Q1:Should morality be sacrificed in the name of patriotism?
Q2:Can patriotism be anything but immoral?
Generally speaking within the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stephen Nathanson states that patriotism contains four distinct rules or laws. First and foremost it is defined as a special affliction for ones own country in which one would value with uttermost pride. Secondly the second two laws coincide with one another being that one would have a sense of personal identification with the country (Ex/ I was born in the United States of America therefore I am proud to be an American) and one would have a special concern for the well being of their country (Ex/ I watch the news and believe that this current tax cut (fictitious) would not benefit our economy, therefore my personal opinion should be heard and considered. Now these first three laws demonstrate the positive aspects and qualities of patriotism but the last law (rule) can be debatable and ultimately have a negative connotation. The last law states that and individual should be willing to sacrifice to promote the country's good and well being. However is this situation this law can be extremely inclusive in which anything is not limited. For example is it patriotic to kill in the name of your country or assault someone because they are not patriotic, thus being a vigilante and immoral.
In your current blog post on patriotism, you break down the multiple aspects of patriotism into three distinct categories. In general I do agree with all of your personal aspects and I believe that it would be appropriate that I would answer your questions stated above. For the first question, morality should not be sacrificed in the name of patriotism because an individual should retain their morals previously learned through church or their personal upbringing via parents. In your situation you seem that you come from a christian background and it is the same in my situation. Even though I do not attend church on a weekly basis, the teachings of Jesus Christ are practical in relation to some of the problems we currently face in today;s world. We should love our neighbor like we love ourselves regardless of their ethnicity. Patriotism is far too inclusive and there are no limitations to the concept. Is murdering a middle eastern - Muslim American just even though a person of this ethnicity has been responsible for terrorism in the United States of America? The answer to this question would be no because it would be immoral thus compromising ones ethics and most importantly their personal morals.
For your second question patriotism can be moral in some situations if one is to honor their country like their brothers and sisters. In general there are many people who love our country (USA) because we are free to do whatever we want and nothing is predetermined such as Russia, where communism is prevalent in which one does not have a decision on what they want to do or become. This is the only situation I can generally think about that patriotism would have a positive effect because anything else would just be far too inclusive, thus compromising the concept.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Response to Brendan Tomasi: Anxiety (2/16)
Truly anxiety can make or break a persons life causing him/her to become fully consumed within it or to emerge and become victorious. But when the feeling of anxiety comes to mind, the word has a negative connotation or stigma, which in general makes "anxiety" have a predisposed feeling because with many individuals, many cannot cope with it, and it fully consumes them, making some go psychotic and crazy. However you said that Heidegger stated that "anxiety is useful in that it shocks you out of your life as a man in a crowd (das mann) with the reality that no one is going to die for you so we should focus on the essence of our being, enabling us to live an authentic life". In this situation, I would have to agree with Heidegger because anxiety is useful because it does remind us that we are human beings, thus imperfect and that anxiety is a normal feeling that we all experience in small or large doses. However anxiety can have some negative attributes in some situations. For example focusing on the issue on a minimal level, it is common for college students to have test anxiety or general anxiety when finals come around. The reason why is because in this situation there is a massive amount of stress inflicted upon the individual, and usually one is not accustomed or used to a vast amount of stress. But when we analyze this issue at a more serious level, there are some individuals that cannot function in life because they are anxious at an abnormal level, such in the case of agoraphobic individuals who are extremely scared to leave their own house.
Generally speaking everything in your blog post is 100% accurate. Anxiety is a serious issue because as you stated it can ultimately cripple (psychologically) an individual and also absorb all of their happiness. But personally I believe that anxiety in small doses, such as in when finals come around or even when a person is nervous to take a woman on a first date. Again in small doses we are reminded that we are humans and we also imperfect but that does not mean we are not subjected to pain whether it is physically or emotionally such as in this situation. However when anyone is subjected to anxiety at a high level when medication and advanced psychological therapy are needed, this can devastating.
