Question: Express in one sentence one of your guidelines for living: how to be happy, what is important in life, what is right. Now illustrate your sentence with three specific examples. To be more fully honest, also consider a competing idea or objection someone might have to your philosophy.
My Response: One of my guidelines is to never get stuck in one spot but continually travel the road of a bigger purpose. I view life as a road I am on. Being a Christian I am part of something bigger than myself. As I have gone through life I have gone through many different parts of that path. Elementary school was a host of different scenes along that path. In turn Middle school another bunch of scenes came as I progressed towards something bigger. Now as I am in college I see another set of scenery. This may be the best that I have scene yet. But the fact of the matter is there is more scenery to come. It makes me happy to see new scenery and I feel that it is what is important.
Life was meant to be lived with other people. It is right to be aware of what there problems are and what they need. There is a lot of emphasis put on making yourself better than other people. It is good to look outside yourself and not be focused on what would get you more possessions and status. Many people will see certain scenery and will lose motivation to move on. They will stay at that scene and build on it. They’ll make it more “beautiful” and will never progress.
On the other hand there is the life that focuses on self improvement and development. Going back to the previous analogy we see that you must be well in order to anything. Looking out for yourself does in fact have its place. There is a certain element of life in which you must be able to hold yourself together. You have nothing to offer to other people if you are not okay.
However, it should never be to the point that you are neglecting those around you.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Jotting #4 - Relative Ideas or Objective?
Question: Are your ideas about consumption and the environment relative or objective? Use examples from HARRIS to support your ideas.
My Answer: The issue of environment is one that I have more than average interest in. Growing up in a rural part of New Hampshire I have been exposed to woods and farmland my entire life. As such I recognize the need to preserve it. On the other hand I have also come to the realization that the need for wood and wood products will be around for many years to come. In regards to the environment I believe that my views are objective. In looking at the situation of the Tongass forest we see that there the possibility to harvest trees in order to fulfill the demand for wood and wood products. Ideally it may be the best option to remain out of the forest. However, that does not address the fact that the demand for wood products still remains. The Tongass can be forested in an appropriate manner. If the process is regulated that land can provide the same amount of lumber year after year without major disruptions to the natural habitat. If the lands were locked up and not allowed to be forested the demand would translate to another country where sustainable practices may not even be a consideration when going into a forest. The question of ethical relativism becomes more difficult for me when moving into other topics. For instance, “We hunt whales in order to preserve our heritage and survive economically. I do not hunt whales because there is no need for me to.” A similar worded statement is posed by Harris when discussing “Weak Arguments for Moral Relativism”. Before reading Harris I would have said that it is relative. However, Harris points out “the mere fact of disagreement over moral principles does not prove the truth of moral relativism”. This in turn sparked new questions in my head as I realized that I do not have a good grasp whether or not morals are relative. The fact that whale populations are low in population means that there should be a reduction in the number of whales killed every year. If the whales are killed all together than the whale hunters will have nothing left to hunt. In that sense my stance is objective. Life begets life and therefore there must be whales around in order for more whales to be born. However, the question of whether or not the whales should be hunted at all is another question all together. Whether my answer would be morally relative or not I do not know. “The arguments we have just given do not prove that moral skepticism is false, although they do cast doubt on the more radical versions of moral skepticism.”
