Tiger Attack at San Francisco Zoo

I keep seeing this on the news. It reminds me of our discussions about zoos.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/28/tiger.escapes.ap/index.html

Book Reviews/My Book Review(Summarized)

My reaction to other's book reviews:

To me, the book reviews seemed like a nice way for everyone to pick their favorite topic we discussed in class and read a book about it. It was interesting to see how many people picked animal rights. I was not expecting it, but it was nice to see different views on animal right, especially the responsibly people have with animals. Liz's book seemed pretty interesting about how the authors did not "attack" the readers in a sense with their argument. By the way Liz talked about it, it seemed as though it was a book where the authors presented their views but did not use their power to try and pursue readers to completely change their minds. It seemed like a book that was equally balanced in the way they argued their beliefs.

Also, Emily's book review about animals having no responsibility to take care of animals in the wild seemed interesting. I had not heard about this view before and it opened my eyes to it. It seems to be a very interesting concept but something that would not work out quite well. The theory makes me believe that more animals would become extinct each day and that humans would rule the world even more. This is just an assumption---I have to read the book to see if I still thought this.

Hannah's book also really interested me since we read about the same topic. It interested me to possible read that book to compare the views my book, a more recent book, with the views that her book has, a book from a few decades ago.

My Book Review(Summarized):

Book: Walberg, Herbert J., and Joseph L. Bast. Education and Capitalism: How Overcoming Our Fear of Markets and Economics Can Improve America's Schools. Stanford, California: Hoover Institution P, 2003.

My book, Education and Capitalism: How Overcoming Our Fear of Markets and Economics Can Improve America's Schools, focused on how school reform should be centered around capitalism. This topic sparked by interest since I am an education major and will have to deal with issues such as this when I enter the teaching world. It was interesting to here the myths of capitalism and economics and why people fear them being incorporated into school reform. Also, I really enjoyed learning more about the voucher programs there are today. Voucher programs differ from state to state. Cleveland, Ohio, for example has a pretty "loose" voucher program, allowing vouchers to be used both in private in public schools. However, other states only allow vouchers to be used within public schools.

Voucher programs are also unfair. Families who are in the extreme-poverty levels can only receive vouchers. I believe that all poor families should be able to receive vouchers. It is not the children's fault that their parents are at that economic level. Therefore, the student should not have to face the consequences (i.e. receiving a bad education). Students at all poverty levels should be able to receive vouchers. Isn't there suppose to be equal education?

Also, competition within schools, which the authors mentioned I believe is very important. I believe that is the only way the poverty-level schools can improve. Through competition, it will motivate these schools to improve and help them provide better education to the students in these areas. By doing this, students in these areas will not have to use vouchers anyone to go to better schools since there will be a better school in their neighborhood. Competition helps schools out more than it hinders them. In a sense, it is a "wake-up" call to these schools. It will make them realize that they need to step up the education they provide their students, or they will lose all their students before they know it.

Overall, I liked reading a book related to the class. I liked how we were allowed to explore a topic we were interested in further and share our findings with the class.

Discussion on Freud's Dream Theory

The one-day class discussion we had on Freud's Dream Theory was very interesting. The reason why it interested me was that I was able to hear the reasoning why people though Hobson's argument was more convincing. It opened my eyes up to the failures in Soames argument that I did not realize before. Soame's argument about disproving Hobson's theory was the biggest mistake Soames made in his argument. Instead of arguing against Hobson's theory, he proves Hobson's theory. Soames does this by agreeing with Hobson that REM sleep and dreams do not have to coexist with one another in order to occur. By doing this, he makes his own argument for Freud's Dream Theory invalid in a sense.

I did not realize this mistake in the debate until discussing it in class. After hearing that though, I still agree with Soames. I feel that the other points about the purpose of our dreams and how they are not falsifiable are valid enough for me to belief his argument. I am upset that we did not have enough time to discuss this further because it would be an interesting topic to have more discussions about. I believe that the topic needed more time to be discussed, but I understand the time constraint we had.

Freud's Dream Theory

Freud's Dream Theory: is it correct or not? After reading the transcript called, "The dream debate", I thought that Freud's theroy was correct. One reason I believe that his theory is correct is by Soames defending it through saying that dreams protect us in our sleep. I believe that dreams protect us because they allow our wishes to come true in our sleep without them actually occuring. It allows us to secretly explore something that we are too afraid to explore in real life. Soames states this by saying that dreams are, “imagined acting…” happens“…instead of acting in reality, so that we don’t have to wake up” (“The dream debate” 5).

Another reason why I believe in Freud's Dream Theory is due to Soames stating that his theory cannot be falsified which means it is not science and cannot be tested. By stating this, it gives reasoning to why Freud did not test his theory with other people's dreams. Even though most people seem to feel that Soames argument is somewhat hypocritcal, I still believe that Freud's Dream Theory is correct.

Are Zoos Educational?/Are Circuses Educational?

One of the major defense s of zoos not being pornographic is that they are educational. However, are they really educational? It was very interesting discussing this question. I believe that they are meant to be educational; although, most people visits zoos for an noneducational purpose.

I believe that zoos are meant to be educational due to the information zoos have about each of the animals at their exhibits. The plaques describe the animals, where the live, what the eat, etc. Although, people do not read them very often. Rather, they just stare at the animals as their entertainment and make their visits to the zoos have no educational value. However, when I went to zoos when I was younger, my dad insisted that I would read the plaques. Therefore, zoo visits had educational value for me.

I believe that zoos can have an educational value if people are willing to put the extra time to read the plaques instead of going from one exhibit to another. Personally, when I was a child, I learned a lot from the plaques I read. They helped me understand the animals more and made me realize what their lifestyles are outside the zoos. It depends on the person whether a zoo can be educational or not. If people take the zoos at face-value as a just a source of entertainment, they are not educational. However, if people are willing to search deeper for a more meaningful purpose when they go to the zoos, I believe the zoos do have a purpose.