Generally speaking everything in your blog post is 100% accurate. Anxiety is a serious issue because as you stated it can ultimately cripple (psychologically) an individual and also absorb all of their happiness. But personally I believe that anxiety in small doses, such as in when finals come around or even when a person is nervous to take a woman on a first date. Again in small doses we are reminded that we are humans and we also imperfect but that does not mean we are not subjected to pain whether it is physically or emotionally such as in this situation. However when anyone is subjected to anxiety at a high level when medication and advanced psychological therapy are needed, this can devastating.
Patriotism and Nationalism
“Patriotism versus Cosmopolitanism: Is your loyalty to America and Americans more important than the common humanity you share with everyone on the globe?”
Throughout the debate, the topics of Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism contrasted with one and another in which the main question comes to ponder, “Is your loyalty to America and Americans more important than the common humanity you share with everyone on the globe?” This can be an extremely difficult question to answer because generally who or what is more important, your own country or the common humanity that you share with other people or strangers? Truly, an American citizen would prefer helping about another American citizen because with many of us it is accustomed for us to do so and many American citizens already have some type of unity or a cultural bond that has been implemented in our behaviors. However, this issue is extremely complex and we must analyze this issue from both perspectives.
Cosmopolitanism is the ideology that all kinds of human ethnic groups belong to a single community based on a shared morality. More or less this type of ideology contrasts heavily with the topics of patriotism and nationalism in which can be confusing from time to time. However, Cosmopolitanism may entail some sort of world government or it may simply refer to more inclusive moral, economic, and/or political relationships between nations or individuals of different nations. For example in the philosophy debate (Philosophy Talk), what if there was an individual was drowning but you have bought new sneakers that you do not want to get dirty and what if this person is not an American citizen, should you save this individuals life? Generally, if we know how to swim than most likely we would attempt to save this individual because it is morally right. However if we were looking at this situation from a patriotic standpoint, why would we even care about saving this individual and what if this person comes from an ethnicity that rivals the American culture. When it comes to patriotism there is far too much leverage in which some unjustified patriotic acts have led to violence and chaos. For example, was slavery patriotic even though many Americans knew that this act was extremely immoral? But to answer the primary question there should be a moral or rational limit to Patriotism because again there is far too much leverage and some acts are unjustified and it is an excuse to commit a crime or wrongdoing to one another, of the same race, and of a foreign race.
1.Since there are moral limitations to patriotism, what are some rational limitations?
2.Which topic should Americans abide by in the new decade, Patriotism or Cosmopolitanism?
Throughout the debate, the topics of Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism contrasted with one and another in which the main question comes to ponder, “Is your loyalty to America and Americans more important than the common humanity you share with everyone on the globe?” This can be an extremely difficult question to answer because generally who or what is more important, your own country or the common humanity that you share with other people or strangers? Truly, an American citizen would prefer helping about another American citizen because with many of us it is accustomed for us to do so and many American citizens already have some type of unity or a cultural bond that has been implemented in our behaviors. However, this issue is extremely complex and we must analyze this issue from both perspectives.
Cosmopolitanism is the ideology that all kinds of human ethnic groups belong to a single community based on a shared morality. More or less this type of ideology contrasts heavily with the topics of patriotism and nationalism in which can be confusing from time to time. However, Cosmopolitanism may entail some sort of world government or it may simply refer to more inclusive moral, economic, and/or political relationships between nations or individuals of different nations. For example in the philosophy debate (Philosophy Talk), what if there was an individual was drowning but you have bought new sneakers that you do not want to get dirty and what if this person is not an American citizen, should you save this individuals life? Generally, if we know how to swim than most likely we would attempt to save this individual because it is morally right. However if we were looking at this situation from a patriotic standpoint, why would we even care about saving this individual and what if this person comes from an ethnicity that rivals the American culture. When it comes to patriotism there is far too much leverage in which some unjustified patriotic acts have led to violence and chaos. For example, was slavery patriotic even though many Americans knew that this act was extremely immoral? But to answer the primary question there should be a moral or rational limit to Patriotism because again there is far too much leverage and some acts are unjustified and it is an excuse to commit a crime or wrongdoing to one another, of the same race, and of a foreign race.
