Sunday, September 9, 2012
Section 19 Group 4
In class on Wednesday we discussed "YUK" factors. We decided that it is not only disgusting tastes in our mouths that make us say "YUK", but ethical and social issues as well. We questioned whether us as humans are genetically programmed to be repulsed by some things or if it is a cultural issue. Our group agreed that there are biological and social "YUK" factors that we are programmed with. An ethical "YUK" factor that we, as Americans, may believe is biological, is the issue of Cannibalism. While the idea is morally repulsive to us, it is a natural way of life for some cultures. Why is it a "YUK" factor to us and not for them? This is clearly not a biological issue but merely a difference in culture. On the other hand, we, as human beings, are genetically inclined to be repulsed by toxins or things that are detrimental to our race. One example is incest. Incest is a complete disadvantage to the human race, as it causes deformities and makes us weaker. So, it is natural to think "YUK" when the issue is raised. This could be argued as a social issue, but it is stemmed from a greater biological need to keep our species alive. So, while different arguments could be made, the one question we have to stop and ask ourselves, "why do I hate this?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This week's discussion was very interesting to say the least. I got a little bit of the "YUK" feeling just talking about some of the taboo topics that we discussed. That feeling made me think: "Why do i have these feeling?". The only reason i could think of is because, since the time of my birth, I have been taught that this is wrong. While some things are repulsive without being taught, I feel that alot of things that we think of as gross is due to the fact that that is all we have learned while growing up. This lead me to my final conclusion. While thinks that can be harmful to you are gross by instinct, culture plays a huge role in all other things that are considered "YUK"! Hope to see everyone in class today!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed last week discussion on the "YUK" factor. It were topics that made me want to squirm and scream "YUCK!" (i.e. Cannibalism), but I had to think why did this topic create an uneasy feeling for me. And I also realized that the "YUK" factor brings out the prejudice in us that we didn't know that was there. And in my opinion, although your "Yuk!" factor is disgusting, it is still wrong to judge one for what they do. Yeah, cannibalism is the most atrocious thing ever, but who am I to say what they are doing is wrong?
ReplyDeleteI had a blast talking in the discussion last week on the "YUK" factor. It was very interesting to see other's opinions. I think the "yuk" feeling is normal and needed. If everything in life was clean, then you would not be as appreciative of them. But if you have a "yuk" factor, then you have something to compare the good with and realize how blessed you really are. No one is perfect, so this human nature of the "me first" attitude will always be a problem. There's truly only one solution to dealing with the "yuk" factor and it's not just ignoring it. Facing your problems, conflicts and issues head on and looking for a respectable and reasonable solution is one temporary way. But yet there still seems to be something wrong with our old habits and nature of how we handle situations and deal with "Yuk" factors.
ReplyDeleteIs there a feasible solution to dealing with "yuk" factor?
DeleteGroup,
ReplyDeleteI’m sorry that I missed class on Monday, I had a work emergency come up that I had to take care of. They are now aware that this cannot happen again so it will not be an issue from here on out. I just listened to the Nehemas podcast on Friendship that we will be talking about in class on Wednesday. The two questions I will pose are as follows:
1. If friendships are based on morals and values of your friends, why SOMETIMES do we look at things that our friends do with a bias, and somewhat give them a pass if they do something wrong? If friendships are constructed on morals and values, shouldn’t we hold our friends to the same moral standard that the relationship was constructed on?
2. Do you think the reasons you choose friends are the same reasons that you choose when deciding to date a person or not? The reason I ask this is because when listening to Nehemas talk about ending a friendship he mentioned that one friend no longer likes the person the other friend has become. This sounds to me to be very close to the reason I hear most often when dating relationships fail.
Once again, I hate that I was not in class on Monday to enjoy the conversation, but I look forward to talking to everyone on Wednesday about Friendship. I hold my friends very close to me and will have a lot to say about this topic.
Friends should remain friends and treat them differently at a higher rate because of trust and experiences. You trust your friends better. If we treated everyone the same, then I feel like it would turn into a communist/socialist like society. The biggest advantage in America is the freedom of friendships.