On the other hand, are circuses educational? I believe they are not. Their main purpose is for entertainment. People cannot learn anything about the animals and their lifestyle at the circus. It is a place where animals are abused and used for purposes they should not be used for.

Overall, I believe that zoos are educational, but circuses are not. Zoos are meant for educational purposes while circuses are meant for entertainment purposes.

Got Rights?

The talk show we watched in class, "No Dogs or Philosophers Allowed"- Got Rights? was very interesting. One thing that especially interested me was the difference between legal and moral rights. Legal rights are obvious. They are rights such as being able to vote. Then there are moral rights that sometimes conflict with legal rights. An example of that is slavery. Slavery has been morally wrong although it was a legal right at one point in time. What should hold more weight--legal rights or moral rights. Personally, I believe that moral rights hold more weight for me than legal rights. For example, abortion. Abortion is legal in Massachusetts but some people are morally opposed to it. I believe that it depends on the person to whether they will follow a legal right or a moral right.

Should moral rights influence legal rights? I believe that they should not. Everyone's moral rights are different. Therefore, there would not be a common ground to make a moral right become a legal right. That is why there is conflict between these two rights. I believe that if someone is morally opposed to something that is legally allowed, they should not participate in the law. Also, I thought it was interesting about the discussion of whether animals can suffer or not.

I believe that animals can suffer, but they cannot voice their suffering as much as humans can. I believe that animals suffer whether they act if they are suffering or not. Animals are more sensitive than humans realize. In fact, I believe that animals are suffering while they are in zoos. They are suffering because they are living in an environment that is unnatural to them. They are being forced to live a lifestyle they choose not to.

Overall, I thought this talk show segment was very informative, and I enjoyed it.

Are Zoos Pornographic?

Before reading Ralph Acampora's, "Zoos and Eyes: Contesting Captivity and Seeking Successor Practices," I thought that zoos were not pornographic. By comparing zoos to the pornography industry, I came to the conclusion that zoos are in no way shape or form pornographic. Although after reading the Acampora's writing, I realized that I believe that zoos are indeed pornographic.

One reason I believe that zoos are pornographic is because of how Ralph Acampora defines pornography. By defining the zoo pornography as visive violence, which is "overexposure that degrades their real nature", I changed my opinion on zoos being pornographic (Acampora 71). I agree that the definition of visive violence makes zoos pornographic because by being in a zoo, zoo animals are not acting in their true nature by being forced to live in cages and not being able to roam freely. Zoo animals are forced to live in unnatural conditions in order to please the people that come to see them at the zoos.

Another reason why I believe zoos are pornographic is because of how zoos are perversions of how animals live. One way zoos do this is through not showing the interaction between different animals. Through putting animals in cages and not allowing different animals to interact with one another, it shows how zoos are perverted. Also, zoos are a perversion of how animals actually live in the wild by having "fake" living environments for them. Through trying to make a similar living environment than the animal's one in the wild, zoos are a perversion. Even though the environment appears to look like one in the wild, it is not. Nothing can compare to an animals natural environment.

Overall, I strongly believe zoos are pornographic.

What work should humans do?

What work should humans do? Are we supposed to have the stereotypical office jobs? On Wednesday, we answered this question. We came to the realization that in fact the jobs that most people have are jobs that we are not "supposed to" do. We are supposed to have jobs that have a meaningful purpose rather than jobs that we do just for money. We are in fact supposed to have jobs such as reading poetry and listening to music. Jobs should be meaningful and something we enjoy rather than just tedious work that needs to get done.

Jobs are supposed to satisfy our urge to be creative. Is it possible though to be creative in the standard work fields that there are today? I sometimes wonder if that is possible. Jobs such as office jobs have certain "cookie-cutter standards" that must be followed which allows no room for freedom or creativity. Can those job fields change? I believe that they could if these job fields were started from scratch. Jobs today are all about making the most money and reaching the highest position of your company. There is no room to be creative because people are so concerned with making it to the top.

I believe that if there were no such things as a hierachy at work this could happen but that won't ever change. What's done is done and it affects the rest of the work field forever. Some jobs won't ever be enjoyable due to the pressure of making it to the top. It's sad to realize that to some people that's all that matters.

Capitalism

Capitalism--why on earth would it be related to why people work. Well, they are related becaues capitalists own of the production just like the ends justify the means of work. It was interesting to rediscuss our other Marxist reading and incorporate it with Sayer's reading. It was interesting to talk about communal living and how capitalists own that property and it is distributed to each member of the family. Like communal living, workers have a communal working place, an office building, which is split up into different individual cubicles for each worker. Learning about Marxism became more interesting than I thought it would be. It has opened my eyes to see how things really are in the "work world."

Why Do People Work?

Why do people work? In Sean Sayer's article, "Why Work? Marx and Human Nature", he explains why people work. During our first discussion this topic, we discussed how work has simply become a mean to ends. People work in order to have money, to provide for themselves, and to provide for their family. The purpose of work is not enjoyment. Rather, people work in order to obtain money.

This is specifically shown in today's society by the jobs people choose. Most people choose their jobs because of the high salary they receive. Money is the only goal for people working. It's sad to see that work has become a chore to obtain money rather than something people love to do. It shows how our brain works and makes us believe that money and success are the only things that matters. Also through discussing why people work, the question of people alientating themsevles through work was asked.

Typical office jobs do alientate people. Sitting in a cubicle all day causes people to alienate themselves from the world. They are in their own "world" and are cut off from everyone else in their work place. The same goes for those teachers. Teacher isolate themselves from other teachers and students by staying in their classrooms for a period of time. I did not every see work as alienating us from society. It makes me wonder if work has to be this way. Is it possible to do a job correctly without alienating ourselves from soicety?

