Q&A #8: Question Two

My second question this week is partially in response to two blog posts I saw related to the issue of when critical thinking. It seems that one must admit as Avery stated, that every degree of knowledge is based off of some basic assumptions. For example one cannot have a discussion analyzing the effects the bacteria on human organ tissue without admitting that the principles of cellular biology are accurate. In philosophical arguments many authors work from certain axiomatic points which provides a framework for the discussion at hand. This is the difference between being a critical thinker who is able to recognize inconsistencies in evidence provided in given circumstance, and being a radical skeptic who denies the validity of any claim. I also agree with Tommy that in some cases we need not be critical thinkers, in his example he uses the bible as an instructional piece for moral behavior. I agree that we can agree the bible is a flawed work when analyzed by contemporary global citizens, however a critical thinker I believe would be able to recognize the danger is using the Bible as justification for a given argument, but would still be able to disseminate the valuable lessons found within scripture.

Q&A #8: Question one

My first question regarding criticality was whether we could apply the method of critical pedagogy to institutions beyond that of education. The answer seems to be an obvious yes: there is no question that other social systems are unfortunately marked by internalized forms of oppression and methods of marginalizing particular social groups. While this is true I do believe that it would be dangerous to simply look at social institutions such as politics, educations, medicine and other cultural realms as only being sources of oppression. It cannot be denied that there are still obstacles to overcome to allow equal opportunities for all individuals regardless of social status, however there is also present a significant amount of progress within these realms as well. The handicapped, minorities, and women have all made strides to open public spaces and allow them to become full fledged contributing members to society in various ways. This is not to say that the task has been completed however to simply approach cultural analysis with the pessimistic outlook of anticipating inequality, you may miss the underlying advancements and methods by which people overcome adversity today.

Chimps and Mortality

The link below is an article by Scientific America discussing primates potential understanding of the concept of death

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=chimpanzees-understand-death

Q&A #7: Question Two

My second question this week on the status of nonhuman animals is whether there is an immoral facet to the concept of owning pets. I have come up with three potential mutual benefits to why owner and pet relationships can be a moral good. One is the simple fact that typically both owner and pet are pleased by the companionship of the other, usually there is emotion invested from the owner to animal which is compassionate and loving. Second in the case of adopting animals, many of which may have been previously abused or face uncertainty given the lack of resources and funding for animal shelters, adopting that pet into your life may significantly increase its health and its happiness. Third is that it would seem that people who grow up with pets, would be more sympathetic to the rights of animals having established an intimate connection with animals in their lives already. This is not to say that all animal owners and adopters behave in the manner I described earlier but I would hope that these people are a small immoral minority.

Note:
It would seem also that in order to be an owner who respects the life of the animal that it would be wrong to restrict them to a life of domestication indoors, however many people have outdoor cats and pets such as lizards or snakes which are not confined to cages or tanks.

Q&A #7: Question One

The first question I had regarding the status of nonhuman animals was whether the argument could be put forward that it is wrong to intentionally harm animals, as it compromises the potential for their living a full and meaningful life. This line of argumentation was similar to that which came up during the discussion of abortion and the rights of the potential human being (i.e the unborn fetus). I think that this claim could work, only if the value assigned to a human life and its prosperity were considered comparable or equal to that of an animal.  Our standing hierarchy in society is that human life surpasses all others in inherent value, which in principle I support but again preferring human life as more valuable reduces the value of animal lives. It would seem that in order to use potentiality as an argument for treating nonhuman animals with moral consideration, would require the claim that all life (not only human life) is inherently valuable and worthy of respect

Q&A #6: Question two

The second question I had during this week was about the nature of ethics in a deterministic universe. I am unsettled by the idea that we could remove all responsibility from our actions simply because a particular state of affairs was determined to happen. My resolution to this problem looks something like this, when a moral decision for me arrives, I arrive at that state of affairs due to the antecedent events which preceded it. If this is true, and in a previous state of affairs I was taught that stealing was wrong, then could we not blame me for stealing because the previous state of affairs should have influenced me to not steal? I guess I am speculating about whether a person's learned moral code counts as a previous event which should then influence the event in which I face a moral dilemma. Perhaps I am not articulating this properly but let me know if any of you have any thoughts about my hypothesis here.

Q&A #6: Question One

My first question this week is whether there is a difference between determined and pre-determined given the topic for this week. I have yet to come to a distinction so I will post a response to this question after our discussion in class today.