My blog

This is a link to my personal blog: http://berto-meister.blogspot.com/ in case you guys are interested in learning all kinds of random new things and/or sporadically amusing yourselves.

The blog is made up primarily of video files that I find online, especially some very good documentaries and presentations by world-leading intellectuals on everything ranging from philosophy, to science, to economics, to religion, to history, etc. In between the more sophisticated entries I do make it a point to regularly include humorous stuff because life just isn't quite the same without some good laughter.

Not much on politics, I'm afraid, since I'm more interested in educating and communicating ideas than with debating and fighting. My hope is that the material I post on this blog can matter today just as much as it could in ten years or twenty, and although political controversies are certainly important, I don't want to clog the historical archives with stuff to which future visitors could not relate.

If you find it worth your while, you can always subscribe to receive daily e-mails whenever new entries are posted. Feel free to share with others as well.

I don't know why I forgot to mention it, but it's been a great pleasure introducing you to some of the ideas that make moral philosophy such an interesting and important discipline. Although we were a rather small group, I really enjoyed the diversity of backgrounds and beliefs that could amiably be discussed and analyzed. I hope you guys keep in touch; you know how to find me, and if you ever come across something you think I might find interesting, I'd be very grateful if you could share that with me.

Bye!
Berto

Abortion

Since our heated debate about abortion last week, I thought I'd show you guys how professional philosophers debate ethical and philosophical issues. In the audio below, Don Marquis presents his objections against Peter Singer's views on abortion and infanticide (the latter favors these two under certain conditions), and argues that abortion is morally wrong.

Notice, first of all, that both philosophers explain what positions they have in common, and how they acknowledge the correct points their opponents make. This is critical: you have to assume some sort of common ground if you are to convince someone your point is correct, and you have to understand exactly what it is that you are arguing against.

Notice also how once they have correctly stated their opponent's arguments, they either find fault with that logic (which doesn't happen very often, since these guys are pretty smart), or they show how those arguments actually entail some logical consequences that presumably no one (including its proponent) would accept as true.

You can decide for yourself who makes the best arguments...
.

I loved the clip on gay marriage - the guy is wonderfully sarcastic - but he is saying what all people for gay marriage are thinking, 2 people who just want to commit themselves to each other should be allowed to get married no matter what their sexual preference is!

Gay Marriage

I stumbled upon this online, and thought you guys might enjoy this, especially Maureen:

.

Social Contract

This paper might help you understand Rawls a little bit better.

Howard Roark

This scene is from the film The Fountainhead, written by Ayn Rand. The reason I'm posting it here is that most of this speech reflects some Nietzschean ideals (except for the last minute), and it presents a very interesting contrast between traditional systems of morality with the morality of individuality and creative powers.

.

I like Peter Singer. I can agree with his views and openness about the topics of decision in this interview. I think that he was saying that although were are not perfect and have different views that we can and should do more to help in ending all the suffering that occurs in the world and if we have to end a life (by choice) let it be done peacefully and humanely. In doing this the consequences of our action would be a benefit. I had a hard time about the sex with animals and a child, I can't see a benefit to any child who is sexually used by an adult for me that is just abuse.

Peter Singer

Here is an interview of Australian utilitarianist philosopher Peter Singer to give you a better idea as to who he is, what his views are, and how he defends them.

.

Nietzsche documentary

This might help you understand Nietzsche's background a bit better. It's not exactly the best interpretation of his life and philosophy (and the relationship between the two), but it should give you some ideas that might clarify the reading.

.

I have watch the West Wing, it's a good show. I'm sorry I missed that one esp. taking this course, I would have like to see the whole show to see what lead up to that scene, quotes with questions like that do leave a person speechless.

He had some very interesting questions and I would like to know what the philosophers would have to say about them. I know it was just a TV show, but the so called Dr. had no answers for him.

Following scripture

Here is something interesting I came across tonight:

.

Change in schedule

Since class was canceled yesterday, I have been forced to change our schedule for the rest of the semester.

Tomorrow we'll finish up Kant and hear oral presentations by Ista and Angela, which should catch us up on that regard.

