Civil Disobedience

"Under what conditions is it morally justified to break the law?In what sort of cases would you endorse civil disobedience? In your answer, think about 1) how you would define the idea of an unjust or immoral law. Would you agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all'? and 2) what cases (if any) would count in your view as legitimate uses of civil disobedience? For some examples, take a look at the Wikipedia article on civil disobedience."

I think that defining what is morally justified to break the law is something that is very complex. An example of a modern case that I would endorse civil disobedience to is equal pay rights for women. Unequal pay for women would be protested for being morally unjust. The goal of the protest would be to change it and allow women equal treatment as men. Another case that I would endorse civil disobedience to is forced female genital mutilation (FGM). This causes count as a legitimate use of civil disobedience in my perspective because is causes more harm to females than good. Although it may be a cultural thing, it should be known that this act of violence to and oppression to women is causing them to suffer for no benefit at all. It is now the 21st century and women should be allowed the same equal treatment as men such as equal pay. These causes would end the suffering of millions of women and would pose no threat to men so I believe that they should be fought for through nonviolent protest.

Individual and the state

Classical liberals like Mill usually argue that so long as you aren't being coerced or forced to do something by the state, then you are free. People sympathetic to Marx are likely to argue that freedom requires that we are protected from forms of coercion that stem from economic disparities, and that this perhaps requires some kind of active state intervention to make sure that we are free to make our own economic choices.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree with Mill or Marx? Or perhaps a little with  both?

I think that I agree with Mill that you are free as long as you aren't being coerced or forced to do something by the state, but I also agree a bit with Marx's argument that freedom requires that we're protected from forms of coercion that stem from economic disparities. For example, Mill believes that people should be able to have the right to choose the act of prostitution. I agree with Mill when it comes down to this because I think that it should be okay for people to be involved in it if that is what they wish. It would also create a regulated and safe environment for these workers, however I agree with Marx because people who are involved with prostitution are not aways there by choice. This is where their freedom is being taken away and some kind of active intervention would protect them so that they can make their own choice.

Buddhism

"According to Buddhism, the main source of our suffering is our preoccupation with our own desires. Suffering is said to be caused by selfish cravings and desires. The way to enlightenment, for Buddhism, therefore involves detaching from our narrow concern with ourselves, escaping the prison of our own desires and illusions.

Do you think it is possible to live according to this teaching in the contemporary United States? Is there a conflict between what Buddhism teaches, and how we are encouraged to think and act in our society? What are your thoughts on this?"

I for one do not believe that it is possible to live according to the teaching of detaching ourselves from our own desires in order to reach enlightenment. I think that although we may experience some desires that may cause more harm then good to ourselves, I find that it can also teach us a lesson which in turn will make us a better person. The way that society encourages to act when it comes to our own personal desires and illusions is very different than the teachings of Buddhism. I believe that the American society encourages us to act on our desires such as living the so-called "American Dream". We are encouraged to fight for what we want in life and it would be possible to achieve it as long as we work hard for it. I do believe that your own personal desires can also make or break people. Their desires can bring them success and happiness or it can be their greatest enemy and downfall creating suffering as Buddhism suggests. You can also sort of compare these desires to the idea of the greater goods defense theory because although some desires may cause a negative impact, it may also bring success which would outweigh the negative such as the desire to lose weight. You would suffer for months by taking the time to diet and exercise but in the end you will be healthier.

Cosmological and Design Argument

"This week, we are focusing on the Cosmological argument and the Design argument. These arguments represent how one can think about religion from a philosophical perspective.In your blog, I would like you to reflect more generally on what, if anything, you think philosophy might contribute to the understanding of religion. Think about i) whether you think these arguments might change someone's religious convictions, and ii) whether there is anything about religious experience that is left out of these arguments (for example, some people might say that faith is important for religious conviction, yet of course faith has no role in philosophical argument)."