My Answer: The issue of environment is one that I have more than average interest in. Growing up in a rural part of New Hampshire I have been exposed to woods and farmland my entire life. As such I recognize the need to preserve it. On the other hand I have also come to the realization that the need for wood and wood products will be around for many years to come. In regards to the environment I believe that my views are objective. In looking at the situation of the Tongass forest we see that there the possibility to harvest trees in order to fulfill the demand for wood and wood products. Ideally it may be the best option to remain out of the forest. However, that does not address the fact that the demand for wood products still remains. The Tongass can be forested in an appropriate manner. If the process is regulated that land can provide the same amount of lumber year after year without major disruptions to the natural habitat. If the lands were locked up and not allowed to be forested the demand would translate to another country where sustainable practices may not even be a consideration when going into a forest. The question of ethical relativism becomes more difficult for me when moving into other topics. For instance, “We hunt whales in order to preserve our heritage and survive economically. I do not hunt whales because there is no need for me to.” A similar worded statement is posed by Harris when discussing “Weak Arguments for Moral Relativism”. Before reading Harris I would have said that it is relative. However, Harris points out “the mere fact of disagreement over moral principles does not prove the truth of moral relativism”. This in turn sparked new questions in my head as I realized that I do not have a good grasp whether or not morals are relative. The fact that whale populations are low in population means that there should be a reduction in the number of whales killed every year. If the whales are killed all together than the whale hunters will have nothing left to hunt. In that sense my stance is objective. Life begets life and therefore there must be whales around in order for more whales to be born. However, the question of whether or not the whales should be hunted at all is another question all together. Whether my answer would be morally relative or not I do not know. “The arguments we have just given do not prove that moral skepticism is false, although they do cast doubt on the more radical versions of moral skepticism.”
Monday, January 21, 2008
Jotting #3 - Why Study Ethics
Assignment: Explain why we at North Park want to study ethics, giving at least one idea and at least three supporting details, particularly evidence from Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom's lecture.
My Response: Knowledge can be attained through many different avenues. There are numerous colleges and countless online courses that will teach you essentially anything you want to know. Sites such as Wikipedia give a tasty appetizer to humans giving them access to over 7 million articles (2 million of which are in English) of just about anything they would want to know about. But simply knowing how many feet are in a mile or what organism causes cavities in your mouth will not benefit you unless you know how to appropriately apply that knowledge. This, in turn, is why an ethics course at a University such as North Park is important. As mentioned before there are so many sources of information in the world today that it may be more prudent to save your money from tuition costs and discover the knowledge you seek in other ways. In fact, it may even produce better results for someone who is a business major to work there way up in a company and know how it works instead of taking classes at a 4 year college or university. However, these alternative methods of education do not directly address the issue of ethics; “the study of how to live a good life and choose right actions”. Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom made it quite clear that one of the most basic questions of ethics is “Should I . . . “. The question of “should I” readily takes a back seat in the mind of someone who has just realized that they can make a handsome profit off of selling endangered turtle eggs for gourmet soup. An argument of this nature can not simply be answered by saying “Oh, those poor defenseless turtles”. There is often more to the story than what is first believed. In understanding the ethics of the situation it is important to realize what ethics is not. Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom outlined three details to understanding what ethic is not. First of all it is not sentimentality. You can not “feel bad” for the turtles and in turn reach the conclusion that it is ethically wrong. Furthermore it is not moralizing. Simply because you may have grown up believing that the destruction of endangered species is wrong, does not make your argument that much more valid. Finally, Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom states Ethics is not politics, “legality is not the same as morality”.
It is important to study Ethics at North Park because without it we simply become another means of attaining information. Without asking the question of “should I” the world becomes, to say the least, an altogether unfriendly place. There are no easy answers to ethics questions but avoiding the topic altogether is even worse. The education that one receives must not be void of asking the question “Should I”. Furthermore, it must be understood how to appropriately address the fullness of the situation without including sentimentality, moralization and politics.