What Makes an Honors Student

Wednesday's discussion on what an honors student should be was very informational. It gave me more of a sense what the honors program is about and what students should expect from it. One interesting point that Professor Silliman brought up is that he wanted honors students to be involved in extra-curricular activities. I thought that was interesting because the stereotype I had about an honors student was somone who constantly did their homework and just focused on the intellectual side of things. By him stating this, it showed me that I can still be involved in extra- curricular activities and do my work for my honors classes in a high enough standard.

The quality of an honors student that I agree with the most is the one of being open-minded. I believe that this is important because in order to learn anything from anyone, you must be open-minded and willing to accept the fact that what you think could be wrong. Also, it shows that an honors student is not expected to know everything right away. This quality shows how honors students can learn from one another through their open-mindness and gain more knowledge.

Another quality I thought was important was motivation. This is important because an honors students need to be motivated to do there best and research things they do not understand. An honors student should be very interested in the honors class they choose in order to excel in them to the best of their ability.

This was very informational and am happy we did this.

Bertell Ollman

Bertell Ollman's writing "Excerpts from How to Take an Exam...and Remake the World" was very interesting. One part that really interested me was the "Rules For Writing" by Steven Rubin. I like how the rules show an example rule of how to not follow the rule. It was interesting to see how many rules I break. The rule that interested me the most was the one on prepositions. It was interesting see how easily it is to end a sentence with words such as with or from.

Another interesting part was the part about alienation. It was interesting to see how much people isolate themselves from society. Whether it is my neighborhoods, work places, wages, race, etc., people are alienating themselves from others all the time. It seems something that is inevitable. I believe that people will always alienate themselves from others to a degree whether they realize it is not.

Lastly, the part on money and grades interested me. By Ollman saying "Both money and grades serve our society Procrustean beds. Money enables us to compare very different things on the basis of their price. Grades enable us to compare very different people on the basis of a letter." (Ollman 4). This struck me because it shows how the impact that money and grades have on society. They are a tool that allows us to judge people. It reiterates the fact that people can be alienated depending on their grades and money. It shows that every characteristic someone has can impact their isolation from others.

Marxism

Our first discussin on Marxism was very interesting. I thought it was interesting to learn that he wrote most of his manuscripts for himself. It gives me a different outlook on what I read. It makes me wonder if any of the missing parts to his manuscripts are really significant or not. It is something that we wont ever know.

Also, I thought it was interesting how he critiqued religion. I thought it was interesting how he compared the Earthly Family to the Holy Family. It showed his religous views in an interesting way. Lastly, I loved how Feuerbach influenced Marx. It makes his Thesis XI more meaningful to me. Through him influencing Marx, it shows how "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it." (Marx) Marx using Feuerbach as a way to explore his own points of view shows how important it is for philosophers and other people alike to use other people's views as a "springboard" to discover your own views. I look forward to discussing this more.

Marxism

The reading on Marxism by far was the most confusing one for me to read. I think I understand the concepts, but I had to read it more than once to understand it completely.

The statement is the essay that really sparked my interest was when Marx said, “Philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.” (Marx 4). I thought this was interesting because it showed how the point of philosophy is to view one person's philosophies and make your own philosophy through what you learned. I think this is interesting because I have not ever though of philosophy in that way. It makes me realize that it is a process of learning from others' ideas.

Overall, I really thought The Theses of Feuerbach was very interesting. I am looking forward for the class discussions about Marxism today.

End of Determinism

On Monday, we ended our discussion on determinism. Discussing genetic determinism was more interesting than I thought. Do our genes really make a difference on who become. I think both yes and no.

I believe that genetics do have a part into who we are. We are bornwith genes from both our mother and father and gain traits from both of them. There are some traits such as alcholism that are spread through genes. However, I think the more important factors are our living siutation and society.

Living siutation is a major part of who we become. The topic of being adopted and having the traits of the adoptive parents came up during this discussion. How children are raised is how they will initially act; it feels "natural" to them. Children are used to certain habits that they begin to pick up and inhabit over time. They see the people around them as role models and try to imitiate them as much as possible. However, children naturally grow out of that state and want to become their own human being.

They can do this through picking up habits through society. Society is a major influence on people. As people get older, society influences more than their upbringing does. Society is the "final molder" in the "molding" process of a human being. Society is where children learn new habits that make them different fromt the rest of their family. It makes you become the individial that you are.

I thought this was a great discussion and look forward to discussing Marxism.

Social Determinism

Yesterday, we had a great discussion about social determinism and its affect on people. One affect is how narrow-minded people can become. Even though I dealt with narrow-minded people at my high school, I still do not understand why people are like that. I would assume that Christian groups would be more accepting so people would convert to their religion; however, they are the exact opposite. It was very interesting hearing different people's points of view of parochial schools.

Hearing Liz's experience frightened me. I did not realize how uptight people could be and not accepting teachers can be. Although during my parochial was the complete opposite. I had teachers and students around me who were not Catholic. None of my teachers tried to "force" us to believe the Catholic teachings if we did not believe. Although at my high school, the experience was different.

Every day, I had people trying to convert me to the Protestant denomination. Whenever I would state my beliefs, I would be verbally attacked. I believe that this attitude comes from their upbringing. Parents "push" their faith upon their children and expect their children to believe the same thing. Their narrow-minded needs spreads to their children. The same goes with homosexuality and racists. People who are against homosexuals "shove" their belief down their children's throats so they believe the same thing. Methods like this are completely ludacrious to me. I will not ever understand the concepts. This shows that social determinism can have negative effects.