Next week we'll concentrate on Utilitarianism. Instead of reading the entire reading in the Solomon book, you will now only be responsible for reading chapters 1, 2 and 4 (all for Monday). Then on Tuesday we'll finish up loose ends and go over this reading on animal rights by Australian utilitarianist philosopher Peter Singer, who currently teaches at Princeton.

Then we'll be caught up with the schedule and can go on as previously stated in the class calendar.

By the way, Theresa says she's willing to trade with anyone interested in going later than they are scheduled, so find her if you are interested in this opportunity.

Oral Presentations

Here is the random order in which the oral presentations will be given (except for Ista, who volunteered to go first):

1. Ista - Monday, April 16
2. Angela - Wednesday, April 18
3. Cindy - Monday, April 23
4. Mo - Wednesday, April 25
5. Kristin - Monday, April 30
6. Lori - Wednesday, May 2
7. Theresa - Monday, May 7
8. Maureen - Wednesday, May 9
9. Nikki - Wednesday, May 9

Brains and Bodies was also very interesting stuff. I know that when I'm in a situation the hairs on my arms stand up, my hearts beating alittle faster and my stomach is tight, while my brain is telling me that everything will be ok, theres nothing to be afriad of. Phantom limbs - my uncle didn't have a phantom limb but had a fake leg form the knee down and he used to scratch it when it itched.

The chimp within was very interesting. I think there are many simularites between chimps and humans. I believe that morality comes from within based on feelings, reason and experience, as well as from your religion( if you have one). I think that I would pull the lever, then push the person, by pulling the lever the train is doing the actual killing. My baby I would just try to keep the baby from making noise without harming or killing.

Morality and Evolution

Here is another audio of a Radio Lab episode dealing with the nature of morality. This is based on literally the latest, state-of-the-art work being done in philosophy and neuro-science. The interesting thing about it is that it seems to provide empirical confirmation that Hume was right: our moral feelings are based on the kind of biological creatures we are.

The more radical claim this scientific evidence confirms is that we don't get our sense of morality from up high (from God or reason), but from down below: from "the chimp within" (as a result of evolution).

Interesting stuff, huh? Again, I'd love to see comments.

Brains and Bodies

Since we were talking a little bit about free will and the relationship between our brain and our bodies yesterday, I figured you guys/gals might enjoy listening to this section of a Radio Lab episode.

The first part of the episode is the one directly related to the relationship between our brain and our body, and how it's not exactly the case that only our brain controls our body, but that it also works the other way around.

Then there's some stuff about phantom limbs that I think is simply truly fascinating. We study this phenomenon in much more detail in philosophy classes.

I'd love to see some comments on this audio.

Term Paper

Due date: Wednesday, May 2^nd (earlier papers will be accepted, and appreciated)

Font: Verdana
Size: 10 (this is the same as Times New Roman 12, but easier for me to read)
Double Spaced
Margins: One inch top, bottom, left and right
Header: Your name
Footer: Page Number

Write a 10-12 page paper on any ethical issue of your choice. The assignment is for you to take a position on the ethical issue you choose and attempt to convince your readers that your point of view on the matter is the one they should adopt themselves. This is an exercise in rational persuasion, which means that you must provide well thought out arguments that reasonable people would be willing to entertain, and possibly even adopt, considering your arguments are good. In other words, you must attempt to explain why your position is correct by providing reasons and well constructed logical arguments.

This assignment requires, as one of its purposes, that you think hard about some idea and provide some sort of principle (or set of principles) that justifies your position. Does using the principle you propose deductively entail some logical consequence that you would not be willing to accept? If so, then that is probably not a very good principle, and may require modification or rejection.

This paper requires no outside sources. In fact, I am discouraging them. I am not interested in what other people think about this issue, but in how you can support your claims through well reasoned and clearly articulated arguments.

If you do end up having to reference something (like the material we have covered during the semester), be sure to acknowledge that in citations. Plagiarism, defined as the use of sources other than your own ideas, whether in verbatum copying or in paraphrasing, is a very serious academic offence, which will not be tolerated. I am very good at catching instances of plagiarism, and will fail papers that are plagiarized, so just be honest with your work. Apart from that, this is an ethics course, so don’t cheat.

Before you start writing your papers, run your topics by me for approval. I’d like to have an idea of what you’re working on, and how you’re approaching your papers, so that you don’t waste your time doing something that will not help your paper.