My Response: Knowledge can be attained through many different avenues. There are numerous colleges and countless online courses that will teach you essentially anything you want to know. Sites such as Wikipedia give a tasty appetizer to humans giving them access to over 7 million articles (2 million of which are in English) of just about anything they would want to know about. But simply knowing how many feet are in a mile or what organism causes cavities in your mouth will not benefit you unless you know how to appropriately apply that knowledge. This, in turn, is why an ethics course at a University such as North Park is important. As mentioned before there are so many sources of information in the world today that it may be more prudent to save your money from tuition costs and discover the knowledge you seek in other ways. In fact, it may even produce better results for someone who is a business major to work there way up in a company and know how it works instead of taking classes at a 4 year college or university. However, these alternative methods of education do not directly address the issue of ethics; “the study of how to live a good life and choose right actions”. Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom made it quite clear that one of the most basic questions of ethics is “Should I . . . “. The question of “should I” readily takes a back seat in the mind of someone who has just realized that they can make a handsome profit off of selling endangered turtle eggs for gourmet soup. An argument of this nature can not simply be answered by saying “Oh, those poor defenseless turtles”. There is often more to the story than what is first believed. In understanding the ethics of the situation it is important to realize what ethics is not. Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom outlined three details to understanding what ethic is not. First of all it is not sentimentality. You can not “feel bad” for the turtles and in turn reach the conclusion that it is ethically wrong. Furthermore it is not moralizing. Simply because you may have grown up believing that the destruction of endangered species is wrong, does not make your argument that much more valid. Finally, Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom states Ethics is not politics, “legality is not the same as morality”.
It is important to study Ethics at North Park because without it we simply become another means of attaining information. Without asking the question of “should I” the world becomes, to say the least, an altogether unfriendly place. There are no easy answers to ethics questions but avoiding the topic altogether is even worse. The education that one receives must not be void of asking the question “Should I”. Furthermore, it must be understood how to appropriately address the fullness of the situation without including sentimentality, moralization and politics.
Jotting #2
I did not do jotting number 2.
The assignment was: Complete Ideas and Details Exercise 10 page 35.
The assignment was: Complete Ideas and Details Exercise 10 page 35.
Jotting #1
Assignment: Pick one of the topics in the book Contemporary Moral Problems intro and dcide which are the factual, conceptual and moral issues.
My Jotting: This reading began with factual statements. There were several instances were there was information directly taken from sources that have recorded data in regards to the authors topic. It appears that the author is picking and choosing select statistics to make an argument. You see the authors conceptual argument come into play when she illustrates the amount of money consumers spend on seemingly unnecessary purchases such as SUV’s and H2’s.
Finally the moral question comes into play towards the end of the passage. The author questions what is most important. Is the logger who must support her family most important, or is the beauty of the earth more significant.
This passage was interesting to me as I have an interest in the outdoors and conserving lands. Recently my Grandmother put 273 acres of her land into conservation. This conservation process posed many issues to her and the family. Each of her 5 children felt that they were entitled to at least a tiny piece of the land. In the months that followed there were discussions that debated some of the issues presented in the introduction of Contemporary Moral Problems.
In terms of forestry I feel there is too much hype brought to the dangers of harvesting trees. However, when people read about the evil people that cut them down they equate tree cutting with evil. The reality is, we need trees and the products which they in turn produce.
In my experience in the Northeastern part of the United States peoples fear of losing forests has been a bad thing. As a result of urban sprawl and subsequent developments forestable land is being diminished. Many people will buy 5 acre lots and not touch any of the wood/trees on it. The demand for wood products is not decreasing. In turn the demand for these wood products is pushed overseas. So, while the Northeast is undergoing one of the greatest reforastizations known to man somewhere else in the world is being decimated by the demand created.
It would be much more prudent to open up these forestable plots. The demand for the wood products could be met using sustainable foresting practices. This has other beneficial effects as it does not as adversely effect the ecosystem around the harvesting area.
Many American consumers have been so far removed from the actual demand that their consumerism causes that they do not see any problems with it. I like Callicott’s suggestion in that we belong to three different moral communities. The three communities that he describes should live in balance with each other. The logger that is cutting trees in order to feed her family can do it in a sustainable and in a responsible manner. This will allow for the biotic community as a whole to continue to function properly.
The preservation of our natural world is more important than the fact that if it is gone we have destroyed beauty. There are many species and other animals that are beneficial and life saving to us as humans. For instance tree frogs that undergo freezing during the winter months. By studying these frogs we are in turn able to develop better methods of transporting organs. If we destroy and underappreciate the natural world we are eliminating a valuable resource which we can continually learn from.
