Final Practice Essay

‘Through different methods of justification, we can reach conclusions in ethics that are as well supported as those provided in mathematics.’ To what extent do you agree?

Philosophy is said to be the study of leftovers, a study that tries to provide explanations for abstract concepts that we have not yet been able to define in society. One example of this would be ethics, a complicated and abstract concept for which society has not been able to apply logic to. Philosophers of many centuries have attempted to define various rules and regulations that could shape our understanding of ethics, leading to the implementation of laws and other such ethical barriers in society. Men have tried to come up with the correct solution to the issue of ethics, what is right and what is wrong, but we have still not reached a proper conclusion. There are several hypothetical, and real issues in society that tend to test the justifications of certain ethics, thereby bringing us back to point A (no proper justification of conclusions in ethics). Hence, I agree that there are many logical justification processes that provide a decent argument for certain ethical conclusions, however hypothetical situations, as well as ethically complicated situations we face in society tend to test, or even counter these conclusions.

Firstly, I would like to deal with the ethical justification of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, a concept brought up by a man named Jeremy Bentham, deals with maximizing utility. Here we are brought back to basic mathematical arguments, 3 are more than one, therefore 3 lives are worth more than one life. This relates to a very famous philosophical question called The Trolley Problem, which involves a situation in where the lives of 6 people are in your hands. You are driving a train when you notice that the train you are driving is about to hit, and probably kill, 5 workers working on the track. There is a lever you can pull in which you can shift to a different track, with only one worker. Here we are faced with the issue, one life versus 5: What would be the ethically correct thing to do? According to futilitarians, the basic justification is that by killing one, you are saving five; however, there are many modifications that can be made to this problem to make this situation a lot more complicated.

Now we must deal with the issue of emotional involvement. When dealing with mathematical logic, there are no emotions involved, for we are not dealing with matters such as life or death. Certainly the justifications for ethical conclusions do follow the pattern of mathematical conclusions, however the two are so different that they cannot be compared. In mathematics, one can reach logical conclusions without any real life impact. Saying that 3 are more than 1 is mathematically correct, but it does not have any personal or emotional implications. In the case of the trolley problem, we don’t know if the 5 lives are in fact more than one. What if that one was the president? What if the 5 workers were convicted criminals? Who are we to decide, regarding ethical situations, if 5 really are more than one?

Another reason why ethical justifications are not as thorough as mathematical ones is because in mathematics, certain theories and formulas are always true (with regard to their limitations). If I say that 1+1=2, It will always equal 2, there is no doubt in that. However, an ethical conclusion that states, “The end justifies the means”, may not always be true. One has to think of the various detrimental implications of certain, presumably ethical, actions. A certain example of this in real life would be the murder case of Stephanie Crowe. The authorities dealing with the case had no evidence suggesting a subject, so they took in the family for questioning. Without any evidence, they decided that Stephanie’s brother Michael Crowe was the murder, and induced a confession through manipulative methods. They convinced him that he had a personality disorder, and murdered his own sister without any knowledge of it. The justification of the authorities was that they were doing it for a good cause, so that the murderer would be caught and justice would be served. If all they ended up was a false confession and hence a mentally deranged 14-year old boy, were their actions ethically justified?

Certain real-life issues such as this make it very hard for us to reach ethical conclusions that can be applied to society. In regards to the end justifying the means, what if the end is not perfect (as it almost never is)? What if from certain points of view, the pros do not outweigh the cons; whose opinion matters? Other examples in law would be the insanity defense, is it ethically correct to discharge a murderer just because he was insane at the time of the crime? Is the crime what should be punished, or the motivation beneath the crime? Since we cannot come up with such answers, law, especially when dealing with the insanity defense, becomes very complicated. Therefore, such ethical justifications are not as thorough as those in mathematics, for they cannot be applied universally throughout society.

Ethics is a very complicated area of knowing, one that cannot be compared to that of mathematics, which is much more clear-cut and has fewer emotional complications. Logic in math cannot be applied to logic in ethics, for there are many more complications that one has to asses when deciding between human lives. Although the justifications of certain ethical conclusions follow appropriate logic, the fact that we face complications when applying them to both hypothetical and real-life situations depict the flaw in their logic. Ethics as a way of knowing cannot be purely logical, for we as humans will always be impacted by our emotions when dealing with ethically challenging situations.