Hume Questions

Here are a few questions on Hume, like I promised.

1. What are some of the arguments Hume employs in order to show that reason does not motivate the will?
2. What are some of the arguments Hume employs in order to show that moral judgments are not based on reason?
3. What are relations of ideas and what are matters of fact? How are they different? How do we come to know them? What principle distinguishes them?
4. If, as Hume argues, morality is not based on reason, can it be objective somehow, or do the arguments we've seen so far point toward a radical relativism?
5. Why can't morality be found through reason in the relationship between objects?
6. Why can't morality be found through reason in matters of fact?
7. What is the is/ought (or naturalistic) fallacy?

Morality and the emotions

Here are links to a few very short articles on the existence of moral feelings in monkeys. The first is from the Freakonomics column in the New York Times; the second is from Scientific American. We'll discuss their significance in class, but see if you can come up with some ideas on your own in the meantime.

Also, for those of you interested in the scientific explanation of why we "feel" that incest is wrong, here is a link to the article that explains it. This research has recently been referenced in various reputable scientific journals.

Test Sample Questions

Here are a few sample questions to help you study. I'll try to post some about Hume on Tuesday.

1. What is the strongest argument Socrates presents to Crito against the idea that it would be not only in his best interest, but just and virtuous to escape from prison?
2. Socrates believes that one ought always to obey the laws of the state, even when they are unjust. Why is this so?
3. What do you make of the idea of one's "implied contract" with the state?
4. Despite the seemingly overwhelming evidence that it would be in his best interest to escape from prison, Socrates believes that being moral is more in one's self-interest than being immoral. What reasons does he offer to support this point of view?
5. In The Republic, Socrates and his friends are trying to figure out what justice is. What definition does Polemarchus offer? How does Socrates refute it?
   
6. What definition does Thrasymachus offer? What are some of the arguments he provides to support his definition? Are these good arguments?
7. Socrates seems to refute the definition of justice Thrasymachus provides. The argument he uses to do this doesn't actually work, however. What is this argument?
8. After Thrasymachus leaves frustrated, Glaucon presses on the issue and provides some very powerful arguments supporting the idea that it is better to be unjust than to be just. This creates a very challenging standard for Socrates to overcome. What are the two main arguments Glaucon presents?
9. How does Socrates attempt to overcome these objections? Do his arguments work?
10. The myth of the cave provides, by way of analogy, the metaphysical support Socrates needs in order to support his contention concerning the primacy of the state (as opposed to the individual). How does Socrates do this?
11. What is the argument in "the ring of Gyges"?
12. Why is it important for Socrates that the soul be immortal?
13. Aristotle presents a teleological ethics; he believes that all actions are done for the sake of something. What is this something for the sake of which all actions are done?
    
14. How does Aristotle attempt to figure out what happiness depends on? What do the ideas of function and proper excellence have to do with happiness?
15. According to Aristotle, what is the function of man?
16. In what does virtue consist? Why is it not enough that one possess certain faculties?
17. What is the relationship between virtue and pleasure for Aristotle? Do you agree with his position? Why?
18. What is the definition of happiness that Aristotle proposes?
19. What is the definition of virtue for Aristotle? How does he figure out what virtue is?
20. What are the differences between intellectual virtues and moral virtues?
21. Aristotle, in a very important passage in his Ethics, says "it is by our conduct in our intercourse with other men that we become just or unjust.... In a word, acts of any kind produce habits or characters of the same kind. Hence we ought to make sure that our acts be of a certain kind; for the resulting character varies as they vary. It makes no small difference, therefore, whether a man be trained from his youth up in this way or in that, but a great difference, or rather all the difference." What is Aristotle talking about, and what is its significance?
22. What are 5 conditions required for an act to be virtuous, according to Aristotle?
23. There might be a question where I list some character traits, and you are supposed to arrange them as deficiencies, means and excesses, and then figure out which would be the virtues, according to Aristotle.
24. Aristotle believes that the right amount of pride, when there is merit behind it, is a virtue, a good thing. This goes in direct contradiction of Judeo-Christian doctrine, which considers pride as one of the seven deadly sins. What are we to make of this character trait? Notice that "the proper amount, and in the right way" makes all the difference for Aristotle.
25. For Aristotle, morality doesn't consist in following a specific set of rules, as in Christianity, but in being a certain type of person. What do you make of this? Is it more important to do the right thing, independently of how you feel about it, or is it more important to be the kind of person who does certain kinds of things? Why?
26. What are the three types of friendship Aristotle identifies? Which is the best? Why?
27. Why is making tons of money not the good life?
28. Why is the good life a rational life? Why not just indulge in physical pleasures?
29. Why is someone painfully doing the right thing not considered virtuous by Aristotle?
30. Plato and Aristotle have a drastically different view from Hobbes regarding the relationship between the state and the individual. On the one hand, Socrates argues, the individual could not be an individual without the precondition of a state in which he/she was born and raised. Not only this, a society could continue to exist even when its individual members ceased to exist (though not all of them at once). On the other hand, Hobbes argues, there could not be a society without individual members that came together and formed the group. In other words, for Plato and Aristotle, the individual is only possible thanks to the state, while for Hobbes, the state is only possible due to individuals. Who is right? How can we solve this problem?
31. What does it mean to say that psychological egoism is unfalsifiable?
    