My Jotting: This reading began with factual statements. There were several instances were there was information directly taken from sources that have recorded data in regards to the authors topic. It appears that the author is picking and choosing select statistics to make an argument. You see the authors conceptual argument come into play when she illustrates the amount of money consumers spend on seemingly unnecessary purchases such as SUV’s and H2’s.
Finally the moral question comes into play towards the end of the passage. The author questions what is most important. Is the logger who must support her family most important, or is the beauty of the earth more significant.
This passage was interesting to me as I have an interest in the outdoors and conserving lands. Recently my Grandmother put 273 acres of her land into conservation. This conservation process posed many issues to her and the family. Each of her 5 children felt that they were entitled to at least a tiny piece of the land. In the months that followed there were discussions that debated some of the issues presented in the introduction of Contemporary Moral Problems.
In terms of forestry I feel there is too much hype brought to the dangers of harvesting trees. However, when people read about the evil people that cut them down they equate tree cutting with evil. The reality is, we need trees and the products which they in turn produce.
In my experience in the Northeastern part of the United States peoples fear of losing forests has been a bad thing. As a result of urban sprawl and subsequent developments forestable land is being diminished. Many people will buy 5 acre lots and not touch any of the wood/trees on it. The demand for wood products is not decreasing. In turn the demand for these wood products is pushed overseas. So, while the Northeast is undergoing one of the greatest reforastizations known to man somewhere else in the world is being decimated by the demand created.
It would be much more prudent to open up these forestable plots. The demand for the wood products could be met using sustainable foresting practices. This has other beneficial effects as it does not as adversely effect the ecosystem around the harvesting area.
Many American consumers have been so far removed from the actual demand that their consumerism causes that they do not see any problems with it. I like Callicott’s suggestion in that we belong to three different moral communities. The three communities that he describes should live in balance with each other. The logger that is cutting trees in order to feed her family can do it in a sustainable and in a responsible manner. This will allow for the biotic community as a whole to continue to function properly.
The preservation of our natural world is more important than the fact that if it is gone we have destroyed beauty. There are many species and other animals that are beneficial and life saving to us as humans. For instance tree frogs that undergo freezing during the winter months. By studying these frogs we are in turn able to develop better methods of transporting organs. If we destroy and underappreciate the natural world we are eliminating a valuable resource which we can continually learn from.
Jottings
As part of Dr. Rachelle Ankney's dialogue class we are required to do jottings. They are "freely written responses" to various readings and lectures. They are not necessarily graded on spelling and grammer or even organization. They are essentially used to see that we are thinking and doing the assigned work. "Jottings" will most likely make up the majority of this blog.
Welcome to North Park Dialogue
According to North Park University's website
Many people would have a hard time believing that the above statement is true but it doesn't really matter because North Park students have to take it anyway. Be that as it may,
I am a student at North Park and am currently enrolled in NPD2000-16: Simplicity, Consumption, and Ethics. The professor is Dr. Rachelle Ankney.
My intentions with publishing to this blog is to allow what I write as assignments for the class to not go wasted. I feel that if I spend my time writing something it is better to allow it to be read by whoever is interested rather than let it sit in some folder deep in the recesses of my computer.
Enjoy and take it for what it's worth.
The North Park Dialogue is a three course sequence in which students encounter life's great questions in the context of their academic lives. While the courses will be centered on life's great questions, these courses will also help develop a student's writing, listening, speaking and interpersonal skills, introduce them to some of the monuments of world culture and to some of the techniques of inquiry and analysis needed for a life of significance and service.
Many people would have a hard time believing that the above statement is true but it doesn't really matter because North Park students have to take it anyway. Be that as it may,
I am a student at North Park and am currently enrolled in NPD2000-16: Simplicity, Consumption, and Ethics. The professor is Dr. Rachelle Ankney.
My intentions with publishing to this blog is to allow what I write as assignments for the class to not go wasted. I feel that if I spend my time writing something it is better to allow it to be read by whoever is interested rather than let it sit in some folder deep in the recesses of my computer.
Enjoy and take it for what it's worth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)