1.Since there are moral limitations to patriotism, what are some rational limitations?
2.Which topic should Americans abide by in the new decade, Patriotism or Cosmopolitanism?
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Supernaturalism, Religion, and Law
Generally, any human being or citizen in the United States of America is entitled to his or her own personal freedom of religion and speech. However, does the first amendment pose some dilemmas whether they are ethically or legally? For example, Clark states that The Founders’ intent, in response to harsh English colonial rule, and then the populist whims of state legislatures, was to secure an individual’s freedom of conscience against the tyranny of both monarchs and majorities. Thus the separation of church and state, requiring an ideologically neutral public space, became an essential democratic precept. Thus from this example should or should not religion be intertwined with the law, in any country. Truly many Americans do have their individual beliefs but sometimes religion can be conflicting with multiple issues.
On the other hand, when it comes to the long term debate of abortion (Roe vs. Wade), is it immoral and unethical in or acceptable in society? On one side (religious) abortion is not even an option whatsoever, because the death of a fetus is murder even though the fetus cannot feel pain at the time of the abortion. However, on the other end of the spectrum, there is nothing wrong because in most cases it is either the female does not want to have the child for monetary reasons or personal. Either way there is a current dilemma and who is to tell whom in this situation, is right or wrong? After analyzing this article more at a legal and religious perspective (pragmatic empiricism), does succeed at carving out a neutral ground for adjudicating the contrasting worldviews of naturalism and supernaturalism. However, the terms naturalism can be extremely confusing because personally these terms have never crossed my mind, thus not being “second nature”.
When it comes to subject of religion, should an individual segregate their personal beliefs (Religious) from ethical and legal decisions?
On the other hand, when it comes to the long term debate of abortion (Roe vs. Wade), is it immoral and unethical in or acceptable in society? On one side (religious) abortion is not even an option whatsoever, because the death of a fetus is murder even though the fetus cannot feel pain at the time of the abortion. However, on the other end of the spectrum, there is nothing wrong because in most cases it is either the female does not want to have the child for monetary reasons or personal. Either way there is a current dilemma and who is to tell whom in this situation, is right or wrong? After analyzing this article more at a legal and religious perspective (pragmatic empiricism), does succeed at carving out a neutral ground for adjudicating the contrasting worldviews of naturalism and supernaturalism. However, the terms naturalism can be extremely confusing because personally these terms have never crossed my mind, thus not being “second nature”.
When it comes to subject of religion, should an individual segregate their personal beliefs (Religious) from ethical and legal decisions?
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Hold Onto Your Underwear: This Is NOT a National Emergency
Throughout the article "Hold Onto Your Underwear: This Is NOT a National Emergency",Tom Engelhart states that Americans are in constant trouble on a daily basis and even in massive danger. He states some common facts that 14,180 Americans were murdered, 11,000 died of the swine flu during April and December of 2009, and there were about 35,000 (approximately) fatal car accidents and so on. However he goes into more detail with specific current events such as U.S Airways flight 1549 in which the pilot made a successful yet miraculous landing on the Hudson River and U.S airways flight 253 in which the infamous Nigerian terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to set off a bomb which would of killed close to 250 people if the attempt was successful. Again It would certainly have represented a safety and security issue that needed to be dealt with. But it would not have been a national emergency, nor a national-security crisis. It would have been nothing more than a single plane knocked out of the sky, something that happens from time to time without the intervention of terrorists.