32. Hobbes creates a very difficult challenge for himself: he denies that morality can be based on any objective realm to which we have no access, that it cannot be based on God, that it cannot be based on any kind of teleological conception of the universe. In what does he base it, then?
    
33. What is the state of nature, according to Hobbes?
34. What are some of the problems of the sate of nature?
    
35. As an empiricist, how does Hobbes define what is good and what is evil?
36. What does Hobbes mean when he says that all people are equal?
37. The fact that people are basically equal creates a major problem. What is this problem?
38. What does the condition of war consist in for Hobbes?
39. Hobbes has a very negative view of humanity, and we may not like it, but he thinks that through our own actions we actually show that we agree with him. What is he talking about?
40. Why does Hobbes think that there is no such thing as justice or injustice in the state of nature?
41. How does reason save us from the state of nature?
42. In matters of morality, what is a law of nature for Hobbes?
43. What are the first two rules of reason Hobbes identifies?
44. Why does Hobbes think that some contracts are immediately void?
45. What kind of rights is it impossible to rationally renounce? Why?
    
46. What is the role of the sovereign in the commonwealth?
47. Why does it make no sense to abide by the terms of a social contract when there is no sovereign?
48. What does Hobbes think freedom consists in?
49. How does game theory (prisoner's dilemma) show a different way of arriving at the need to establish a social contract? What is the problem with pursuing one's individual self-interest? What is the moral of the experiments?
50. What would social contract theory have to say about the following issues: abortion, gay marriage, the death penalty, an official religion, sexual harassment, racial discrimination, recreational drug use, stem cell research, helping old ladies cross the street, wasting one's talents, sexual promiscuity, getting tattoos?

Hope that helps.

Yale Lecture on Plato

This is a lecture delivered by Anthony Kronman, philosopher and law professor at Yale University, where he provides a nice explanation of part of Plato's Republic. For our purposes, the stuff we are concerned with is that concerning the reality of the Forms vs. that of individual things (beauty itself vs. beautiful things). He explains, and critiques, the metaphysical assumptions which support and explain Plato's views on democracy in a very interesting way, and why Plato could not possibly favor democracy as a good political ideal.

It's a very good lecture, in my opinion, until he starts arguing for creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) as a solution to the problems faced by Plato, which takes place toward the very end, but everything up to that point is rather interesting.

I hope it helps you better understand Plato.

Don't know if this will work

Hey everyone it's me, Lori, I don't if I'm doing this right or not, but hopefully it will post. I'm very computer illiterate!!! Berto, I kept trying to get in the blog even though it said my invitation expired and I think it finally worked anyway. I don't understand how, but here I am. I can't seem to get the videos to work though. Nothing happens when I click on the play arrow. I know all of you are probably going to laugh at me when you read this, but I have know idea what I'm doing. I HATE computers!!!!!! Could it be because I still have dial up and not high speed internet. I know, I'm behind the times!!!! See you all at class after the break. Lori

Islam Vs. Christianity

I found this today, and thought you might find it funny as well.

.