Words: 990

Sources:

"The Confession - 48 Hours - CBS News." Breaking News Headlines:        Business, Entertainment & World News - CBS News. N.p., n.d. Web.        19 May 2011.        <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/14/48hours/main649381.       shtml>

I'm worth a million dollars

Over summer my philosophy tutor was a student at Harvard. He was majoring in economics and minoring in philosophy. At first thought, one would think this combination is quite strange and unrelated. However, apparently there are several economic schools that actually require students to take a class in philosophy. My tutor said he had chosen this combination because both philosophy and economics deal with the logical part of the mind, as well as the study of human nature. In this lecture, Sandal discusses the cost and benefits of certain aspects of life in relation to the concept of utilitarianism. The concept of the cost of a human life comes into play. This concept of utilitarianism deals with both philosophical and economic concepts. From an economic standpoint, costs and benefits can be assessed according to money values. This deals with the concepts of externalities (Marginal Costs and Marginal Benefits). However, when dealing with a human life, how is one to asses the 'marginal costs and benefits'? Is a person's money value how much they had when they died? How much they impacted the world? Is their value decreased for every damage they caused to the planet? How are we to asses the value of a human life? Personally, I don't think we can. Here is an example of where economics and philosophy do not correspond. There is no logical way to put a price on life, even from the point of view from a utilitarian. The value of a life will hold different impact to different people. Do we average those values in order to determine the true value? Here and again we return to The Trolley Problem. In economics, we must produce at the 'socially optimum level'. Who are we to decide whether one life is less valuable than 5? Would it be socially optimum to kill the one and save the five, although we don't know the exact social value of each human life. And even if we did, would it make it okay?

Nom Nom Richard Parker

An item of debate that was discussed when dealing with the case Queen vs Dudley is morality. Given the circumstances of the case, was it morally just to murder Richard Parker in the hopes for survival? My answer is no. Human beings rely completely on the basis of their morals. The moral code of human beings is what separates us from other species on our planet. Morals are what allow us to live in a civilized manner, instead of digressing to our original primitive state, and letting our animalistic natures take over. In my opinion, the killing of Richard Parker was morally wrong in the given situation and therefore was not the right thing to do.  My opinion is based on the definition of murder. Taking the life of someone without his or her consent for your own personal motivation is considered first-degree murder. The other members stuck on the boat most certainly did not respect the wishes of Richard Parker when taking his life, thereby taking away his free will. It is unethical and unjust to take away the free will of another human being, and therefore the murder of Richard Parker was not morally justified. 

The main opposing argument for the justification of this murder is based on the Machiavellian theory that ‘the end justifies the means’. It is derived from the idea of utilitarianism, killing one in order to save the four. Opponents argue that since more people would die had they not sacrificed Richard Parker, it would be wrong to allow themselves to die. From a practical point of view, this argument would make sense. If this situation were being judged statistically, the amount of survivors would definitely be more if they were to have killed and eaten Richard Parker. However, the question isn’t practicality, it is morality. It is the difference between pulling the lever, and pushing the fairly large guy off of the bridge in relation to The Trolley Problem. In both cases, it would be more practical to kill the one in order to save the rest; however, Queen vs Dudley relates more to pushing the fat guy off of the bridge, because the murder being executed is a lot more personal, therefore the issue of morality comes into play. No matter how many lives are being saved, it is still morally wrong to take the life of someone unwilling to give it up because you are taking away their right to free will. In addition, the end of this scenario is not necessarily perfect. Firstly, it is not a given that all of the four people will survive if one man is sacrificed. The possibility of being stuck at sea for a longer period of time is very likely, and it may be necessary to kill another in order to survive. When looking at this from a statistical point of view, is it okay to kill two in order to save three? Proponents of the Machiavellian theory would agree with this but what if the sailors were stuck at sea for longer and they were forced to kill three to save two. In this case, does the end still justify the means? Furthermore, those that do survive are more prone to mental disorders due to trauma. This is also displayed in the Queen vs. Dudley case where the two survivors were haunted by the events of their past actions.  Their psychological deterioration therefore portrays that the end is not always sufficient enough to justify the means. 