Generally if anyone was to analyze life and dangers on a daily basis, there is apparent danger on a daily basis. For example physiologically you could be fine and in great health one day and then the next succumb to cancer or an injury such as a torn ACL (Anterior Cruciate Ligament). We face dangers every day and diseases and sometimes there is no way to avoid them but we may ask, who is responsible for causing all of these dangers. Is it fate balancing the universe out, is it religious, or do human beings put themselves in a position in which would be dangerous? Honestly this a more of a complex question that does not pose a correct answer and is there a correct answer. Personally most human beings do position themselves in such danger every day. When it comes to infectious diseases such as the swine flu or the Ebola virus, do we actually practice prevention in our society. Or maybe when we walk out the door first thing in the morning and commute to school or work and get into our car are we in danger from reckless or intoxicated drivers etc.? Truly who knows but when it comes to homeland security and the defense of our nation there have been some apparent problems that should be prevented and should of been such as 911. Any of these situations could of been prevented with a more detailed security system but why would we just start to improve airport security after a tragic event happened? Shouldn't airport security (homeland security) should of prepared for the worse and had this type of security system implemented in the first place before all these tragic events? But this situation perfectly portrays that human beings are imperfect, bi products of science or religion.
1. Why are human beings subjected to danger on a daily basis and if so is this more of a matter of fate or religion?
2. Who is responsible for terrorism in the United States, is it the government?
Generally if anyone was to analyze life and dangers on a daily basis, there is apparent danger on a daily basis. For example physiologically you could be fine and in great health one day and then the next succumb to cancer or an injury such as a torn ACL (Anterior Cruciate Ligament). We face dangers every day and diseases and sometimes there is no way to avoid them but we may ask, who is responsible for causing all of these dangers. Is it fate balancing the universe out, is it religious, or do human beings put themselves in a position in which would be dangerous? Honestly this a more of a complex question that does not pose a correct answer and is there a correct answer. Personally most human beings do position themselves in such danger every day. When it comes to infectious diseases such as the swine flu or the Ebola virus, do we actually practice prevention in our society. Or maybe when we walk out the door first thing in the morning and commute to school or work and get into our car are we in danger from reckless or intoxicated drivers etc.? Truly who knows but when it comes to homeland security and the defense of our nation there have been some apparent problems that should be prevented and should of been such as 911. Any of these situations could of been prevented with a more detailed security system but why would we just start to improve airport security after a tragic event happened? Shouldn't airport security (homeland security) should of prepared for the worse and had this type of security system implemented in the first place before all these tragic events? But this situation perfectly portrays that human beings are imperfect, bi products of science or religion.
1. Why are human beings subjected to danger on a daily basis and if so is this more of a matter of fate or religion?
2. Who is responsible for terrorism in the United States, is it the government?
Response to Sally Perras (1/31)
Throughout history, pre determination has been a subject that has been in constant debate. Personally when this subject comes to mind religion also intertwines. The reason why is because from the beginning of the medieval ages, religion was first and foremost a way of life and secondary it was extremely strict. There was always a presupposition in which a sin was committed then probably you were going to hell unless an indulgence was paid directly to the church to remove the specific sin or sins from yourself. However who is to judge or make the decision that a certain individual will go to hell just because someone committed a sin? Other perspectives also should be analyzed such as how serious was the sin, did it break the ten commandments, and last and not least, why would paying money absolve anyone from a sin. The way I look at it is that committing any type of sin portrays that humans are imperfect, constantly sinning and making mistakes. If Adam and Eve did not sin at the beginning of time (Christianity), the world would be unnatural and perfect, and how do we know what that would be like? Truly pre determination and religion can be extremely confusing in which who is the chief dictator in life that makes all of these complex decisions on a daily basis? Honestly if there is a god, does he make the decisions or does he speak through clergymen (priests,bishops,cardinals,popes etc.)? Or on the other hand does everything just happen and do humans have the right to do anything they want, if their body allows so(fate)? But generally to finish answering your question more or less, humans created pre determination through some type of divine intervention when it comes to religion. These presuppositions were never decided before the beginning of time (science) or at creation (religion). These were just implemented by humans that had some type of power whether it was politically or religiously at the time.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Response to Michelle Webb (1/30/10)
Q:Why can't we just realize the reality and truth of the matter and humble ourselves?