I enjoyed the video and think that it is very true. It would be really great if further studies could help children with autisum. Those mirror neurons are really something and have alot to do with how we become and see the world. I believe that Aristotle's 3 claims about humans are very true. He was a man before his time - is that how the saying goes?

Aristotle and Mirror Neurons

Here is an audio clip summarizing certain key excerpts from Aristotle's views on ethics.

And the following is a video clip on state-of-the-art research on mirror neurons. Aristotle, you will remember, contended that the habitual performance of acts of a certain kind would eventually produce a corresponding state of mind, or character, in the moral agent. This is precisely why he thinks moral education, through role models who teach by example, is extremely important.

New scientific research, as shown in this video, provides empirical support for Aristotle's claim that

1. we are social creatures,
2. we learn through imitation, and
3. the physical performance of certain actions produces certain cognitive responses.

This stuff is extremely interesting, and I'd love to see some discussion related to this.

Test this Wednesday

Just reminding you that we will have a take-home test this Wednesday. I will e-mail you the test at 3pm, and you'll respond with your answers by 5pm, which should be plenty of time to answer. Please let everyone else know in case they don't check out the blog between now and Wednesday.

Here are a few review questions:

1. How can the existence of evil in the world be explained if God is both all-powerful and benevolent? A distinction is worth making here between the actions of people, for which they are responsible, on the one hand, and the occurrence of natural events/disasters on the other. With relation to natural disasters (hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc.), why would God allow those things to happen?
2. St. Augustine claims that God has given us free will (this is how he attempts to solve the problem of evil). However, this view is logically problematic. How can free will be compatible with the idea of God's omniscience (absolute knowledge)? If God knows what we are going to do at every moment, even before we do something, how can we be justified in believing that we have free will? Or, if God has created a plan for the universe, and everything that happens is a part of that plan, including the things we do, then how does the idea of free will make sense?
3. Divine Command Theory is a moral theory that says that doing what God commands is what is moral. This presupposes that God is good, which is something most of us actually believe. If we further ask why God is good, as Socrates asked Euthyphro, we are faced with a dilemma: something has to make God good. The question can then be stated as follows: Is God good because he's good, or because he is God? Socrates shows that any answer to this question is going to be problematic for one who believes that morality somehow is dependent on religion. Explain what each alternative would mean, and explain how each alternative entails some sort of problem for believers.
4. People who subscribe to natural law theory condemn things like homosexuality, birth control, human cloning, stem cell research, etc as immoral because they are "unnatural." Explain what this concept of "unnaturalness" could mean. Is this a justifiable moral position? Why?
5. What would be some of the implications of accepting natural law theory as true?
6. Natural law theory is based on the presupposition of certain assumptions. What are some of these assumptions? Once we make these assumptions explicit, what is the conceptual status of natural law theory? Do we find any serious problems with this theory? What are some of these problems?
7. What would an argument defending ethical relativism look like?
8. Ethical Relativism sounds like a really nice ethical theory. Upon inspection, however, it entails a logical contradiction from which it cannot escape. What is this contradiction?
9. Even though ethical relativism is false, what are some lessons we can learn from it?
10. Why doesn't it logically follow that we should be more tolerant and less judgmental of other cultures if we accept ethical relativism as true?

Schedule change

Class, given the snow date we had last week, I have made a few changes to our class syllabus, so please check the online calendar for the latest version of our schedule. On Monday we'll be doing ethical relativism; the reading is the article entitled "Anthropology and the Abnormal," by Ruth Benedict, which I posted in a previous entry last week.

I really enjoyed Penn & Teller. The Bible is a book which gives people the belief of miricles
and the belief in God, which I both believe in. I haven't really read the Bible, maybe someday, do I go along with everything it says no it's to contradictory for me - I like things straight forward I don't know if I could get through with the reading of the Bible. For me just because somethings are said in the Bible doesn't make it right - it has to be right within me and for me. Mo Cleary

Evolution vs Intelligent Design Theory

For those of you who may reject the theory of evolution on religious grounds, here are two videos by biologist Ken Miller on the intelligent design vs evolution debate.