Another excuse for this inhumane behavior would be that in dire circumstances like this, the animalistic nature of human beings is released and survival of the fittest comes into play. Some could argue that their actions were circumstantial, and therefore justified. Some say it is not right for people to determine whether what they did was moral or not, because we have not experienced what they went through and therefore we cannot make an informed decision. In my opinion this argument does not withhold. Furthermore, it seems reasonable to say that those of us that are not in their situation should not judge what they should have done. From a court’s perspective, I agree that this argument would come into play, because it’s impossible to determine a fair punishment for this case. However, when discussing morality, it does not make a difference. The idea of morals is that one should have and apply them in any situation they are in. Laws may differ according to the situation, but whether something is morally right or wrong should stay consistent. The question that arises in this situation is ‘where is the line’? Shifting morals based on the circumstances could possibly justify atrocities even crueler than those displayed in Queen vs Dudley. For example, could the killing of 6, 000, 000 Jews for Germany’s economic progress be justified? If moral codes are stretched far enough that such atrocities can be permitted, is this moral code still considered moral? In dire circumstances humans should still be expected to maintain a humane nature? One must consider that our morals are the only thing that separates us from other animals. 

Love is a Drug

I enjoyed watching Helen Fischer's speech depicting her studies on the brain and love. Although love is thought to be abstract and artistic, I found it quite refreshing to listen to a scientific approach on love. For those who believe love to be a myth can indeed be proven wrong, for some sort of passion is definitely apparent amongst most living creatures. Love is one aspect of humanity (and animality, as Fischer continues to explain) that haunts us, for we have never been able to pinpoint exactly what it is or why it does the things it does. I was struck by the fact that Fischer called love a homeostatic imbalance, for this seems to be the most basic and evolutionary explanation; however, it also takes into account the needs and urges one faces when faced with romantic love. The universe, as biologists and scientists explain, is eternally on path of reaching homeostasis. If love is considered to be a homeostatic imbalance, then what is homeostatic balance? Is finding your 'romantic love' or 'true soul mate' the only way to satisfy the general tendency of the universe? Although I do not like this explanation, perhaps it is true that it is one's biological destination to find a mate, hence the obsession that is encountered with romantic love. Another aspect of Fischer's speech that I found interesting was the fact that she said love lied beneath emotion. For ages, love has been classified as an emotion; however, Fischer's explanation is that love is much more than that. Although anger and sadness have an overwhelming opinion upon a human being, romantic love in itself is so much worse, for it lies deeper than human emotion. I feel that this is partly because romantic love is the incorporation of so many core human emotions, including anger and depression, hence it runs so much deeper than any of those. Romantic love has proven chemical effects on the body, and as Fischer said, the effects of a romantic love high is similar to the effects of a cocaine high. This again suggests the extensive effects of romantic love, which are far worse than any emotion. Although Fischer did not provide very compelling arguments, her speech certainly made me think. It wasn't her scientific evidence that provoked thought, but it was the information she proposed that one would be unable to deny, despite the fact that she has no 'evidence'. One may not be able to prove that love exists, nor that it is addictive, but one cannot deny either, the existence of the everlasting conundrum that humanity faces with the issue of love. 

Wait here, I'll bring the etchings down

Our individual knowledge is one of the few things we can be sure of.  Relating back to Descartes philosophy, one can only be sure of what goes on in their own mind, for the means of communication between human beings are fairly unreliable. However, as we do live in a joint society, we rely on means of communication, the most prevalent being language. This can come in the form of body language, written language, and spoken language, all of which are interconnected. However, it is these connections that vary from person to person, and culture to culture. Humans rely on language to accurately deliver our private subjective knowledge to others, but when using a means of communication with so many leeways, several knowledge issues are encountered.

The means in which individual knowledge and mutual knowledge are integrated bring upon the difficulties of communication. When dealing with communication, there are several ways to do so. As we experienced during the drawing exercise and charades, both body language and spoken language hold their limitations. For example, during the drawing exercise, I was the narrator. I had the individual knowledge of what the picture looked like, however I could not fully transfer this knowledge to the drawers. Although I tried my best to communicate what the picture looked like through spoken language, it was not enough to send across the message. Likewise, when playing charades, mere body language was not enough to convey the detailed prompts of the game. From this we can see how body, spoken, and written language are necessary for humans to overcome the vast uncertainty of communication.

