Sunday, March 11, 2012

Are you an objectivist or a subjectivist?
I believe that in discerning whether these positions are Polar, it is notable that the argument on morals, in which each position finds its roots, should be represented in the discussion. These are my beliefs and hold no weight.
                Firstly, objective thought is a mindset that presupposes because a statement can’t be empirically proven that it must be false or rather it loses any credibility. This is a process of thought with scientifically proven merit that has withstood the test of time and contributed greatly to mankind and society as a whole. With that being said though, mankind and our nature as a whole is one with unique composition of the conglomerate practices of thought, speech, emotion, and morality. Morality is the argued issue between subjectivity and objectivity.
Our nature as biologic creatures has, in my belief, instilled a set of protective values into our societies. As there are multiple societies in our world there are equally as diverse moral values.  And in the outer spaces between moral sets you find taboo actions. This I believe is a biological trait past down from our ancestors. Our moral beliefs as to what is right and wrong can be found in our tribal like behaviors. An example can be looked at through the lens of psychology with the “group think” theory. The ”group think” theory notes that people will abandon their moral beliefs and more notably their logic in hopes of maintaining a group’s homeostasis, because there are usually repercussions from the group if the individual introduces contrary ideas or statements that reduce or destabilizes the groups balance and ease in which they function as a group. High school cliques are an example in which the group has an overall behavior and consensus on issues such as behavior and treatment within the group. Once a member does or says something that destabilizes the balance of the group they are usually cast out or punished by the collective group’s idea of what’s right. The group will decide that because five people in the group believe it’s right that the one wrong person must be wrong. This can be seen in our society when we send our criminals off to jail. These people are cast out of our society for performing acts that are against the law and thus their genetic value has been brought to zero. The subjective moral example “murder is wrong” is an example, I believe, of a long held biological safe guard that mankind has made to maintain the peace of a group in the tribal sense. Murder is violent and violence leads to more violence so over time it’s been genetically insuring not to be violent. So morals in my sense are a biological living guide that provides a higher possibility of passing on your genetics. The belief is that we’re here to explore our morals and then biologically reproduce, and then instill the morals in which we’ve proven to work into our children.
 This is relevant in the argument of objectivity vs. subjectivity mainly because I believe that the individual who participates in the argument either believes one of two things. The objectivist will believe that since there is no quantifiable p+roof that there shouldn’t even be a propagated argument. The subjectivist will show example after example of wrong doing and question the objectivist’s perception of reality. The subjectivist will fall back on previous experiences of pain and emotional suffering and find value in the feeling of right or wrong in the world. I believe that morals are connected to our emotions in a way that people assimilate their beliefs to a physiological response because of the destabilizing effect of altering one’s perception of reality along with a person’s willingness to adhere to group standards in fear of being cast out or punished by that group. I therefore believe that morals are a way of protecting and insuring that the expected response is what is the status quo for the society in which we were raised and developed, which in turn provides a comfortable environment for the subject to live and successfully reproduce. So I guess I’m an objectivist. right?

Friday, March 9, 2012

Please watch this and tell me what you think:
One of today's global issues is population control. The resources on this planet are finite and we continue to become more efficient, but most of humanity is reproducing on a high level and thus increasing the world's population and increasing our strain on the natural environment. Americans are, day in and out, meant to felt guilty about consuming, and about "destroying the planet". So we are told we need to have less children for the good of humanity. What about individual rights? Why can't i have as many children as possible? Why is it that the top medical Ethicists are saying that it is morally acceptable to kill babies, they say that babies have no "personhood" and are "morally identical" to fetuses.