When I first arrived to class today, I was a bit nervous because I felt I had already discussed all of my ideas in the previous class discussion. I was highly mistaken. As always, today was an enlightening day in Group 4. We discussed moral gray areas, in which there is no truth to right and wrong. What is wrong to yourself may not be wrong to your neighbor and what is right to yourself may not be right to your neighbor. Moral correctness, so to speak, varies from person to person and situation to situation. We raised questions such as, "Is it ever okay to murder somebody?" "Is it ever okay to have an abortion?" "Can you ever really escape Plato's cave?" We also discussed how the forms Plato refers to, do not make sense considering each person views a cat based on his/her perception of a cat. We talked about how everything is based on perspective and perception and how we can never really be sure about anything at all. We raised questions such as "What sources are we obtaining our 'facts' from?" "Are those sources truly, absolutely, unquestionably accurate?; or do we assume so because we trust the source--television, media, textbooks, teachers, parents, etc." We also differentiated between biological "Yuk" factors, that exist for the welfare of human beings, and the negative "Yuk" factors; those factors that make us wince, but we must learn to let go of. Things that make many say "Yuk" for their own benefit would include: Blood, drugs, cigarette smoking, sexual promiscuity. There are also "Yuk" factors that people have that are not so much for the welfare of the society. These "Yuk" factors include homosexuality, biracial relationships, interaction among men and women (outside U.S.), as well as some of the ways in which we dress. None of these "Yuk" factors exist for the benefit of human beings; They exist only because of differences that exist among people. These are the "Yuk" factors we must make an effort to control. We concluded by discussing the dangers of thinking you know it all. We also reminded each other about the importance of being open minded, especially in a class such as Philosophy. Hope to hear your thoughts! Have a great weekend, and I look forward to discussion next Tuesday!
Arielle Roides (PHIL 1030-013)
This week I ran into a problem that we had talked about in our last class, where what was wrong to me wasn't wrong to my neighbor(girlfriend). I would like to say it was a very calm philosophical discussion but it ended up getting a little heated. we discussed moving in with each other before marriage, which I personaly didn't think to be right but she didn't see anything wrong with it because in her relm of family and friends most all of them moved in together before marriage.
ReplyDeleteSo I guess it has made me relized
that a big part of what we believe depends on where we come from.
For the our next class we will be talking about Sport and enhancements, which personaly I think enhancements would be pretty cool. my question is if all athletes did start using these extreme enhancements and everyone became amazing woundn't amazing just be the new average?
I love the question you posted for next discussion. I also think it's interesting how much of the dilemmas we encounter in life can be viewed from a philosophical level. That was definitely one of those situations! Moral relativity is demonstrated in my life quite often. I enjoyed hearing your thoughts Caleb! I will see you Tuesday!
ReplyDeleteArielle Roides
I agree that it is very important to be open-minded in this class. The class is based on how you as a person,views and understands the world. Everyone is going to have their own view on things, so it is important not to be prejudice torwards someone else's opinions. Our group is a mixture of different minds, and I think that everyone does a good job listening to what other people have to say.
ReplyDeleteThere are many practical applications to the ideas Savulescu discusses and I find myself now questioning my knee-jerk reactions to the actions and preferences of others. The "Yuk" reaction segues nicely into Blackburn's discussion of the shortcoming of moral relativism. While I do find myself siding with relativists on many issues, it is a philosophy which does not adequately address the difference between an opinion and true moral issues with which we must wrestle on a daily basis. Here are some possible questions to discuss as a group on Tuesday:
ReplyDeleteAre there moral issues that you see as posing difficulties for moral relativists?
Does moral relativism work? If applied to all issues, what problems might arise?
I found Sandel's interview to be slightly challenging for me as I have no strong opinion one way or the other on the issue of performance enhancing drugs in sports. However, I can see the implications this issue holds for society as a whole when the possibility of "designer humans" looms in the not too distant future. Some questions which presented themselves to me over the course of the reading-
As a parent, would you choose to ensure that your child has genes which would make him/her a perfect physical specimen if that option was a available to you?