Miller is a very well respected scientist, with great credentials, and he is also a devout catholic. My intention with these videos is twofold: one, you get to learn some very interesting stuff about evolution, philosophy of science, science, and where we come from; and two, you get to see that believing in evolution does not necessarily mean that you can't believe in God, so you can believe in God and also believe in evolution. The two ideas are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

The first video is a short from an appearance by Ken Miller on the Colbert Report, just to give you an idea of who he is.

The second is an actual lecture he delivered on the intelligent design vs evolution debate. Enjoy.

.

The historical/scientific accuracy of the Bible

As a matter of clarification, here is some stuff that questions the historical and/or scientific accuracy of the Bible. One of the previous comments claims that the Bible has been "proven" to be true; this is simply, as an empirical matter, not true.

There are two reasons for this. The first is that, technically speaking, no scientific account can EVER be proven, simply as a matter of logical principle, not even the theory of gravity. In science, nothing is proven, if by proof you mean something as concrete as a mathematical proof, according to logical principles: science works according to supporting evidence. Logical deduction does not apply to science.

Empirical induction does apply to science, however. In other words, the more evidence there is to support a scientific theory, the more reason there is to believe in its accuracy rather than on some other theory.

The second reason, now that we are talking about supporting evidence for the Bible, is that the empirical evidence does not support the Bible's account. For instance, the biblical account is that God created the universe somewhere between 6 and 10 thousand years ago. There are numerous, independent sources of evidence that contradict this: astronomy calculates that given the distance of other stars from Earth, the fact that light is a constant (which is itself supported by Einstein's theory of relativity) would mean that it would have to travel for a certain amount of time in order to reach the Earth. Once you calculate this, it turns out that the universe is something at least 15 billion years old! That's a gigantic margin of error for the biblical account. Archeology, with the aid of chemistry principles, also indicates that fossils we have found on earth are up to 3 or 4 billion years old; the hominids from which we evolved, for instance, can be directly traced back up to 3 million years ago (that would be Lucy: Astralopithecus Afarensis). There are many other scientific findings that directly challenge the age of the earth as given by the Bible. Fossils of old organisms, which existed and went extinct long before human beings, like dinosaurs, also falsify religious scripture.

So, if all the independent evidence leads to the same conclusion, and I can show you more scientific literature on this if you wish, then the bible has not actually been proven true, even on the weaker version of 'proof' as simply being supported by the evidence.

This is not to say, however, that God does not exist. Science can't prove that, or that he exists, so any conclusion about God's existence based on scientific evidence or lack thereof will ultimately be based on a logical fallacy called the argument from ignorance.

The important point about these findings is that many of them have been found independently of each other, which means that different scientific disciplines cohere with one another creating a picture of the world that is supported from many different scientific points of view. The more that separate theories cohere, the more reason there is to believe that they are true.

Here is a video of the popular magicians Penn & Teller doing a show on the Bible's accuracy. There's some explicit language in there, so please do not feel offended, but do pay attention to how the believers and the skeptics differ in their explanations.

For those of you who do not know much about evolution, since Lori and I were having a conversation on this, I'm including to a media player to a podcast, Evolution 101, dedicated to explaining evolution in terms as easy to understand for lay people as possible, which you can find on the right side of this blog. Some versions, especially the ones on molecular genetics (episodes 108-114), are a bit technical, since that's the guy's specialty, but overall there is a lot you can learn from these short sessions. The episodes are ordered chronologically, starting from the bottom, so scroll down, click on the desired episode and learn away.

Ethical Relativism

Click on this link to download a pdf file with the reading due on Wednesday. It's an article by anthropologist Ruth Benedict, defending the theory of ethical relativism. It's nice and short, and a classic, which I think you will all enjoy.

What God wants

I believe God gave us the free will to do what we choose, he wants us to do the right thing and hopes that we will make the right choice in the decisions that we make.

I believe that God gave us free will . That It goes all the way back to the begining of time when Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden. God gave them the free will to make the choices for themselves and Eve choose to listen to saten rather then to what God told her. Saten has dominion over the earth. Yes God can stop bad but he he gave us free will and won't interfere. We make our own choices and sometimes even though we know the outcome won't be good we still choose to do what is not good for us. Just like some people choose to smoke they know the outcome may be cancer but they still do it. God gave us his Son Jesus so that we can be forgiving. and have everlasting life. I believe that God is good and that I need Him I also believe that some people Think he is good and choose not to need him. I think God is Just, loving and fair.