Generally speaking the human race has advanced into a complex organism that what it used to be during the Neolithic and Medieval Ages. Truly as you stated we are a bunch of cells, tissues, and organs all attached to each other biologically. However I would consider the current topic of yours more of sociological or psychological because the quality of being humble("humbleness") can be derived and completely understood with an analysis or the person(s) mental processes. But the question still remains and that is why are humans not humble individuals? More or less many human beings do not understand the true value of life and that everything does not need to be regulated by currency (money). I do not know if you ever asked yourself these questions, why do humans need to increase their salaries, is driving five types of cars necessary to live, or better yet is a mansion with 30 bedrooms normal or extremely excessive? Again my point comes to why cannot humans settle to be average individuals instead of trying to be the richest or the most powerful in the world.
Take for an example, why do people become doctors, and if so do they do it for the money or to truly become a doctor to help sick patients. From one perspective you can say that a doctor is equivalent to the strongest animal within the animal kingdom and an elementary school teacher is considered the blade of grass that you discussed throughout you blog posting. Again from a monetary perspective, the average salary for a doctor is well over 300,000 dollars. Honestly what can anyone do with 300,000 dollars except living an extremely luxurious life, but is it necessary? What I mean is that are humans within the 21st century more motivated to make an excessive amount money, living the "high life" or is it more appropriate to live a normal life, having a normal family, working normal hours (40 per week), and last but not least earning a normal salary. Indeed more and more individuals are earning more graduate and professional level degrees which is excellent b/c our future generations are a lot more educated, which means that humans are becoming smarter and the world is developing on a daily basis.
However to get back to your question, why cannot humans humble themselves? Honestly I personally do not know the direct answer to your question but I hope my examples gave your a better understanding of this matter from a financial or monetary perspective. However if more individuals such as economists, psychologists, sociologists,and perhaps millionaires could all collaborate to derive a direct answer from their thoughts, then I will assume that your question can be correct answered.
Generally speaking the human race has advanced into a complex organism that what it used to be during the Neolithic and Medieval Ages. Truly as you stated we are a bunch of cells, tissues, and organs all attached to each other biologically. However I would consider the current topic of yours more of sociological or psychological because the quality of being humble("humbleness") can be derived and completely understood with an analysis or the person(s) mental processes. But the question still remains and that is why are humans not humble individuals? More or less many human beings do not understand the true value of life and that everything does not need to be regulated by currency (money). I do not know if you ever asked yourself these questions, why do humans need to increase their salaries, is driving five types of cars necessary to live, or better yet is a mansion with 30 bedrooms normal or extremely excessive? Again my point comes to why cannot humans settle to be average individuals instead of trying to be the richest or the most powerful in the world.
Take for an example, why do people become doctors, and if so do they do it for the money or to truly become a doctor to help sick patients. From one perspective you can say that a doctor is equivalent to the strongest animal within the animal kingdom and an elementary school teacher is considered the blade of grass that you discussed throughout you blog posting. Again from a monetary perspective, the average salary for a doctor is well over 300,000 dollars. Honestly what can anyone do with 300,000 dollars except living an extremely luxurious life, but is it necessary? What I mean is that are humans within the 21st century more motivated to make an excessive amount money, living the "high life" or is it more appropriate to live a normal life, having a normal family, working normal hours (40 per week), and last but not least earning a normal salary. Indeed more and more individuals are earning more graduate and professional level degrees which is excellent b/c our future generations are a lot more educated, which means that humans are becoming smarter and the world is developing on a daily basis.