I think that philosophy contributes a lot of new perspectives on how one would face and understand religion. Both the cosmological and design arguments have some very convincing arguments such as Aquinas' "First Cause Argument". His argument suggests that because the world is made up of causalities, everything that exists is either uncaused or caused by the existence of another. This means that God must exist as he would be the first cause. Aquinas also based his beliefs on the Bible rather than philosophical arguments which may have shown that his faith played a major role in his argument. Paley's design argument claims that the universe is like a watch and that they exhibit a certain design and connections of a complex nature that are meant to fulfill goals and purposes of intelligence. This would mean that intelligent will or a "creator" would be responsible for the design. People of religious faith may conclude that this creator would be God who is responsible for such complex existences of human beings and nature. I think that these arguments would probably reinforce a person's faith in their religion. I think for some people such as myself, would need objective evidence in order for my religious beliefs to sway to one side or another. 

Functionalism and Artificial Intelligence

Some philosophers, including John Searle, say that computers are not really intelligent. Rather, they just simulate intelligence. However, it could be argued that, just as computers are programmed to respond in different ways to different commands, so human beings are 'programmed' by society, and education, to perform certain tasks. For example, we are programmed to do complicated things like speak a language, as well as more simply things like brush our teeth.

What are your thoughts on this comparison? Is there any difference between the programming of computers, and the 'programming' of humans by society

I think that this is a pretty good comparison between human intelligence and artificial intelligence. Computers are programmed to respond a certain way and although I think that humans are conditioned to react and behave a specific way by society. The similarities between the programming of computers and the so called "programming" of humans by society are the people that might be programming the computers are programming them with the same commands that would be acceptable by society's standards. I agree that computers are not really intelligent, they just simulate intelligence. I don't believe that their intelligence is solely dependent on that alone. The difference between the programming of computers and the "programming" of humans by society are a person's emotions that play a distinct role in contributing to their intelligence. I think that emotions and ethical values also play a huge role in determining a persons intelligence while computers and artificial intelligence do not exhibit any emotions or values at all. I believe that the feelings, values, and our consciousness are what distinguishes human intelligence from artificial intelligence.

Dualism and Physicalism

Should we, as human beings, think of ourselves as made out of two different substances, like Descartes argued? Or are you persuaded by the arguments of physicalism that we are purely physical beings?

If you agree with Descartes, how would you explain the fact that our mental life seems to be very closely connected to a physical organ, namely the brain. If you agree with physicalism, how do you explain the fact that our mental life seems to be like nothing else in the physical world (think of how unique something like consciousness is, for example).

Write your thoughts on these issues.

On the one hand, I believe in Descartes' theory of human beings being made out of two substances, the mind and the body. I started leaning towards this theory when Descartes compared the human body to a machine and the mind is what we really are. He claimed that if we were to have a limb such as our arm or leg cut off, our minds would still function the same way as before. It would not make us incomplete as a person. 

On the other hand, I also agreed with the theory of physicalism. With the increased amount of information of how the brain and the human body works, I find it hard not to believe that our minds would not exist without our brains and our brains in turn, controls our senses and perceptions. The identity theory suggests that our mental events are physical events and have physical causes and consequences. The things that happen to us are really just decisions that our brain event makes which sets off other brain events causing a reaction. I believe that the brain is responsible for our every thought and move we make. The case of Phineas Gage is also a reason why I swayed from he theory of dualism. Gage had a long iron rode drive completely through his skull and left frontal lobe. Although he survived the injury, Gage's personality and behavior became totally different to how he was before his accident. This example suggests that the mind was a physical substance if it could be affected by a physical event.

Pragmatism and Feminist Epistemology

"Pragmatism and Feminist Epistemology both challenge the view of knowledge as a detached, intellectual activity. Do you think they are right? How do you think we should think about knowledge? Now that we have concluded the section on epistemology, write about what kind of thing you think knowledge is."

I honestly can't say whether or not I believe that their beliefs are right, however I can say that I agree with some of their points. I think that we should always search for something more within knowledge because I think that knowledge is never ending. Like Dewey, I believe that "warranted assertibility" reflects knowledge because the world changes everyday and the things that we experience will change along with the world. I also believe that experience plays a huge part in determining "truth". I think that as human beings, knowledge is what helps our minds expand intellectually and creatively.