Language in itself can be perceived differently from person to person. Hence come the ideas of Pinker and ‘Outliers’. In Pinker’s video, the concepts of individual and mutual knowledge are further described. Individual knowledge consists of one’s own knowledge, A knows X and B knows X. mutual knowledge considered the correlation of this knowledge, does A know that B knows X? Does B know that A knows X? From this, comes awkwardness. Although some knowledge might be mutual, in order to avoid the awkwardness, people tend to find means of complicating our language even further, to make sure that the mutual knowledge cannot be fully gained. Perhaps it is a frightening concept, for one to know exactly what your intentions are when we speak, so instead we ‘veil’ our intentions with language. Such ‘veils’ vary from person to person, and from culture to culture. In some cultures, it would be considered rude to straight out ask for sex, even though calling someone up to see their ‘etchings’ is partially as obvious.  

This awkwardness not only comes across when there is a difference of interests, but also when there is a difference of power. As presented in the Pinker video, difference in power can lead to that awkwardness, especially if one is unsure of a relationship they have with a person. This concept of language and power relates to the Power-Distance Index described in the ‘Outliers’ chapter. PDI’s are a measure of the acceptance of unequally distributed power, which is a major factor when dealing with societal interactions. When in a foreign culture, the rules of body language and spoken language may be different, hence leading to awkwardness. From this chapter we can see the drastic measures humans take in order to avoid this awkwardness or confrontation, which have presumably led to plane crashes. In different cultures, certain ways of communication are deemed more appropriate. Since I am Indian, I come from a culture with a relatively high PDI. Whether it is culture, religion, or tradition, we are taught to respect our elders and treat them in a certain manner. Our way of speaking to parents or teachers are significantly different from the way we speak to our peers, and therefore, our ways of communicating are influenced.

All in all, language as a means of communication has its issues. The consequences of these issues can vary from awkwardness to plane crashes. Although as a way of knowing, it may seem unreliable, I feel that it is this unreliability that brings beauty to language. Without this constant need to interpret what people say, humans would be extremely bored. People can spend hours deciphering a person’s words, just to catch a glimpse at their individual knowledge – what really goes on in their head.  Without this ambiguity of language, there would be no poetry, no culture, no humor, no awkwardness that we love to analyze, and most importantly, there would be no individualism. The ambiguity of language is what gives each individual the ability to perceive others the way they chose, which is the basis of all human- to- human relationships. 

Language is influential. Language is manipulative.

Language is the main form of communication for the human population. It is the most prevalent way to convey messages, and communicate. However, for a means of communication with so much power, it has a lot of leeways. The beauty of the English language is that there are so many different meanings to a set of words, especially in poetry. Hence comes the idea of denotation and connotation. Although a word is just a word, it comes with baggage that impacts it’s meaning. There are so many different ways of talk that deal with various connotations, depending on the type of message the speaker would like to send.

Whenever there are such leeways, they can always be abused. Two of the seven sins of memory are bias and suggestibility, which deal with language. Especially in history, one has to judge the validity of a document, for its language may have extremely bias connotations. A persons viewpoint can always be expressed in their language, relating to the connotations of the words they use. Since history is completely based on the documents of other people’s writing, our knowledge of the truth is severely obstructed. The proof of this obstruction is the various documents for a single event. Although each person viewed the same event, their documentation could use language with extremely different connotations according to their person beliefs.

The other sin of memory that I mentioned is suggestibility, which are influenced memories. This relates to the power language has over us. If there is only one document of a certain event, we as humans accept this to be the truth. Therefore, our idea of the truth is affected by another person’s language, containing their bias connotations. The connotations of our language can turn a hero to a villain, a miracle to a tragedy, and a freedom fighter into a terrorist.  Even as depicted in Orwell’s 1984, language has a great influence over our community (hence they tried to control language in order to control the community). Connotations hold a great power that can severely affect our understanding of the truth. 

The consumption of popcorn leads to the degeneration of brain cells.