Stay Home Moms

When discussing Nature vs. Nurture, the topic of stay at home mothers was raised. Do children with stay home mothers have a better life since there mother was constantly around when they were younger? I really wonder if stay home moms make that much of a difference in a child's life. My mom was not a stay at home mother, I came out fine. Do stay at home mothers help their students grow more or does it hinder them more? Questions like this kept coming into my mind when this topic was discussed.

I have friends who have stay at home mothers, and I do not see that much of a difference in our upbringings. The only difference is that there moms were always there. My mom had to work; therefore, she was not there for everything, but was there for the most important events of my life. This question of the impact of a stay at home mother boggles my mind, and I hope to see if that truly makes a difference in the nature vs. nurture debate.

Nature Vs. Nurture

On Monday, we began our discussion on nature vs. nurture. Nikki said that she thought it was a mix between both nature and nurture which I agree. I thought that I would be the only person who was indecisive with this issue, but I was wrong.



Also, we talked about the language determinant. Does it have an effect or not? When reading the readings we were given, I thought language was not a very important determinant. Although after our discussion, I am starting to think otherwise. The example of a "Happy Meal" swayed my opinion. To Americans and other countries we think McDonald's. However, countries that do not have McDonalds just think a meal that was happy/good.

I believe that to an extent language has an influence. Different languages have different interpretations of words. In fact, even some Spanish dialects have different meanings for the same words. I am looking forward to continuing our discussion today.

Primary Determinant Factor

What is our primary determinant factor? Well, I am not exactly sure. I cannot just choose one primary determinant. To me, each of the determinants alone does not have enough evidence to make it the primary determinant. However, I believe that nature and nurture are both the primary determinants of human nature.

I believe that nurture has validity because parents do shape who we become. Each of us has a personality trait from each of our parents; it is a given. They are the one's that raise up and help us to become the best people we can be. Also, I believe that nurture has its validity because science proves that. In the article from Wikipedia, "Nature vs. Nurture" it states that, "In many cases it has been found that genes may have a substantial contribution, including psychological traits such as intelligence and personality." ("Nature vs. Nurture 2). This statement proves to me that to an extent, nurture does influence us and that is why it should I believe it is part of the primary determinant of human nature.

Also, I believe that nature has equal validity. First of all, I believe that nature helps us become the individuals we are. Without nature, we would be carbon copies of our parents. Nature helps us explore and find ourselves. Nature is our "escape" for the mold our parents gave us. It helps form our "final mold" that helps us define ourselves. Nature is inevitability going to influence who we become. This is why I believe it is part of the primary determinant factor.

I look forward to hearing other people's views on this issue tomorrow.

Where are they now? (Faces of the Enemy version) and Questions

Yesterday, we discussed what the interviewees of "Faces of the Enemy" did after the documentary. It was very interesting to here what happened.

I was very surprised, yet relieved in a strange way that David Rice had not died. It was nice to hear that his sentencing was dropped for the death penalty to a life sentence without parole. I felt relieved because it made David Rice have to suffer with the consequences of killing innocent people for the rest of his life. Also, I felt relieved because of his psychological state. He was not in the right mental state to do this. It is to make him suffer the consequences rather than dying and not reliving the event in his mind for the rest of his life.

The real hero in the movie was the Vietnam Veteran. I love the fact that he used his previous life experiences in Vietnam to write great movies. In fact, I recently saw one of the movies he wrote, Flags of Our Fathers. I did not even realize he wrote that screenplay until I saw it on Nikki's blog. I had to watch the movie for another class and have been analyzing it. I love how he used the psychological turmoils he faced during the war to show the psychological states that the other Vietnam Veterans faced. It showed that a traumatic situation can be used to make a great movie.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After, we finally (as in the sense we kept saying we would end it but didn't) concluded our discussion on torture by discussing the dialogue. I understand how readers could sympathize with Aaron's position since it is a commoner like us. I still like his view the most because it is not either extreme. I am a very indecisive person myself so I usually pick the middle ground as my position.

Then, we talked about wire-tapping. Wire-tapping is a concept that I do not quite understand the purpose of. I believe that it is useful, but the government is using it in the wrong way. Listening to random people's conversations does not same right to me. Sometimes I wonder if I saw in jokingly way, "I'm going to kill them" on the phone if the CIA is on the other line. It is taking our privacy away from us and is not right.

Overall, we discussed a lot, and I learned a lot from the class. Torture was a topic that needed to be talked about for a long period of time and liked that we explored many different areas of it.

Faces of the Enemy continued

Watching the rest of "Faces of the Enemy" was very interesting. One thing that especially interested me was that the radical Christians said they were being "attacked" and that the other religions were the enemies. This was interesting because I believe that they are being hypocrites. In actuality, they are the enemies because they are attacking other religions and holding a grudge against the because they do not believe the same things. It showed that the enemies can actually be God's own people--the people who are so wrapped up into Christianity and do not accept others who are not. It shows me how in a sense categorizing yourself as a Christian can sometimes make you be categorized as an enemy. It shows that religious beliefs can cause some people to say some pretty ridiculous things.

Another interesting part of the movie was how David Rice drew his self portrait. It surprised me how he drew himself in a soldier outfit at war. It shows the psychological state he was in. This and other reasons lead people to draw the conclusion that he is schizophrenic. It shows how he was probably not in the right state of mind when killing those people. He believed he was fighting the war against communism and protecting himself by killing those people.

Faces of the Enemy

The movie Faces of the Enemy shows what people view enemies to be. The part of the movie we saw yesterday showed enemies as murders and people who are against your religion.

The view of a murderer as an enemy was very interesting to me. This interested me because he talked about his victims being enemies since he believed the were communists (even though they were not.) This showed that the murderer has one view of who is the enemy while the jury of the case has a different view. It shows how open the term enemy is. An enemy could be someone who has physically or mentally hurt someone while it can be someone who has different beliefs than you. Furthermore, people believe that enemies can be someone who has different religious beliefs.

