teh intharweb

my AP crush, meethz has a crush on me as well! awww, how cute!

that said, dangit meethz, go online more often.

apparently people in AP forums have this fetish of seeing me with another man, and for some reason they paired me up with eggy and ocean. despite being sober, i made a claim that i'd seme eggy. then all hell broke loose, thanks to taboo:



then taboo decided to add a bit of chang into the mix.



and so i ended it with something horrible, before things get out of hand.



though, when you think about it, it might actually make things worse. <_<

post 15: gandhi

Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:02:37


gandhi's ethics as everyone who has heard of the name knows, revolves around non-violence in finding a solution to every problem. gandhi has a belief that as long as one sticks with the truth, any conflicts will eventually be solved, without the need for violence or force. his autobiography outlines most if not all of his success story of how truth has helped him solved many problems without means of violence. gandhi was first inspired "to follow truth and go through all the ordeals" (p.5)after watching the play HARISCHANDRA. he gave high regard to harishchandra who was fully truthful, and gandhi thought that everyone should be truthful like harishchandra. what gandhi means by "experiment with truth" is that he considers his living truthfully as a life-long experiment, and this autobiography is like the report of his success, failure, and the hardships he has to go through. gandhi experiences hardships early, but whenever his principle to uphold truth fails, he carefully studies what causes the failure. one example was when he was still in highschool and a little misunderstanding caused him to be convicted of lying. he realized that although truthful, he was also at fault for being careless; from that he concludes that "a man of truth must also be a man of care." (p.13) this is similar to an experiment, since in a experiment, one always goes by method of trials and errors. gandhi does the same. he practices his principle, and whenever it fails he adds to the principle something it was lacking before and hence causing it to fail.

gandhi, always being a shy person, realizes that shyness is a great quality to have. by being shy, one would refrain oneself from talking out loud unpreparedly, and this is considered really important for a man who upholds truth. gandhi likes the idea that silence is golden; he claims that silence is a really important aspect in the discipline one needs to uphold truth. gandhi recognizes that "proneness to exaggerate, to suppress or modify the truth, wittingly or unwittingly, is a natural weakness of man, and silence is necessary in order to surmount it." (p.55) realizing this, gandhi adds silence to his experiment with truth. another thing that gandhi learns at certain points in his life-long experiment, is that one has to be able to suppress one's emotions and pocket the insults one gets, because otherwise, whenever insulted, one will get offended and experience emotional outbursts, which is likely to result in violence and distortion of truth. gandhi experienced this when his brother asked him to use his friendship with a sahib in order to get his brother out of a trouble. gandhi recognized this as an exploitation of friendship, and to gandhi, this has proved disastrous.

gandhi's experiment with truth was showing shape when he was violently assaulted for being "coloured." he showed his passiveness by refusing to bring the matter into legal accounts. not only passiveness, but gandhi also showed forgiveness and ability to think positively. he claims that he had forgiven the man even before he apologized, because gandhi thinks that the man doesn't know what he is doing because "all coloured people are the same to him." (p.113) gandhi's reasoning to uphold truth with the highest regard becomes clear when in the case with dada abdulla he made a claim that "facts mean truth, and once we adhere to truth, the law comes to our aid naturally." gandhi was still a normal human being, he did not renounce the world nor was he able to renounce his emotions, but one success that can be learned from him is his ability to restrain his feelings. many ocassion gandhi experienced insults that enraged him, but he always managed to restrain his feelings. gandhi was also not afraid of making sacrifices, such as taking off his turban, as long as it was "worthy of a better cause." (p.129) another instance that shows gandhi's passiveness is when a christian mother he frequently visited, asked him to not talk to her son about giving up meat because she is worried that the son will become ill. to this, gandhi claims that the best solution is for him to stop his visits. (p.141). gandhi also shows his belief that people are good and practices his non-violent campaign when he claims that he "has trusts in their sense of fairness." (p.168) this happens when gandhi made a visit to south africa and people there started getting violent upon his arrival.