“Are We Hard-Wired to Doubt Science?” by Felicity Barringer

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/are-we-hard-wired-to-doubt-science/?scp=4&sq=perception&st=cse

This article dotes upon the issue of science and its validity. Barringer discusses how humans are more likely to believe in scientific evidence that is parallel to their own belief systems, so essentially, they chose what they want to believe on an emotional basis. The article discusses the issues we encounter when dealing with perception, for even scientific evidence is perceived subjectively.  There is neurological evidence for this claim, for information is processed by the amygdala rather than the cortex. The amygdala is the origination of emotions such as fear, and the cortex is the area of reason. This shows how humans are more reliant on emotion and instinct rather than reason. The article continues to discuss how these emotion based perceptive skills may be influenced by one’s social classification of society, another factor that can impact cognitive skills.

Some knowledge issues that were brought up by this article were:

To what extent do we rely on emotion rather than logic?

How strong of an influence do you feel social classifications and prejudices have an impact on our beliefs?

How often do we rely on our ‘gut feeling’ rather than the logical explanation or reasoning?

Judging by this article, it is evident that our human emotions control our actions and beliefs. As the article mentions, humans tend to believe in the notion that there is something out there to get them, and will believe these theories regardless of any scientific evidence of the contrary. Humans will believe theories as crazy as 'The consumption of popcorn leads to the degeneration of brain cells', without any substantial scientific evidence. This exemplifies the neurological explanation, being that the amygdala is the one that processes information first. Although humans claim to be fairly logical creatures, it seems as though our primitive ancestors relied more on logic and reasoning than we do now. If one is to think about all the descisions they have made based on emotion versus the amount of descisions based on logic, the results would be quite shocking. Most of the time, humans are unable to make purely logical descisions or make purely objective judgments.  Animals on the other hand, seem to respond more to logical reasoning and scientific progression. The mating processes of animals are much more simplistic than that of humans, for there is no complicated emotional baggage involved. Animals mate simply to reproduce and carry on their species. Humans however, are caught up with ‘falling in love’ and ‘finding one’s soul mate’. Such desires lead to the human reliance on emotions for decision-making. 

The Art of Perception

“Thus every act of perception, even something as simple as viewing a drawing of a cube, involves an act of judgment by the brain.”

This statement supports the fact that most of the knowledge we gain is from perception, meaning that most of our knowledge is perceptive and not objective. I have discussed this notion earlier in my previous blog, and this statement only provides further support for my argument. Although there are subjects such as science and math, which contain relatively objective truths, the way an individual judges this information is different, making even objective truths somewhat perceptive. For example, the Necker cube is the perfect example. This cube has to do with math (geometry), although we are given objective truths about the angles etc, when looking at the cube we all see something different. Hence, each brain is judging every piece of information in different manners, meaning that the stored information humans keep in their brains is extensively varied amongst different people.

This statement also implies the immense processes a brain goes through. Humans know very little about the brain, but we do know that it is a very complex organ. If in the simple act of looking at a cube, our brain is working to make a perceptive judgment, imagine what our brain goes through when watching a movie, or reading a novel. The very concept of art and creativity is born through the ideals of perceptive judgment. If all humans perceived the world in the same manner, there would be no imagination, and there would be no creativity. For example, if you gave a group of people a description of a person, and asked them all to draw what they perceived from the description, they would all end up with extremely varied drawing. From this, comes art and literature, which are demonstrations of the different perspectives on our world. Such forms of art would not be possible without these varied acts of judgments by individual brains throughout the world. 

Is seeing really believing?

As most of us have discovered, there are few truths in this universe that are objective. Most of our knowledge is gained through perception, whether it be seeing, listening, touching, smelling, or anything else. The question here is, how reliable are our perceptions? Can we honestly say that we have true knowledge of anything, when we know so little about how the brain functions? Descartes may be able to say ‘I think, therefore I am’, but does that mean we can say ‘I see, therefore I know’? Are there situations where seeing doesn’t mean believing, and perceiving doesn’t mean knowing? We as humans claim to know a lot about our own bodies; however, the brain as an organ remains mainly obscure to us. Hence, there are several ‘special’ cases that stand out when one analyzes the reliability of our senses.