Just one more thing to add the BIBLE is the number 1 selling book of all time, around the world and it has also been proven to be correct.

I finally got the invite and get to post comments now I feel like I belong. It took a while but it works I think now I am official. Now you are in trouble you won't be able to shut me up. (lol)

What God tells us and wants us to do? For me its having faith and believe in God and Me, that I'm doing the right or good thing and a calming and rightous feeling that God is on my side.

I think I finally made to the blog and posting. Now lets hope I post right. This is just a test.

Yesssssssssssssss!!!

Look i finally did it !!
hooray for me

Should we do what God says?

The following short video is part of a documentary narrated by evolutionary biologist, world renowned scientist and advocate for reason and education, Richard Dawkins.

Let me warn you from the start that Dawkins is an avowed atheist. In fact, his latest book, a current bestseller, is called "The God Delusion"; he thinks that people who believe in any god are not only deluded: they are dangerous. Religious zealousness seems to be the explanation for much of the violence we see in the world: if you believe that your faith is somehow under attack, then becoming a soldier of god would be righteous. Having said that, concentrate, when you watch this video, on what he says, not on the fact that he is an atheist.

Dawkins argues that although people seem to have a natural proclivity for highlighting only the nice aspects of the Bible, carefully reading this book would also uncover a world full of horrendous moral doctrines that no civilized person would want to accept.

The implication from this observation is powerful: although we may think that we get our sense of morality from the bible, the fact that we pick and choose what passages to obey and what passages not to obey betrays the fact that, surprisingly, we don't actually consider the bible our source of moral knowledge. What happens instead, it seems, is that we have a judgment already in our minds, probably as a result of unquestioned religious indoctrination, which we later attempt to rationalize by finding scripture passages that confirm our original intuition. In a manner of speaking, then, we throw the darts first, and then draw a perfect bull's eye around it, and think our aim is perfect.

In other words, if you think that we should do everything the bible says, then there should be no exceptions to what we choose to obey and what we don't. But if we do make this choice, then it follows that it's not because it comes from the bible itself, doesn't it? If so, then the bible is not our source of morality.

Anyway, here is the video:

And here is Dawkins describing the Judeo-Christian god:

Two Questions

So, does anyone have any thoughts on how we can know what God wants us to do and should we do everything God tells us to?

Personally, I think there is no definative way to know exactly what God wants us to do. It is a matter of interpretation of the book and rules of your religion. We believe we know what God wants us to do- be kind, don't kill, etc. However, without God making a personal appearance to us and telling us himself, that's all we can do is believe. And isn't that what faith is? Believing in something without proof?

What do you think?

I did it!

I have finally figured it out! Thanks for showing us yesterday how to do this!

Hi everyone

How is everyone?

Some logic exercises

Here are a few exercises you guys can play with for practice. The assignment:

1. Identify the truth value of each proposition in the arguments below.
2. Identify whether each argument is valid or invalid.
3. Identify whether each argument is sound or unsound.

All marsupials are cute.
All little koalas are marsupials.
Therefore, all little koalas are cute.

All bubbles are poppable.
All dreams are like bubbles.
Therefore, all dreams are poppable.

If cleanliness is next to godliness, then mangoes are yummy.
Mangoes are yummy.
Therefore, cleanliness is next to godliness.

If cleanliness is next to godliness, then mangoes are yummy.
Cleanliness is next to godliness.
Therefore, mangoes are yummy.

If cleanliness is next to godliness, then mangoes are yummy.
Cleanliness is not next to godliness.
Therefore, mangoes are not yummy.

If cleanliness is next to godliness, then mangoes are yummy.
Mangoes are not yummy.
Therefore, cleanliness is next to godliness.

If cleanliness is next to godliness, then mangoes are yummy.
Mangoes are not yummy.
Therefore, cleanliness it not next to godliness.

All computers have keyboards.
All pianos have keyboards.
Therefore all pianos are computers.

We'll go over these on Monday. Hope you guys don't get a headache!

Logic clarification

Here are some, hopefully, helpful definitions of the three main topics we were discussing yesterday: truth, validity and soundness.