When the radical Christians stated that Jews, Muslim, and other religious groups were their enemies, I was disgusted. I do not understand why the qualify as an enemy. Yes they do have different beliefs, but they do believe in a God. Shouldn't that be the only thing that matters? By the Christians stating that, they are the true enemies. They are the ones that are "pin-pointing" people out and having issues with them for no good reason. This made me understand why people are so against organized relgion, and why people believe they are enemies. It is a lot easier to attack people who come from a different background or religion because there is no connection between you and the other person. However, I do not believe this attacking is right.

Hopefully, I will gain more insight while we watch the rest of the movie.

The Government and Torture

The government and torture-- a question of great debate. With Bush nominating a new Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, people are wondering if he will make the same mistakes as Alberto Gonzales. As of right now, both Gonzales and Mukasey do not have good reputations concering torture. Gonzales made the mistake of approving of the torture while Mukasey stated his views on torture they wrong way (as Professor Johnson stated in class).

Questions that were brought up were is waterbording torture or not? I would have to say yes. This could cause sometime to die and is torturing them by not letting them breathe air. Another important issue was discussed mental torture vs. physical torture. Which one is worse--the one that leaves permanent scares in the mind or the one that leaves temporary scares? I believe that mental torture is worse because it is longer lasting. Victims of mental torture have to remember for the rest of their lives the incident that occurred. This is where I think the Standford Dictionary of Philosophy goes wrong. Torture should not just be defined as physical torture. It should contain all aspects-- both mental and physical. I look forward to talking about this more tomorrow.

The Death Penalty

Today when we tried to begin our discussion on torture, we talked about the death penalty, a particular type of torture. Throughout the whole class we discussed the question of whether there death penalty should still exist or not. It was interesting to see the views that each of my classmates had.

Nicole stated how flawed the system was. I agree with her completely. Rapists and murders should have the same punishment.

One of the biggest problems with the death penalty is that many innocent people who are found guilty are killed through the death penalty. Why should someones life be cut so short if they did not commit the crime? The movie that Hannah talked about seemed to address this problem to. In order for the death penalty to work, innocent people should not be killed. The government needs to make sure that they are absolutely certain that each person on death row committed the crimes they were accused from.

Another major problem is racism. It still exists today and affects the judicial system greatly. Many minorities are put on death row solely because people believe they committed the crimes because of their racial backgrounds. Race should not be an issue on deciding who goes on death row or not. In fact, minorities are the majority of people who are killed on death row each year.

I believe these two issues need to be resolved before the decision to stop the death penalty for good.

Tortured Ethics

"Tortured Ethics" helped me see all three views on torture: people who are for it, people who are against it, and people who are in between. Each argument made their cased and show significant evidence on their view of torture.

One view that particularly struck me was the Clarence's view, being for the legalization of torture to some extent. Seeing that I agree with him, it allowed me to see the arguments I could make for legalizing torture. Clarence states, "With my proposal for judicially authorized torture under very specific and limited circumstances, with oversight and accountability, I am in fact hoping to control, not heighten this grave moral and legal danger" (Silliman, Johnson 2). This struck me because it does seem like a reasonable solution; however, there is an evident problem with it. How would the standards for torture be made? What case qualifies for torture to be used? Questions such as these ran through my head after reading this statement. This shows how complex this matter is.

Another view that particularly struck me was Erica's view--against torture. Erica states, "I really believe it's a moot point since, as I said earlier, we are never likely to know enough to have a robust example of such a case. For the reasons I have given, I think making institutional provision for such cases would seriously compromise our collective humanity, so if you insist, I choose to bite the bullet and forbid torture even in causes where we were fairly certain there was a ticking bomb." (Silliman, Johnson 8). When reacting to this, I thought that Erica showed how strong her conviction was. She believed that torture was so wrong that there should be no circumstances. In a sense, her solution was an easier one. She did not have the trouble of defending a case that is based on certain restrictions. Instead, she clearly stated a rule that should be applied to ever case, no matter how extreme it is.

Hopefully this article will be incorporated into our discussion about torture.

Follow Up on the Movie

Following up on the movie, my classmates expressed their feelings of disgust towards the documentary we watched on Friday. I was expecting that we were going to watch the rest of the documentary, but we did not. I believe that we got more out of our conversation about the documentary than we would have if we watched the rest.

One issue that many of my classmates had a problem with was torturing animals in the name of religion. Even people who had no religious affiliation saw the problem behind this. Animals should not be killed in the name of religion. Hannah stated that in the Bible, animals were used as a sacrifice. Should this still apply to religion today? I believe it should not because we live in a different time. According to today's society, it would be wrong. This frustrated some of my classmates and I even more.

Another issue we had with the movie was seeing the "canned hunting." Nicole brought the point up about how much more suffering animals are faced with through canned hunting. By "trapping" the animals into a certain area, they have no chance of surviving. I believe this is wrong because animals should have the right to escape their killers. Also, canned hunting ruins the purposes of killing. Instead of killing for food, canned hunters are killing for a trophy. Animals should not be killed and torture for the sake of the trophy. It morally devalues them and is wrong.

Overall, I believe everyone learned a lot from this discussion. We all realized how animal cruelty and torture integrate with one another. Maybe we will discuss issues like these further when we discuss torture.

Torture

Torture is not a black and white issue. It depends on the scenarios on whether it can be justifiable or not.

