Group items tagged

This is an excellent article from al Jazeera, Hareth. Thank you for sharing. While the abstractions of "International Law," generally projected by the United States government, are inherently convoluted and ripe with "double-standards," I still have to admit that I enjoyed my traditional 75-day libations to ease the struggle of international "peace-waging," so to speak.

I would like to start this response by stating my initial thoughts on the topic of the article and the author himself. When I first looked at it I thought of the fact that I find applied psychology rather hilarious, as I find it not only inconsistent, but also scientifically unjustified and rather subjective. Furthermore, upon reading that the author was a born again Christian, I got the feeling that he was trying to justify religion and try to make it a scientific concept, when I believe it is not. However, I must admit that both of these thoughts, in reflection are logically unsound, as they show the "ad hominem" fallacy. Therefore I will discuss the importance of this article in a more justified way, by approaching the argument itself and not the writer of the argument. I will approach my response from the central question: "To what degree is morality subjective or objective?" First of all, I would like to highlight that the dichotomy between subjectivity-objectivity and empiricism-transcendentalism is that the two are connected on which sources of morals they identify; with subjective-empiricist morals being derived from each individuals' perspectives and objective-transcendentalist morals derived from the idea that morals are universal construct, waiting to be found. I would like to define morals as the rules by which one believes they can lead a just life. Objective morals are defined as morals which disregard the idea of them being constructed by an individual and therefore can be upheld universally, and subjective morals are defined as morals which can only be upheld by an individual. I feel that this article creates a false dichotomy for me, as I do not think that morals are simply ideas which can be followed empirically or transcendentally, but rather that they are ideas which have far more complex origins. As the article looks at societal morals and the way that human interaction encourages certain moral beliefs, I would like to highlight the fact

To start, I do not consider myself a religious person, nor do I consider myself a particularly spiritual one either. I've only lived a few short years and cannot really determine or even express my religious/spiritual beliefs and/or to what extent I am invested in these beliefs. I do know, however, that when I read this article I couldn't help but agree with the basic principles and values of transcendentalism (to my surprise and slight consternation). According to what I knew of transcendentalism (picture Walden-esque scenarios and Thoreau's argument from which unfortunately stems superficial 'appeal to nature' arguments) this 'realization' did not sit well with me. On further reflection and reading of my edition of The Philosophy Book, I think perhaps due to some superficial discussions I've had regarding transcendentalism, I disregarded this belief as having little to no merit. I believe this to be an example of 'the fallacy fallacy' or 'argument from fallacy'. So, to correct my earlier statement, I agree with the philosophical movement of transcendentalism as described by Mr. Edward O. Wilson. At first glance, transcendentalism suggests a universal set of rules and rights that everyone should uphold. This is the idea that I subscribe to, although further exploration into transcendentalism proves to be problematic to me. For example, I do believe that there are universal rights and wrongs, but who determines these rights and wrongs? And who am I to know if my concept of universal rights and wrongs are truly right or wrong? This of course 'muddies the waters', and although we discussed this in class on several occasions I cannot help but continue to be frustrated by this. Wilson continues on to discuss the 'evolution of morality'. I find this both intriguing and problematic. Through studying IB Biology, I've learned that traits and characteristics in any individual are passed down from parent to offspring if the parent is successful enough to survive

(continued from above) to reproduce. This would then apply to early human individuals and morality as individuals who expressed cooperation and 'morality' would survive to pass their genes on. I took this statement to suggest that every human alive today would somehow be a culmination of years of evolutionary biology, producing us as the 'most moral' to date. However, over time civilizations would develop and humanity would move from its hunter-gatherer phase to its agricultural phase. It seems to me that given this drastic change in living conditions, Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' ideology would not apply as much to these people as it would have to Wilson's Paleolithic hunters. This change would provide opportunities for mutations to occur and be passed down, therefore altering our 'biological moral compass'. Not only would this change in living conditions alter social ethical codes but, following in form with Wilson's suggestion of the inheritance of morals, change our biological morals as well. Instead of the 'most moral' surviving, the survivors (and therefore our predecessors) would be the individuals who managed to appear the most moral or hold the most power, regardless of actually being the most moral.

This is a great (rather long) writing by Tolstoy on the nature of history.