post 14: evolutionary psychology

Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 19:05:08


i read the article on evolutionary psychology twice and i still don't quite get how evolution plays into this. if i am not mistaken, what the writer means by evolutionary psychology, is that exposure to moral questions activate different parts of the brain, and brain is thought to be a product of evolution. what joshua greene, a neuroscientist from princeton, tries to argue, is that attempts to answer moral questions are not solely a product of human reasoning; emotions also play a role in such attempts. his current research using MRI scanner to take the image of the brain while the subject attempts to answer moral and nonmoral questions has shown that nonmoral questions activate parts of the brain used to answer logical questions, while moral questions activate both the parts used for logic, and the parts used for emotions.

greene thinks there is more to morality than just what meets the eye. he claims that morality is "instinctive" that even animals have their own systems of morality. the author of the article, carl zimmer, gives examples about how monkeys punish other monkeys who do not behave for the benefit of the whole monkey society. pretty much like mill's utilitarianism that greene claims to have put "what's good before what's right." now, if morality is really that simple, then philosophers like immanuel kant wouldn't have gone through all the trouble to formulate ethics. greene seems to have particular fondness for kantian ethics, since he claims it to put "what's right before what's good."

if the answers people give to moral dilemmas are really products of evolution, then the research greene is doing might help scientists, or psychologists, or even philosophers to understand better how people actually comes up with those answers. so far the conclusion that greene has come up with from people's brain imaging data that he collected using the MRI scanner, is that emotions does play role in moral dilemmas. so merely human reasoning does not provide adequate basis for one who wants to formulate a universal law of morality.

post 13: cloning articles

Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:03:16


cloning is the art of ---roughly putting it--- copy-pasting one's genetic code into a newly developed embryo. this embryo will then develop to form a copy of the person whose genetic code is copy-pasted to the embryo. in other word, this art creates a CLONE of the person, and for that reason is called cloning. one of the newest cloning method is the nuclear transplantation cloning, which successfully created a cloned sheep scientists named dolly. there are three other different types of cloning: molecular, cellular, and blastomere. molecular cloning is a method to duplicate a segment of DNA that produces a biologically significant substance, by using bacteria as a host. cellular cloning is a method that clones particular cells of the body, used to test drug effects on body cells. blastomere cloning is a method to create a copy of the embryo by splitting the embryo early in the development, before it reaches the blastocyst stage. aside from these definitions, the more interesting part of cloning is the ethical issues it raises.

human cloning is claimed to have breached the fine line between mortality and divinity, and thus scientists who practice cloning are said to be playing god, since only god can create human beings (or make copies, in this case). but the argument that people put forth for this claim seems to be based on the thought that creating a clone means defying the natural way of creation. to this, it is then argued that many things we have been doing now are also unnatural; things such as birth control pill and other medical assistance to help the birth of a child that is unlikely to survive are not natural. but the fact is that such things have been helpful to the society, and these things, though unnatural, have helped the society for the better. why then use a claim that cloning defies natural process when we're already living in a world where things do not go naturally?

another claim against the human cloning is with regard to having another identical person. this brings things back to the classic nature vs nurture argument. the unfortunate thing about cloning is that it can only make a replica of the genetic code (nature), but not the effect that is caused by nurture. now, with no intention to offend any of the nurture or nature proponent, i think it is safe to claim that on this issue there is no black or white. both nature and nurture affect the growth of a person evenly, if not almost. such a replication process as cloning, can only replicate the nature side of a person: the biological part, and this is known to make up at most 50% of a person. so there is a 50-50 chance that although the clone is identical to the original, it might behave differently and grow differently. thus, no matter how many clones we make of a person, the chances of getting an identical person with identical behaviour will be slim to none, as it would constitute the exact same environment for that person to be brought up in.