I believe that torture is not justifiable in the means of terrorist torturing other people. It is inhumane and does not serve a person to human nature as a whole. It is very extreme and sometimes worse than murdering people. In order to physically torture someone for the fun of it is very sickening. Torturing people in this kind of way has no purpose other than trying to control someone. Controlling someone in this manner is not right; it is some sick pleasure people have that I do not quite understand. However, torture can be justified to help save human beings.

Torture is useful in the sense of torturing terrorists to find where a bomb is which is also known as the "ticking bomb" scenario. I believe that this is right because it has a definitive purpose--to try and help save the lives of thousands who could be killed by the bomb. Torturing in this way is preventing something worse to happen. In this case, the less evil of two wrongs should prevail. Torturing in a justifiable way is used as a last means of self defense; it is the last way to prevent something wrong from happening. In cases such as these, I believe torture is justifiable.

A quote from the article that helps prove my argument is, "In particular, it is difficult to see how torturing (but not killing) the guilty terrorist and saving the lives of thousands could be morally worse than refraining from torturing him and allowing him to murder thousands--torturing the terrorist is a temporary infringement of his autonomy, whereas his detonating of the nuclear device is a permanent violation of the autonomy of thousands." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 14).

The quote above proves my point exactly. Temporary pain is better than everlasting permament pain which does not only hurt the victims but their families as well.

That is my view on torture.

To Love or To Kill: Man vs. Animal

Watching the documentary, "To Love or To Kill: Man vs. Animal" left me feeling sick to my stomach after seeing how animals are treated. By seeing this movie, it showed me that Americans are not the ones that are harming animals the most.

For example, the Spanish are extremely cruel to animals. Torturing bulls and throwing other animals out of windows is extreme. The documentary reasoned this type of torture and killing through religion. Why would a culture feel the need to kill another living creature that their God created? There are other ways to show adoration towards a God and celebrate religious holidays.

During the part of the movie where cats were being decapitated was when I was the most disgusted. Why would household animals be killed as a source of food? This showed me that the moral status of household pets equals the same of a farm animal's in countries such as China. It opened my eyes to a different culture's point of view of animals. However, there was some good qualities to this documentary.


Seeing animals being used for therapy with disabled human beings or prisoners showed the happier side of the relationship between man and animals. It showed me how the United States still respects animals to some degree and uses them for meaningful purposes. Luckily, where we live animals are being used to help others and not as a source of food/sacrifice.

Also, when the Rabbi stated we were inconsistent with killing cows as a source of food but not cats, I felt disgusted. Although I agree with him to an extent, I do not believe it justifies what other cultures are doing. I still believe it is wrong to kill a cat as a source of food and do not care if I am a hypocrite by doing this.


Watching this movie proved to me that one's culture helps determine the moral status of animals. What is "right" to one culture is "wrong" to another. Like Betsy, Liz, and Nicole, I would prefer not to finish watching this documentary. Even though it is useful to an extent,
I believe it is more harmful. Seeing my other fellow classmates and me closing our eyes and turning away from the TV showed how much we did not want to see more of it. I hope that I can actually sit and watch the rest of the movie without shutting my eyes.

Value of Animals

Does each animal have its own sentimental and moral value to us? This is what we discussed on Friday. Mainly we discussed this between cows and horses. We have no problem killing cows as a source of food, yet it is a problem with horses. Is an animal's usefullness to us that important? Is it worth killing a cow for food and saving the horse as a mean of transportation? Questions like this kept running through my mind during this discussion.

I agree to it to some extent. Yes cows are very important food source for humans. However, I do not believe they should hold a lesser moral value than horses. I believe that each animal is uniquely important to us, and we should treat it as such. Whether they are a means of food or a means of transportation, they are equally important to us. Although some animals should have lower moral values.


Animals such as ants and porcupines should have a lower moral value. They are not as useful to as cows and horses are. They are just animals that live on the planet. Does this mean they are morally useless? No, I do not think that. I think that they do have a purpose on this planet, but I do not know what that is. This topic could be discussed forever. Hopefully, we will have a good conclusion to this topic on Wednesday.

Moral Agents vs. Moral Patients

Discussing moral agents and moral patients is crucial to the discussion about the moral behavior of non humans. Moral agents are the ones who are on the giving and receiving end; they can dish up actions that count morally. They are in a sense the "powerful" ones. On the other hand, moral agents do not have power at all. They are on the receiving ends of things. Moral patients are infants because they act upon what they see. Infants do not know better; therefore, if they do something morally incorrect they cannot be punished for this. This made me wonder if animals can be punished for their actions too. I thought of this particularly when we were discussing children being on trial for murder.

Murder is a serious offense and people should have to deal with the consequences for their actions. However, what is the age that human beings know how wrong murder is. Should this be age be the same for everyone or should it be different for everyone? This becomes an issue when teenagers murder people and are charged as adults. Should they truly be charged as adults or as children? What should this moral behavior be based upon. Should it be based on their brain or psychological state of mind? Similarly, I wonder if dogs should be killed for their murderous actions.

Dogs, especially pit bulls, attack on another and are sometimes put to sleep because of it. Should this occur? Are they fully responsible for their moral behavior? Questions like these kept "popping" into my mind when discussing moral patients. Should the owners be punished more or equally to the dogs?

I am enjoying this discussion more on a daily basis and cannot wait to talk about it tomorrow.

Reflections on Q&A 4 Dicussion Day 1

Do animals have the same moral status capabilities as humans? This question was the foundation of the ongoing discussion in class. I thought it was interesting on how two people had two completely different views on the same incidents. For example, Betsy brought up how animals do have moral status because of the emotions they feel when their fellow companion passes away. Is it just longing for what was the "norm" for them or does it directly correspond with their moral behavior? I believe it is their intuition that helps the animals realize that something is missing and that something could possibly be wrong.