However to get back to your question, why cannot humans humble themselves? Honestly I personally do not know the direct answer to your question but I hope my examples gave your a better understanding of this matter from a financial or monetary perspective. However if more individuals such as economists, psychologists, sociologists,and perhaps millionaires could all collaborate to derive a direct answer from their thoughts, then I will assume that your question can be correct answered.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Is Beauty Really in the Eye of the Beholder?
Throughout our daily existence as humans, there are multiple events ranging from minimal to maximum interest. Some of us may enjoy to play sports such as basketball, lacrosse, baseball and soccer or participate in extracurricular activities at school. These are just some of the events that make us (as humans) different from another, having a unique personality, and better yet what attracts our attention? “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is a universal phrase that is relatively easy to interpret or understand, but the does this statement hold true in most situations and if it does what does this statement relate to.
Personally when this statement is brought to question within a conversation it does make complete sense because who is to judge another persons opinion about the perception of beauty. However we must understand what beauty actually means and relates to. The denotation of beauty relates to the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations such as shape, color, or sound. Again does this definition truly define what beauty is within the relationship of humans? Probably not because in some countries beauty can range from multiple facets and categories. For example such as in Hawaii and Samoa, big is considered extremely beautiful and valued deeply but on the other end of the spectrum in America, the more developed a woman is (physically) is considered beautiful and sometimes stunning.
One concept that comes to mind is that beauty and attraction can either correlate and complement each other. For example what attracts humans of opposite sexes or the same together with one and another. From the beginning it holds true that physical attributes such as an attractive face or a curvaceous body in a female do attract the opposite sex (men) but after it is more of the emotional connection that keeps that attraction in combination with common interests and the enjoyment of each others company. However what if the rules of attraction did not exist, then would the concept of beauty exist and vice versa. Then we could also ask at a microscopic perspective that if none of these concepts existed what would the world be as we know it as today? But in as this theory can hold for relationships, it can hold for any topic that possesses the concept of beauty, such as art or aesthetics.
Generally the statement “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” does hold true in some situations but however it is far too inclusive and this statement could hold to anything that possesses “beauty”, even if anyone does not have an idea what beauty is.
1.Since this current statement is far too inclusive does it hold true to multiple perspecives of beauty or only to a personal outlook of what beauty is?
2.What if for example if the perception of beauty differs from culture to culture, what makes a certain culture correct about their current perception?
Personally when this statement is brought to question within a conversation it does make complete sense because who is to judge another persons opinion about the perception of beauty. However we must understand what beauty actually means and relates to. The denotation of beauty relates to the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations such as shape, color, or sound. Again does this definition truly define what beauty is within the relationship of humans? Probably not because in some countries beauty can range from multiple facets and categories. For example such as in Hawaii and Samoa, big is considered extremely beautiful and valued deeply but on the other end of the spectrum in America, the more developed a woman is (physically) is considered beautiful and sometimes stunning.
One concept that comes to mind is that beauty and attraction can either correlate and complement each other. For example what attracts humans of opposite sexes or the same together with one and another. From the beginning it holds true that physical attributes such as an attractive face or a curvaceous body in a female do attract the opposite sex (men) but after it is more of the emotional connection that keeps that attraction in combination with common interests and the enjoyment of each others company. However what if the rules of attraction did not exist, then would the concept of beauty exist and vice versa. Then we could also ask at a microscopic perspective that if none of these concepts existed what would the world be as we know it as today? But in as this theory can hold for relationships, it can hold for any topic that possesses the concept of beauty, such as art or aesthetics.
Generally the statement “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” does hold true in some situations but however it is far too inclusive and this statement could hold to anything that possesses “beauty”, even if anyone does not have an idea what beauty is.
1.Since this current statement is far too inclusive does it hold true to multiple perspecives of beauty or only to a personal outlook of what beauty is?
2.What if for example if the perception of beauty differs from culture to culture, what makes a certain culture correct about their current perception?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)