DeleteFactual question: Is there hope for a lonely outskirt person to have a friend?
Factual question: What is the Ben Franklin Effect?
answer: after helping another person we like them more.
Discussion question: Why do people need friends or need to be accepted? Why is it so important?
name the differences between Plato and Aristotle
ReplyDeleteIt's not me it's you
ReplyDeletedoes Nehamas think that this is a helpful relationship or friendship?
no
Last week we discussed Michael Sandel's podcast on Sport Enhancement and Alexander Nehmas's podcast on Friendship. In Sandel's podcast he addresses the ethical delimmas that arise when the subject of scientific enhancement is brought up. Sandel focuses on the area of sport enhancement (blood doping, steroid use, etc.) to illustrate his point. Sandel claims that although he is for biotechnology in the ways of promoting health, but when it comes to performance enhancement or creating "designer babies", he offers his criticism. He lists the more obvious reasons , such as fairness and safety, for the dismissal of sport enhancement, but he says the main reason he is against it is because of the undeniable corruption that will follow if it is made mainstream. Sandel talks about a future world where they would have to be two seperate leagues: one with athletes using scientific enhancement, and one without. This point was something that our group talked at length about. Although it would be entertaining to watch the "super human" league, would it still mean as much when the team won? Would you be losing the human element all together, or just enhancing it? Our group seemed to be split about this question. What is considered natural talent? And is that what should be showcased? Does sport enhancement erase the need for natural talent? Regardless of the opinion, the group seemed to agree that there is a fine line when it comes to scientific improvement on the human body and no matter where you stand on it, it is going to lead to controversy.
ReplyDeleteThe next podcast was by philosopher Alexander Nehmas and covered the topic of friendship. Nehmas starts the podcast talking about if in fact friendship is a moral value. He brings up the point that friendship is an element that greatly shapes who we are, that although it is not necessarily vital, it can have a huge impact on who we turn out to be. I think everyone in our group agreed on this point. Nehmas continued on to the issue of why friendships dissolve. He compared it to a romantic relationship, with the common excuse, "It's not you, it's me." For most people it seems like a brush off, but Nehmas explained that normally in these cases the person ending the relationship is trying to say, "I do not like who I am around you." Although maybe a more painful discovery, it gives more credit to the cliche. Our group for the most part agreed with Nehmas' points on friendship and for a lot of us gave it a whole new light.
Factual Questions:
1. Does Michael Sandel agree with the usage of steroids for athletic enhancement?
-No.
2.What does Nehmas compare the act of understanding a friend to?
-recognizing the style of a painter
Discussion Questions:
1. Is it ethical to create "superhuman" leagues to compensate for sport enhancement?
2.Do you agree with Nehmas' point that it takes time to become someone's friend, "you can't become friends overnight, and you can't be someone's friend for a day"?Why or why not?
Discussion questions:
ReplyDeleteAre we really all responsible for other's actions?
Factual Questions: True or False
According to Kwame Antohy Appiah's opinion, the cosmopolitans think it is good and interesting that people live different modes of life: they don't want everybody to become the same.
True
The "Yuk" factor is a very complicated issue. An interesting issue i thought of was sadistic murder. Most people feel a strong repulsion towards the thought of someone murdering another person for entertainment or pleasure. However for centuries people were tortured and hung for petty crimes or even for completely false accusations like being a witch in front of crowds of people who came to watch for entertainment. Nowadays that would be unheard of and most people would feel disgusted and outraged to witness something like that. Obviously there has been a significant cultural change in how people view murder and even belief in capital punishment has decreased dramatically. So what would lead to such a change? Changes in our culture that have led people to be more empathetic of others would affect the way we think and therefore would makes changes to our brains and our biology. I think if you try to separate environment from biology as if they work independently from one another it will become very confusing. They work together in a very complex way and instead of looking at the issue as nature vs. nurture, i think it should be viewed as what are the dynamics between nature & nurture?
ReplyDelete