Another example Betsy used was the stories of dogs rescuing and saving their owners' lives. Is this affected by their moral status? Once again, I believe it is not. I believe it is more of an intution that helps the animals realize that something is wrong with their owners and that they must do something to save and protect their owners.

I came to these conclusions through the class discussing the levels of moral behavior: high moral moral behavior, medium moral behavior, and normal moral behavior. Yes I believe that animals do have a moral sense to an extent. I believe the only reason they have this is because of their surroundings. Their owners and other people around them help them realize what is right and what is wrong. They do not decipher this on their own. This is why I believe nonhumans only have the normal moral behavior letter. It does not come from their mind; rather, it comes from the minds that surround them.

Are trained service dogs the same way? Yes, I believe they are. I know that they are have more knowledge that shapes their moral behavior, but it is not knowledge from their brain. Rather, I believe it is knowledge that comes from their trainers. I believe that moral status is something a species is given rather than them being able to rise in the moral status hierachy. Yes, their moral status knowledge can improve but it does not change their status. Moral status is based on what we think is right and wrong from the beginning.

I look forward to discussing this more tomorrow.

Thoughts on "Science, Ethics, and Moral Status"

Even though we began the discussion on this article yesterday, I feel that it is important to reflect about the reading itself before reflecting on the class discussion. Harlan B. Miller's Science, Ethics, and Moral Status discusses two important issues: ethics itself and whether non humans, animals, have a moral status or not. Miller's setup of this essay allows readers to have an introduction to ethics before discussing the question: at what level do non humans have a moral status.


Through reading this article, I realized that animals do have a moral status but only to an extent. Yes, animals have certain characteristics of one who has a moral status, but they are not as complex as the characteristics that humans have. Two important terms that need to be discussed when mentioning this are moral agent and moral patients. Humans are moral agents; they are able to decipher on their own what is right and what is wrong. However, non humans are moral patients; they need moral agents to help them decipher what is right and wrong. There perception of right and wrong is greatly influenced by their moral agents. Another important topic that must be discussed is the groups that living things fit into.

Miller uses three groups: Group A, Group B, and Group C to show the capabilities of each group's moral status. Group A is classified as the moral agents. They are able to have a moral sense of the world. From knowing this category, it shows me that they are the "geniuses" of the moral status spectrum; they have the best understanding of what moral status is. Group B consists of the moral patients--the non humans. They are the ones that cannot think of what is right and wrong on their own. Lastly, Group C has no moral abilities. They consists of cultures, laws, etc.

Through knowing all of this, it makes it clear in my mind that non humans do not have much power when it comes to moral status. They are being controlled by the humans around them. Their owners teach them what is right and wrong by continually asking them to do a task and through getting rewards.

I look forward to discussing this tomorrow more in depth. This topic intrigues me more than I thought it would and will open my eyes to a new moral view.

Conclusion to Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism

The questions that were discussed today seem to focus more on supernaturalism than naturalism. This made me realize that supernaturalism is the bigger "issue" of the two that prevents naturalism and supernaturalism to coexist peacefully today. Although we only discussed two questions, I felt that we discussed them thoroughly and came to understandable conclusions.

The question of whether naturalists and supernaturalists prevent these two sides from peacefully coexisting opened my eyes to how narrow minded radical supernaturalists are. To fight for their beliefs and believe that there way is the only way shows how narrow minded they can be. This shows me how more open minded naturalists are and how much they deal with through a government that is truly not religiously neutral. Should politicians only be atheists? Is that the only way government can truly be religiously neutral? Also, this makes me wonder if there should be laws that prevent supernaturalists from allowing their religious views to have full control of government issues.

Another question that was discussed is would there still be morals if supernaturalists did not exist anymore. First of all, supernaturalism has been around for so long that it will not fall off the face of the earth. Next, I do not believe morals are solely based on one's religious beliefs. I believe that morals are based on what believe is right and what they believe is wrong. Yes, religion does influence morals to an extent. Although, some religious people, like myself, do not allow their religious beliefs to influence their morals. Personally, I believe that saying morals are controlled by religious beliefs is just an excuse for people to have no morals whatsoever.

This was the most insightful discussion for me yet and came to the realization that sometimes you think you know everything about something but in reality you don't.

Bernard Russell "What I Believe"

Bernard Russell's essay on tape, What I Believe, told us about what he believes. One thing that he said that really struc me was that no religion is more probable than the other. I thought that this was interesting because it made me question whether it is worth following a certain religion. Does religion truly matter as much as people say? Is religion just a waste of time or is should people still follow a certain religion? Russell makes people question their faith and made me wonder if believing in a God will get me anywhere in my life. Russell also discusses what the good life is.

According to Ruseell, the good life is inspired by love and guided by knowledge. He says that love is more fundamental than knowledge. This makes me realize how important love could potentially be in our lives. Russell goes further by discussing how love is both pure delight and pure benevolence. He says that all of us what to be loved which I believe is very true. The sense of being is a sense of comfort; it allows people to see that another human being truly cares about then and wants theh best for them. Also, Russell states that love between people either succeeds or fails together. This struck because it shows me how love is something that two people have to work towards and that two people work against. Love does not fail because of one person's mistakes. It fails because both parties did not work to make love succeed. I am looking forward to writing more about the rest of the first half of the essay.

Is Coexisting A Simple Matter?

Is coexisting a simple matter? No, I do not believe it is. In fact, I did not realize how complicated it is until the discussion on Monday. Having naturalism and supernaturalism coexist is possible; it has been for several years. Although, can naturalism and supertnaturalism coexist peacefully? Through the discussion on Monday, I began to realize how complicated it is and how many issues in today's society factor into it coexisting peacefully. These big issues mainly come from the government.