post 11: singer -- abortion, euthanasia, poverty

Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 01:13:12

abortion:

simply put, singer is for abortion. by applying his ethical theory that is highly influenced by utilitarianism, singer challenges the premise that a fetus is an innocent human being. singer claims that a fetus is not a human being; he considers the level of rationality, self-consciousness, and awareness, and concludes that a fetus is at the same level as that of nonhuman animals. a fetus, singer claims, has no sense of rationality, no awareness, and is not self-conscious. since a fetus does not have the characteristics of a person, then it cannot claim the rights of being a person. singer also challenges the claim that fetus has the right of a person because it has a potential for life. he claims that although a fetus IS a potential human being, the argument that it is wrong to kill a potential human being is a weak one. again singer claims that having a potential to become a human being does not imply that the fetus can claim the rights of a human being. he also addresses the objection that says that killing a fetus would deprive the world of something that is intrinsically valuable: he argues that contraception and celibacy does the pretty much same thing but are not considered to be morally wrong. singer claims, however, from a utilitarianist standpoint, that the killing of a fetus does cause pain and not pleasure, not to the fetus itself, but to the parents of the fetus. thus, he concludes that if the parents have no objection then abortion does not inflict pain on anyone and ---from a utilitarianist point of view--- is not morally wrong.

euthanasia:

peter singer stands to defend that euthanasia should be justified as an action that is NOT morally incorrect. he addresses three different types of euthanasia: voluntary, one in which the person to be killed requested so because he considers that his life is no longer worth living; involuntary, one in which the person to be killed is killed against his will to go on living or is killed prior to being asked for consent; and nonvoluntary, one in which the person to be killed is in such a condition that he cannot make a decision on whether to go on living or not. singer justifies voluntary and nonvoluntary euthanasia, but not involuntary. he considers involuntary as morally incorrect since it is done against the person's will to live on, and if the person chooses to live on, then clearly living on (although under pain) gives the person more pleasure and singer's utilitarian principle then justifies living on. this same argument goes for the voluntary euthanasia. nonvoluntary however, is quite differently argued. singer sticks with his utilitarian principle and claims that in case of defective birth, if the child cannot then lead a life of a good quality, then taking the life of the child is justified. for singer, such a thing as an unworthy life to live exists, and euthanasia is justified for those who are living unworthy lives.

poverty:

in a nutshell, singer argues that human beings are morally obliged to help prevent absolute poverty, as long as the sacrifice made to do such a thing is not something of comparable significance. singer harshly compares not helping to murder, by addressing five objections to his comparison. first, singer addresses the lack of identifiable victim: if a person KNOWS that not helping causes the death of some people, then deciding not to help will be the same as murder, despite there is no specific victim. second, singer addresses the lack of certainty that the money sent to help will actually be a help: for singer, this is a valid point in the argument, but still is not acceptable; he gives an example about a speeding motorist who does not harm any pedestrian, but the act of speeding itself is already unacceptable. third, singer addresses the claim that we are not responsible for other people starving since they would still be starving even if we didn't exist: this point is considered irrelevant to singer; he takes the notion of a consequentialist by saying that if someone starving is a result of us not sending our money to help, then we are at fault, regardless of whether we exist or not. fourth, singer addresses the claim that motivation of not helping and murder is different: again singer gives an example about the speeding motorist; his intention was of course just to feel the adrenaline rush from speeding. but if he ends up killing someone in the process, then he is held responsible, regardless of his intial intention. and the fifth, singer addresses the claim that it is easier to not kill than to save lives, since saving lives could probably mean lowering our standards to that below our bare necessities: this claim, for singer, is not sound because it takes into account our society, in which donating is done for the praise; he claims that praise or blame does not justify right or wrong. singer also argues that it is possible for us to help without lowering our standards to that of below bare necessity. he gives examples on things we can sacrifice to help prevent poverty, which is of greater moral significance: expensive dinners, overseas holidays, larger house, extra cars, etc. singer in "practical ethics" also brought up the objection from triage. the concept of triage says that we should not aid those who do not need aid and those to whom the aid will become useless. this is in a way similar to "lifeboat ethics" in which people in a lifeboat will not let those floating in the ocean to jump in because the boat will drown. singer disagrees with such a concept that claims the rich should not help the poor because the poor will drag the rich down with them. singer proposes different ways to handle different poverty type, but he insists that the poor should not be left to starve.