In my beliefs, I will, indeed, agree with some of the theistic package. The only disagreement I have with the theistic package is to deal with the fact that there is an objective moral order, for I think that each country has different cultures and traditions. There are different levels of rules, laws, and consequences. In another word, we have different standards in each society, and some might be accepted in other areas, but not in other. Thus, it is complex and difficult to entirely say that there is an objective moral order. Free will, a soul, life after death, God, meaning, and bliss are the facts that I agree with. As a human, we have a free will to do everything we want; however, it is being limited by the laws. There is a soul, in which I would define soul as a feeling or emotion within humans. Humans do have it, and we all have the feeling of happiness, bliss, and sadness. As a Thai citizen, we, most of us, believe that there is a life after death, and there are two lives after death: hell and heaven. If we do good things, then absolutely, God will send us to heaven and live happily ever after. In contrast, if we are corrupted, then we are directly going to hell. The absolute or ultimate power of sending person either to heaven or hell is directly being controlled by the hand and infinite power of God. God will determine our actions, and decide the path we deserved to be. In all of these, it is a reference that our lives have a meaning. There is a meaning to lives, and if there is no, why then we have God? And lastly, there is bliss. In my definition, bliss is an extreme level of happiness. And I agree that we all have it, even though it is not an extreme happiness, but still we can absolutely have the bliss .
Another package is the main naturalistic package. I agree with most of the theistic package, which means that I disagree with all of the following world views. However, in this package, there is one that says ” no hope”. I strongly disagree with this point of view since I think that hopes exist inside every single person’s hearts or minds. We all have hopes. Poor ones hope to become, one day, wealthy, and the riches hope to be wealthier. It is a fact of our lives. We hope to have more or gain more. This is a world view that applies to everybody. As you can see, all of these are like a chain of world views. It connects to one another.
Materialism is one form of monism. Monism is a philosophical belief that says everything exists from only one substance. Resulting from one substance, materialism is the view that every existences are matter. The actions and emotions come from our material objects,and there are no minds or souls involved in the existence.
Brain chemistry argument by Ramachandran and the materialism are compatible. Brain chemistry says that everything is originating from the chemical substance inside the brain. There is no souls or minds involved that can be a starter of the existence or the action. According to the the video, there are three examples given to support the argument: Capgras syndrome, Phantom limb pain, and Synesthesia.
The first example is the Capgras syndrome. It is caused by the damage of the brain. A person with this syndrome would lost an ability to recognize the faces. In this case, the wire that associates with the face memory part is being destroyed. However, the person, who is unable to recognize the faces, still enables to recognize the people’s voice or sound because the hearing part still works. Thus, it indicates that there is no soul associating with the loss of the memory, only the chemical part or organ is.
The second example is Phantom limb pain. It is a pain that is caused by the loss of the limb. Patients still have a sense of feeling that the limb is still there, but they can not control the movement of it. To resolve the problem, Ramachandran uses what he calls a ”mirror box”. The patient will use their one hand and see a reflection from the mirror. Here now, it would look like there are two limbs. In this therapy, the patient’s brain is being tricked by the mirror. So this can be concluded that soul can not control the brain, only the chemical of the brain is.
The final example that Ramachandran gives is about Synesthesia. This is a case where the number area and the color area has a crossed wiring. It is going to create a weird critical thinking. So this again shows the support to the materialism in which it says that the wiring connection part inside the brain caused the misunderstanding of the picture or the thing we see or hear, not the soul or the mind.
According to the three examples of the brain chemistry argument by Ramachandran, it shows that the physical parts or the material parts caused the action. There is no association between souls and action.
Here is a conversion between Drinks and Hamburgers. They’re talking about Truman show and how it is related to the Agency Theory.
Enjoy! 😀 😀
This is a conversion talking between a general and his soldier. They are talking about the lands that will be used for military base. They argue each other by explaining theories and philosophical positions.