Truth

This is an attribute of single propositions. Any premise or conclusion in the argument must be true or false. Truth is not something that can be said of an argument as a whole; it can only be said of individual propositions.

Validity

This is an attribute of whole arguments. Validity refers to the inferential relationship between the premises of an argument and the conclusion. In other words, an argument is valid iff (if and only if) the conclusion follows from the premises.

Remember, validity works independently of the TRUTH of any proposition. You could have an argument where any or all propositions are false, and still be valid. You could also have an argument where all the propositions are true, and still be invalid.

Validity, to emphasize this point, deals with the RELATIONSHIP between premises and conclusion. If the conclusion follows from the premises, the argument is valid.

Soundness

This refers to the sum of every requirement for a good argument.
An argument is sound iff EVERY single proposition in the argument is true, AND the argument is valid.

So, soundness requires both validity and truth across the board.

If any one proposition is false, then the argument cannot be sound, even if it is valid.

If the argument is invalid, then the argument cannot be sound, even if every proposition is true.

Let me know if you guys still have questions.
Would you like me to post some exercises for you guys to practice and get better at this?

I think I finally did it, now can somone please help me out with the Logic we learned today. I don't understand Valid and Sound.....

Welcome!

Welcome to the exciting world of ethics!

In this class we are going to learn a number of very fascinating philosophical theories concerning ethics. As the course progresses, and we learn and analyze these theories, we will also learn how to think critically about ethics, and how to frame ethical positions based on general principles. Ethics, in its most basic definition, is the study, as Socrates stated, of "how we ought to live."

One of the most important things you will get out of this course, I hope, is the ability to think critically and rationally. Unlike most other classes, which emphasize the memorization of large sets of data, this class will require you instead to apply your brain to a small, but varied typology of conceptual moral problems that have puzzled thinkers for centuries. You will learn how to analyze a seemingly simple and intuitive idea, such as whether some end may justify the means, and understand its logical implications, as well as the conceptual problems it might produce for some other idea, or even for itself. At first you might find this difficult (in some cases, maybe even painful), but as you start to develop your critical thinking skills, you will find that, with practice, it becomes much easier and even fun. You will probably also find yourself applying these skills in other classes, as well as out of the academic world, and that's the idea.

It is important that you understand that you do not have to agree with any of the theories we cover during the semester. The purpose of this class is not to change your mind but to expose you to new ways of looking at social problems, so that you understand that moral issues are often much more complex than they may seem. While we do this, you will probably find that there are weaknesses in your previously held beliefs, or that they are in need of some modification and strengthening. Whether you change your mind is ultimately up to you. What is required of you is that you understand how the theories work, why they have been proposed, and how they would apply to different situations. One of the conditions you'll have to meet in order to succeed in this class is simply to keep an open mind, so that you can at least understand different points of view, even if you disagree with them.

As with any given population, some of you are probably not computer literate, some of you are probably trying to hack into this blog as we speak, and most of you are probably somewhere in between. I have chosen this medium for many reasons, perhaps the most important of which are that, unlike with most regular web-sites, updating it does not require anyone to be in a specific physical location, and because it is extremely easy for you to participate.

This means that all of us can access it and interact as frequently as we may find it necessary. Since the reading material might be difficult to understand on occasion, this blog will provide a helpful tool to clarify any ambiguities and roadblocks you might encounter along the way.

The idea behind this blog is that anyone can post entries here (I'll go over the details and limitations of how to do this in class). Occasionally I'll post entries clarifying and expanding on some of the ideas we discuss in class, as well as providing links to primary and secondary material from which you might benefit.

However, I will not be the only person to "blog" here. If you find yourself confused about any given topic, or if you want to throw an interesting idea out there to stimulate some discussion, you can post your own entries and someone will respond in the "comments" section below your post, creating a discussion thread to which everyone can contribute. I urge everyone to participate.

On the right side of the blog, you will also find some relevant links, such as the class syllabus (in the form of an online calendar). You will also find various ways of subscribing to this blog, either through an rss reader or through your e-mail address, whatever you think will be easier and more convenient for you. When you subscribe to a web-page such as this, your subscription system will automatically notify you when changes have been made to the site, keeping you up to date with any new entries that are posted here.

So, play around with the links, and if you have any questions, just go to the "comments" section below and ask away. See you next week!