Can the government be religious neutral? As nice as that idea sounds, I do not believe it is possible anymore. If somene is passionate about their faith, it will affect their political views and decisions. Religion is not something that can be "thrown out of the picture" when discussing issues such as abortion, stem cell research, and mostly importantly to citizens of Massachusetts, gay marriage. People's religious beliefs usually drive them to agree or disagree with these issues.

Should abortion be illegal? My persnal opinion is that it should not. However, many religious people say it should be because they believe that the baby is human even before it is born. In some states abortion is illegal. Should it be illegal because of one of the Ten Commandments, Thou Shall Not Murder, or should it be legal to prevent pregnant women who need to have an abortion for their own safety? This is not a black and white issue and nor should it be. This is when women's rights and religious beliefs conflict. Which beliefs are more important to the government--women's or religious?

Personally, I do not know that much about stem cell research. The link below is a link to the wikipedia article on stem cell research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell

Should stell cell research go on even though it destroys the human embryo? Who will ultimately prevail in this battle--science or religion? Right now, religion is winning. Although, is that truely fair. Isn't our government supposed to be politically neutral?

Lastly, gay marriage is a major issue. Currently, it is legal in Massachusetts, but should it become illegal? Should the defintion of marriage change to be two people that love each other instead of a man and a woman who love each other?

Many questions come up when discussing naturalism vs. supernaturalism that are hard to answer sometimes. This is making me wonder whether it is humanly possible for naturalism and supernaturalism to coexist peacefully in the near future.

Naturalism Vs. Supernaturalism--thoughts after the reading

Naturalism vs. supernaturalism--can the coexist or not? Today, society faces this question on a daily basis particularly through the government. Before I read this, I already had my own opinion; I believed and still do that naturalism and supernaturalism can coexist. Out of the three topics we have discussed so far, this one was the easiest for me to understand. Since I attended a Christian high school, this debate came up a lot during discussions--especially in science class.

Personally, I feel that when it comes to naturalism and supernaturalism, people need to take the right stance when discussing it. There is a right and a wrong way to discuss it. I believe the best way to discuss this topic is to come with an open mind and not be defensive. If this is how people discuss it then I believe naturalism and supernaturalism can coexist. If it becomes a "war", they cannot coexist. In fact, I have seen these discussions become a "war."

I feel that the supernaturalists are the ones that are more defensive; they are so stuck on their beliefs and believe it is their way or no way. I think I can make this claim because I went to school with people like that. Having an open mind is the key to having them coexist. It is okay that people won't change thier minds; however, it is a problem when they "attack" people who are not on their side.

I am looking forward to this discussion to see what people have to say.

Concluding Thoughts To Free Will and Determinism

Discussing our questions about free will and determinism was more intense than I thought it would be. One question that intrigued was whether we believe just believe in free will or determinism to make ourselves happy. This made me realize how conceited human beings are. Instead of blaming ourselves for mistakes we have made, we can point the finger and say that it was not our fault because everything is determined for us. Through realizing this, it makes me wonder if people believe in determinism for the right reason.

Through discussing this, I have come to realize that free will vs. determinism is not a black and white issue. Every time you think you know all the answers, you realize that there is so much more you do not know. I do admit, I tend to believe more in free will than determinism, but I am still not completely sure where I stand with this issue.

Causes and Evil

What is the ultimate cause of everything? Discussing this issue intrigued me. From an ethics class during high school, I was taught that the "big cause" of everything was God. Although during the discussion in class, I learned otherwise. It confused me and made me wonder if what I thought was wrong or not. By discussing this with my friends who are outside of MCLA, I realized that my opinion has not changed. Through discussing the main cause of everything, it helped me realize how important religion is to philosophy. Religion divides the road of philosophy. It either leads you to the more "Godly" side (ethic and moral standards, God being the main cause) or it leads you the "atheistic" side ( God is not the main cause). Similarly, God had a major factor in the discussion of evil.

Why does evil occur? When Professor Johnson mentioned this question, my mind went back to the beginning of my junior year in high school--when Hurricane Katrina occurred. I remember discussing this question and asking myself why an omniscient and omnipotent God would allow such a thing to occur. Hannah brought up a good point by saying that a "perfect" human being cannot create another "perfect" human being. This question still puzzles my mind. Does evil occur to teach us a lesson. Does it occur because there is no God? In my mind, this is a never ending question.

The discussion today opened my mind to views I hadn't thought of before. It shows me that there is always something new to learn from another point of view.

Free Will vs. Determinism

Free Will vs. Determinism is more complicated that I thought it would be. Each time I read the article, I have a new thoughts about the debate and question the side I choose. During the class discussion on Monday, it really struck me how many people thought that we did not freely read the essay.

One topic that really struck my mind during the discussion was the idea of free will vs. choices. This struck me because I believe that free will deals with choices. Although during the discussion, I learned that people in the class disagree with this. It allowed me to open my eyes more and made me rethink whether my Q&A answer was accurate or not.

Another topic that struck me was the idea of social pressures hindering people from their free will. When Liz discussed that her friend was forced by her parents to be confirmed, I could understand why free will can be taken away. On the other hand, I believe that it was her friends choice to lose her free will. I think this because I know people who have not been confirmed and their other sibling has. They took the risk to stand up and use their free will to do what they believed was right. I believe that caving in to society/parents' wishes is what makes people not have "free will." It is up to the person whether they want to use their free will or not.

The discussion of determinism also intrigued me. It helped me see how some people's lives are "carved out" for them already and how the have no choice (i.e. Liz's friend being confirmed). Once again, I believe that it is a choice to live a deterministic live or not. I believe that people have the choice to use their free will or follow the path people want them to follow.

Overall, I believe this class discussion gave me a lot of insight. It helped me realize that free will vs. determinism is a lot more confusing than I originally thought. I am looking forward to the discussion tomorrow and wonder if my perspective might change to the oppoosition.