Enjoy ! (=
Milgram had a desire to study human’s obedience. The extermination camp that happened during World War II in Germany brought him a lot of curiosity of why German people killed Jewish people. He wanted to know that under what condition that motivated people to obey authority. Thus, he conducted a ”Milgram Obedience Study”, in which he used the voltage or the electricity to threaten and shock people if they answered the questions incorrectly. There were different level of voltages, in which it ranged from the lightest shock to the extreme shock. Most of the volunteers wanted to give up once they knew that the voltage was getting higher and stronger. However, the supervisor would not follow what the volunteers demanded. The supervisor argued to the conductors that they should continue asking questions, and he would be responsible for whatever happens to the volunteers.
The Milgram Obedience study is a good example of ethics and agency theory. Agency theory says that a free act is caused by an agent, in which an agent is a person or a doer. It is contradicted to the compatibilism that says an event comes from an inner cause. Ethics is a system of moral principle. We can conclude that a volunteer has a free will to participate in his experiment. The supervisor is an agent, who controls and gives command to the conductor, and he acts according to his free will because he wants to know the reaction of people under a great pressure. He gives a command to the conductor to continue torturing people, so we can say that it is unethical to force people to continue with the experiment, whereas at the time, they really want to stop because they are so afraid of death. Basically, it is ethical at the beginning of the experiment, but it becomes unethical once the people are so willingly wanting to quit.
This is a clip. It talks about a girl,Emily, who doesn’t want to go to school, but her dad does want Emily to go.
Thus, Emily comes up with a good reason based on libertarian perspective to convince her dad.
It is about one minute long. Have fun (:
According to the cost-benefits analysis, the Utilitarian would more likely to support the benefits of going to school. School is not just a place that only provides education and knowledge, but it’s also a place that’s brightening and broaden our views of the nowadays world. I, as a student, do get more than knowledges. Socialization, friendships, and the diversity of culture are the three main importance that I’ve got from school. Despite the fact that the costs of going to school is high, it’s worthy to pay since the school serves as a path to a complete life, in which it leads to a better future, better works, and a better family life. The tangible and intangible costs and benefits of going to school are definitely worthy. For example, the intangible cost might be a weariness; however, the weariness will lead to the tangible benefits like a good qualification for colleges and jobs. Overall, Utilitarian would say that it seeks pleasure to the students and to the parents in the upcoming future.
The objections to the Utilitarian would be a cost of going to school. Parents had to work and collect money as much as possible in order to be a stable foundation for their children. The main supply to the foundation is money. Money may lead to the pain, instead of pleasure and happiness. As a student, I complain about assignments, quizzes, and tests. These things disturb my leisure time. It gives pain and harshness. So this concluded that going to school is a complete waste of time, not that it only destroys the student’s leisure time, but it also destroy a time when they can build up their relationships with families and friends. Utilitarian would say that if the school brings this much pain, then the best advice is to quit the school, so that the real happiness can come to you.
Cost Benefits Analysis
Cost-Going to school-
Gas – Transportation
Accessories – uniforms, physical education shoes and normal shoes, bags, socks, and watches
ICS Events : Carnival, Lock-In, and Banquet
Food Coupon: to buy foods and beverages
The making and loss of ID cards
Benefits-Going to School
ICS High School Certification
8th Grade Certification
Better chance of getting into good University
Presents and Gifts during the graduation and may be on the first day job!
Getting more Connections
The analysis represents that I am inconsistent with my decisions. Dr Adina Blady Szwajger was justified in killing her young patients, indicating that she did not want her patients to be suffered by the brutality of Nazis. Second scenario talked about Tom Dudgley, who decided to assassinate Richard Parker, one of his crews, in exchange for water and food supply, was not justified in this killing. The final showed that I would be morally right to save the lives of three person, including myself, instead of saving one workmate.
For the accuracy of the results, I did not think that they have an accurate results. They reported that the second and third scenarios were similar, asking why did I choose the Tom Parker’s case to be wrong and locomotive’s case to be right. Dudgely chose to sacrifice his youngest crew as a victim, and he carelessly killed him. Every people supposed to born with equality, which means that no one, no matter what hierarchy, has rights to kill one another. However, this was contradict to the locomotive’s case in the terms of ”intentional’‘ or ”unintentional action”. This third scenario did not mean to turn out like that only if it’s not caused by the accidental problems in the locomotion, so it judged as an unintentional action, while second scenario considered as an intentional action for its own’s benefits.