have in Executive Order 9066?”
“As the secretary of war, I felt it was very important to move these Japanese people out of the west coast area, in the interest of national security. Any one of them could have been conspiring with the Japanese to destroy the war effort.”
The quote above does a good job embodying this. It was a question I wrote for the witness Henry Stimson. However, it is not quite in character. Stimson was affected by two different lines of reasoning. The one that I and my witness tried to capitalize on was his military background and the military reports that suggested that there was danger. The other was that, like I said, he was racist, and feared the Japanese because there was a cultural barrier between him and the Japanese. This problem was present all through the case.
Teamwork was integral to this project, especially when working with direct examination witnesses. In that case, it was important to make sure that the witness did not say something that could be interpreted as hurtful to the case, and also that nothing important was left out. I think that the biggest challenge we had was to make a unified case with all of the different lawyer-witness pairs. Our theme was strict scrutiny- the process by which an unconstitutional law is proven to be necessary because of a compelling governmental interest. In order to help the case be about how the internment camps that were part of the civilian exclusion zones were constitutional, we considered which of the witnesses best showed how the action fit into strict scrutiny.
The research was fascinating, and at the same time frustrating. The witnesses for the prosecution were absolute racists. This made sure that everyone on the team had to do some careful editing to shush the racism.
“What role did you have in Executive Order 9066?”
“As the secretary of war, I felt it was very important to move these Japanese people out of the west coast area, in the interest of national security. Any one of them could have been conspiring with the Japanese to destroy the war effort.”
The quote above does a good job embodying this. It was a question I wrote for the witness Henry Stimson. However, it is not quite in character. Stimson was affected by two different lines of reasoning. The one that I and my witness tried to capitalize on was his military background and the military reports that suggested that there was danger. The other was that, like I said, he was racist, and feared the Japanese because there was a cultural barrier between him and the Japanese. This problem was present all through the case.
Happiness and meaning
Essential questions:
a: What is the purpose of my existence?
The purpose of my existence is to serve others, because this is how true enjoyment in life is found.
b: What is happiness and what makes you happy?
Happiness is unlinked pleasure, pleasure that does not come from any specific act, but from a set thereof, a feeling rather than a sensory detection.
The things that repeatedly are said to bring pleasure, is serving others, giving rather than taking.
This was said by Jesus thousands of years ago and is still being "discovered" today by modern scientists.
c: What does it mean to live a meaningful life?
A meaningful life may not be a happy one, but it will fill that human need to feel like you are doing something.
d: To what extent can literature shape your personal philosophy on happiness and meaning?
Literature does not make us adopt views. It causes us to think.
Project Description https://docs.google.com/a/animashighschool.com/file/d/0B5ktO3NLUDlcems1NU1kbjZudWM/edit)
I think that the biggest thing that I learned was that I will not be happy if I am entirely self serving, that my actions of self-pleasure will have the opposite reaction that I intend.
The people that we saw in the documentary "Happy" that had the most meaningful and happy lives, as opposed to those who were just happy, were going out of their way to serve, had given up their wealthy lives to serve the sick and dying, or were working hard to serve their families.
Happiness must be mixed with meaning or else the happiness itself becomes stale.
If we are only focused inwards, we don't have meaning: what is a person without their neighbors, their brothers and sisters, without society? There is no individuality without others to define what you are not but could be. If we isolate ourselves we are nothing. Robinson Crusoe, in Daniel Defoe's classic novel, Crusoe is not relatable to as human until he meets Friday, and then becomes more than an ant building its mound.
All this to say, if you are by yourself, you cannot be happy, and if you serve only yourself, and focus only on yourself, you are by yourself.
If you are by yourself, you cannot be helping other people.
This does not mean that you should not try to make money.
I think that to say that you cannot would be a hasty overgeneralization.
However, you should be making money, sharing it, and teaching others to live to their full potential: if you have a gift for making money, help others learn, so that they can live a similarly full life.
What questions does this all raise though?
I think that the most obvious question is how do I, a highschool kid who wishes he was actually doing something, put this into practice?
I guess that the answer to this is to keep a long-term view, and do what I can.
What I can do, I do. I have spent probably 100+ hours at Manna soup kitchen, which is pretty awesome, because I get to learn how to cook and I get to serve people who really need it.
I think that the biggest thing that I learned was that I will not be happy if I am entirely self serving, that my actions of self-pleasure will have the opposite reaction that I intend.
The people that we saw in the documentary "Happy" that had the most meaningful and happy lives, as opposed to those who were just happy, were going out of their way to serve, had given up their wealthy lives to serve the sick and dying, or were working hard to serve their families.
Happiness must be mixed with meaning or else the happiness itself becomes stale.
If we are only focused inwards, we don't have meaning: what is a person without their neighbors, their brothers and sisters, without society? There is no individuality without others to define what you are not but could be. If we isolate ourselves we are nothing. Robinson Crusoe, in Daniel Defoe's classic novel, Crusoe is not relatable to as human until he meets Friday, and then becomes more than an ant building its mound.
All this to say, if you are by yourself, you cannot be happy, and if you serve only yourself, and focus only on yourself, you are by yourself.
If you are by yourself, you cannot be helping other people.
This does not mean that you should not try to make money.
I think that to say that you cannot would be a hasty overgeneralization.
However, you should be making money, sharing it, and teaching others to live to their full potential: if you have a gift for making money, help others learn, so that they can live a similarly full life.
What questions does this all raise though?
I think that the most obvious question is how do I, a highschool kid who wishes he was actually doing something, put this into practice?
I guess that the answer to this is to keep a long-term view, and do what I can.
What I can do, I do. I have spent probably 100+ hours at Manna soup kitchen, which is pretty awesome, because I get to learn how to cook and I get to serve people who really need it.
thestranger.docx | |
File Size: | 7 kb |
File Type: | docx |
meaningandhappinessproposal.docx | |
File Size: | 5 kb |
File Type: | docx |
individualseminarprepforthestranger.docx | |
File Size: | 6 kb |
File Type: | docx |
Happiness and Meaning:
Short Story: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ECjrY9uz8h7p3x56b85apxUdlK6RBYkXHVr04W18XBg/edit
This project was meant to teach us about sense of place. Sense of place is the feeling that you are where you belong. Sense of place can be a location, a state of mind, or an activity. We also looked at how different environments were being affected by human interaction. We looked at the morality of how they were being used, and questioned how those actions were affecting someone's place. Specifically, energy production's impact on places and our sense thereof. Also, we looked at how our sense of place altered how our environmental ethic affected our view of the world.
This project was meant to teach us about sense of place. Sense of place is the feeling that you are where you belong. Sense of place can be a location, a state of mind, or an activity. We also looked at how different environments were being affected by human interaction. We looked at the morality of how they were being used, and questioned how those actions were affecting someone's place. Specifically, energy production's impact on places and our sense thereof. Also, we looked at how our sense of place altered how our environmental ethic affected our view of the world.
My personal growth in this project was intense, especially concerning energy production. Previously, I had thought that different fuels, gasoline, diesel, natural gas, coal were in use because they could not cross perform functions. This is not the case. They