The first limitations come with vision. Human beings gain most of their knowledge from vision, as they get a clear sense of the world surrounding them through sight. From various cases discussed by Dr.Ramachandran, one can observe that vision does not consist merely of seeing, and in fact, there are a number of other activities that go on in one’s brain when one is ‘seeing’. When a person goes blind, everyone would expect them to lose all vision. But as mentioned previously, seeing itself is only a small part of vision. In one case example, a woman named Diane became completely blind, yet she was still able to perform certain functions that one would expect only a person capable of seeing to do. This provides evidence that the sense of vision requires a lot more than seeing, for there is a much more complex series of processes that allow one to perceive visually without the ability to see.

Another fascination phantom of the brain to do with vision was the case in Dr.Ramachandran’s documentary, about a young man who faced an accident, and started believing that his parents were imposters. He would constantly be comparing his ‘imposter mother’ to his ‘real mother’; when in reality they were the same person. I found this case to be extremely thought provoking. There are so many extraterrestrial movies about imposters and aliens, and in every scenario the person facing these visual illusions is observed by society to be psychotic. In this documentary, his illusions were explainable again, by one of the various processes that go into the act of vision. Although Dr.Ramachandran explained such cases scientifically, the paranoid side of me wonders whether or not we really know the answers. Scientists claim to know a lot about the brain, which still remains a mystery, so how can we claim to know the explanations of a case as drastic as this? Who are we to judge whether or not his parents are imposters?

Another case that I found quite interesting was the case of the phantom limb, yet another conundrum which scientists seem to have linked back to vision. The brain, although a complex mechanism, seems to have its flaws, especially when dealing with the trauma of a lost limb. In these cases I am quick to believe the scientific theories, for Dr.Ramachandran’s therapy’s seemed to have cured the patient of the phantom pain in his phantom arm. However, there is also a question of the validity of this theory? Pain has been said to be something of the mind. We do not feel pain physically, for it is merely a signal to the brain, it is an emotional sensation. This being so, couldn’t this phantom pain simply be a mind trick? If all pain is in the mind, and minds are capable of playing tricks, what true knowledge do we really have, if we have any at all?

Essentially, perception and knowledge come hand in hand. Humans cannot gain any knowledge without the act of perception. Even if our actions are not intentional, in our mere consciousness, we perceive the world around us. As demonstrated by these cases, humans are constantly perceiving and storing knowledge that we are not even aware of. This storage of knowledge is what makes our mechanisms of perception so complicated, and therefore so delicate and obscure. We still do not know the various processes that one goes through when perceiving, and for now we are all just relying on our best guesses. Perception will never be one hundred percent validated, and therefore, our knowledge will never be one hundred percent reliable. Small differences and chemical imbalances in our brains can cause such drastic shifts to our perception. Such pieces of evidence make human knowledge on the whole, very insecure. How am I to know if I know anything at all? Like I said before, can I rely on mere ‘seeing’ in order to believe what is really going on?

Alien Sensory World

The moist earth feels cool against my body. The torturous sun shines on my back, burning the sensitive pores of my skin. I slide deeper into the soil trying to cover my back with dark dirt to avoid the heat of the sun. Sliding along, I feel cool. There are numerous vibrations around me. I can feel the movements of other creatures around me, their vibrations rumbling through my body.  As the vibrations get more thunderous, I move away, slipping farther and farther into the cool soil. All of a sudden, there is a gigantic thud. Waves of vibrations shake me to my core, tingling all the nerves in my body. I feel shaken. I am no longer in the cool silent soil, for there is something bigger, something greater coming. I feel the beats getting closer and more vibrant. Suddenly, I am no longer beneath in my sanctuary. The feeling of cool soil against my skin has disappeared, and instead I feel a ruthless heat penetrating my whole body. I curl up to keep cool, but the heat still ripples through my body. I am being carried through the air, or dragged harshly. I can feel a sharp breeze against my pores. I’m falling. I’m dropping. All of a sudden I am cool again. The heat evades my body but a tingling sensation arises. My body starts to burn. The burning sensation grows stronger. It’s stinging at my pores, causing me to convolute to rub away the pain. The heat is gone and all that is left is this violent stinging. Small vibrations run through my body as the stinging continues. I go limp.