Do performance enhancing drugs take away from the point of sports and competition or do they simply create a greater spectacle which in turn leads the spectator to enjoy themselves more?
I added this class later into my schedule and was very much anticipatory! I was looking forward to learning a lot about philosophy and having deep, open discussions and I have not been disappointed! I have been a bit lost in the beginning, having not been there for any previous reading but the group conversations have been clear and interesting. I am in a great group!!
ReplyDeleteOur conversation on Thursday on “yuk” factor was interesting. I liked our discussion on moral correctness and how something that seems right/wrong to you, may not be right/wrong to someone else. It’s all about perspective and the type of person you are and the angle you’re looking from.
Tuesday we will discuss the morality of sports enhancing drugs and child “designing”. I thought I had an idea of which side of the line I stood on for this, but reading Sandel’s interview really blurred the lines for me. some questions that came to my mind were...
Where would the line be drawn in using this technology to “genetically program” a child? How far should medical professionals let it go or not go? Is it not enough to have a healthy child? What does this future possibility say about our society now and where we could stand in the future?
Natalie Ricketts
On the topic of asking whether what we read and learn is true, I think questioning everything we learn is very valuable. To simply accept everything you're told is ignorance. I think you should value what you learn, but questioning always allows for growth.
ReplyDeleteI found the idea of moral relativism very interesting. It brought to my mind the conflict of abortion. I am very much pro-life. I see no way to justify taking an unlived life. Many people will argue that some women have been raped etc; however, my response is that there are many people who would love to have a child that cannot. Adoption is an option. Someone else may see the cause for abortion, but I will never agree with them no matter how solid their argument. Perhaps that's being close-minded, but it is my stance. Saying that this position is relative is, like Blackburn said, pointless.
On the topic on enhancing humans mainly in sports, I agree with Sandel. I think it's like something out of a sci-fi movie; although it is truly amazing that we have advanced so far in technology, I think there should be a limit. I was wildly intrigued by the Olympics this summer due to the fact that these people had so much training, dedication, and discipline to make their bodies into the best shape possible. It inspired me to improve my own physique. If all they have to do is take a few shots of hormones, then the "awe" factor is dead for me. In addition, I have a problem with how much money we already pour into things like football. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the occasional tailgate and watching the game with friends, but these athletes are grossly overpaid. I also have a problem with designing your own baby; a lot of this is due to my religious background, but I also feel there are so many ways these types of things could go wrong.
What are some stances you hold to unswervingly?
How do we draw the line for medical enhancements in sports or other areas?
What does Blackburn say morality is?
What are some other practices that Sandel would consider "on the line" other than orthodontia?
--Caitlyn Osborne Section 13, Group 4
It is pretty cool, because the more Philosophy I read the more I feel like my own personal Philosophy is truly taking shape. I really liked the line, "you've got your truth and i've got mine", because that is how I feel about the idea of relativism. I don't think that there is only one solution to a problem. Everyone is going to have a say and that is why I don't believe in compromise. Through this idea of agreeing upon one thing, nothing is ever truly accomplished because it is impossible to agree on anything. Someone will loose no matter what. Why is there a need to resolve a conflict if it does not directly affect you. Take abortion for example I am pro-choice simply because who am I to tell somebody else that having an abortion is wrong. Am I saying that my view is right? No, but I am not saying that pro-life is right or wrong either. Everybody has a different happy medium and without disagreements this world would be boring. I believe instead of looking at situations as conflicts we should view them as thoughts and ideas because what may seem like a conflict to one person, may be a solution to another.Since there are no real solutions we should live to be happy. Instead of surrounding ourselves with people with opposing views we should surround ourselves with people who have similar ideas and beliefs and we should discuss them with an open mind. That way instead of searching for solutions we can search for knowledge and ideas instead. My question to you, is do you think conflict is inevitable or oneday, will we all live to be one with each other? Another question is, How would you sum up Blackburn's view of relativism?
ReplyDelete