Advocating without Understanding

Can we fully advocate for a certain social group if we cannot critically think about the issue?

Once again, if we look at what it means to critically think then we understand it means to think logically, analytically, and without prejudice. Also, we know that not everyone is a critical thinker and there are some who never will critically think.

So, can we as people advocate for a certain social group, like the LGBTQA community, if we do not critically think about the issue? To me, that does not make a lot of sense. For us to consider the rights of another group then we must be able to think critically, thereby leaving all prejudgments, religious beliefs, and other personal feelings aside. However, not everyone is able to do that, and not everyone involved with these groups can do so. To consider and understand the issues of these parties we must know enough details well enough to analyse them and offer help to them without other matters getting in the way.

So no, I do not believe that we can fully advocate for a social group if we are not critical thinkers ourselves.

To End All Isms

If everyone was a critical thinker, would we still have isms?

It occurred to me that being a critical thinker means to be someone who thinks of things clearly, analytically and without allowing personal beliefs to skew one's thoughts. If that is true, then if we could all be critical thinkers it would be possible to no longer have negative isms. Now, to make it clearer, negative isms are a way to belittle a group of people - for example, racism, sexism, heterosexism and so on. These terms are used against a group of people to lessen them as individuals.

With that in mind, it is not fair to say that everyone is a critical thinker, but if everyone became a critical thinker they would be more able to identify and analyze the differences between themselves and others without a stigma based on past beliefs or religious affiliation affecting their point of view. Critical thinkers would be more able to see another from a logical point of view. For instance, a critical thinker would not use racism against an African American because their skin color will have nothing to do with understanding them as a person. Overall they would be able to evaluate different people without the stigmatizing them based on their ethnicity or orientation or gender identity. It would be a less hypercritical situation and more of a critical analysis of the person as a whole.

Free Will in Life

A week or so back we discussed Free Will and I found it to be something that still makes me think. I keep wondering how many things in my life, which I believe I do with free will, are really determined. For example, I have studied for every test I have taken since beginning school. Our discussion made me question whether I really had the choice to do that extra work or not. If so, why did I choose to do so? The idea that everything that we do is preconceived and predetermined makes me think that even considering free will is a bit ridiculous. I have found myself wondering why we ever thought in the first place that we had the free will to do school work, have a job, or function in society. It would seem as though free will is merely a social construct; it is something we believe we have when in actuality we do not.

It is also interesting to think of things like this from a deterministic point of view, which in this respect seems to make more sense. It would seem as though those feelings or preconceived actions are more easily understood as being something determined. Perhaps we as humans are determined to follow in the path of what we know we are obligated to do, what is right (right in the sense that passing in homework and studying is a good habit that we are conditioned to know to have positive results.)

I really enjoyed the conversation about this we had the week before; however, I do feel as if there is much more on this subject that can be explored.

Mixing Society and Morals

Question 1: If we were to give non-humans the same moral standards as humans, how would that change our society?

I find this to be a really interesting notion.  It may seem silly to some that we as humans could expect from a non-human the same level of moral behavior as we would from, say, our best friend. If we considered this notion, what would it take to actually do this? To what extent would we extend these morals, and how could we do so? I feel as though I have not come to a conclusion as much as I am left wondering more. If we were somehow to impose on non-humans the same moral standards as we do on humans our society would be very different. With the non-humans added there would be new moral codes of conduct and new issues to evaluate to include these non-humans. I think with this, yes we would have a change in our society or our society would have to change in order to include these non-humans and their morals, especially since these might not be the same morals we possess. They would have to be considered on a different level to be more inclusive.

Cognitive Abilities and Moral Standards

Question 2: What role does cognitive ability play in the moral standards we can expect of non-humans?

When we think of ethics and the fact that it takes into account humans and their functions, limits, and abilities it would seem as though those same things would be key factors in considering the moral standards to which we can hold non-humans. I believe the abilities and limits humans have make it so we have moral limits that we cannot pass; therefore, it is harder to impose moral standards on non-humans that may not be able to understand the reasons that they should meet any such ethical standards. So, I would say yes, cognitive ability does play a role, perhaps even a big part, in the idea of giving non-humans the same moral standards as humans. I also believe that this factor would change whether we give non-humans moral value or not.

Whose Fault is It?

Question 1: In the case of individuals who suffer from mental illness and commit suicide how would that be understood from both a determinist and free will point of view?

This question is actually really tricky, but I feel like it is an important issue to question within these circumstances. Firstly, I know that from the determinist perspective the suicide is predetermined. No matter what happened prior to the incident the suicide had to happen. The person does not have any way to change the events. Along with that, their mental illness is predetermined. The whole event, their illness and the suicide, was already laid out to happen. There was no way of interfering with it no matter what precautions were taken. If it happened, it was inevitable.

However, it becomes more complicated from the free will perspective. To what point can someone have control of a mental illness? I do not know how much of the free will perspective I have unraveled because there is a lot in that theory that makes this question hard to understand. One thing is certain: that the point of view on this subject from the free will perspective is very different from the determinist point of view.

Natural Laws?

Question 2: How does the state of natural law affect the idea of free will?

I feel like this blog post is very relevant based on the looming storm. I was wondering what effect the understanding of natural law has on free will. If we understand free will well enough then we can have some control of what happens in the wake of severe weather or natural disasters, things we believe are out of our hands. However, it would seem that if we have free will we could possibly change how we would act in the event of, say, a hurricane. It is, according to the idea of free will, up to the individual how they act in these situations. However, to a certain extent they cannot control how they react in certain situations. Some actions may be forced because of the situation. There is a fine line between what someone can control and what they cannot. I find the free will perspective to be rather mixed when considering things like this.