Progress in our research has been slow and difficult, but our team has reached a good place for now. Between athletic commitments, projects and studying for other classes, and work to pay for school (not to mention the hallmark of this semester, all the snow) expenses, this past week of catching up has proven rather stressful. It took us any long nights, but we are about where we need to be.
As far as research, our group has compiled a solid list of sources. I can't speak for the whole group with certainty, but I personally have basically all the sources I will need to write my paper. After completing our rough draft presentation over the weekend and presenting to the professor on Monday, the group took professor Middleton's advice and met on Thursday to revise the presentation. I was regrettably unable to join them, so they have polished their portions of the presentation whereas I have not.
As of this writing, we still need to complete our research paper and compile it. After everything is written, we will revise it and make sure there are no grammatical, spelling, or stylistic errors, and we will make sure all the sections work together to form a cohesive paper. I, personally, still have to work on my section of the presentation, but once I have finished the presentation will be complete.
Considering the presentation is to be given on Monday, I will take this weekend to finish polishing my section, and practice with the group if we have common availability in our schedules. After the presentation is completed, I will work toward completing my section of the paper, and try to arrange a group meeting to revise our sections and put the paper together, along with delegating the introduction and conclusion sections and the abstract.
Our main problems have been hectic schedules which prevent meeting and lead to time pressure on our work. There's not much to be done, but speaking for myself, this next week should be somewhat easier since two of my other classes are now completed and one other is merely preparing for the final. I am optimistic that our work can be completed on schedule and with the quality one would hope for in such a paper.
Saturday, April 26, 2014
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Appiah vs. Gazzaniga on virtue ethics and morality
In "The Case against Character", by Kwame Anthony Appiah, and "Toward a Universal Ethics", by Michael Gazzaniga, two twenty-first century thinkers analyze ethics from their own perspectives. Though Appiah rejects moral absolutism, Gazzaniga argues that a large portion of our ethical decision making is instinctive, coming from an innately human compulsion toward certain actions. Appiah cites empirical research on behavior, whereas Gazzaniga relies heavily on study of the human brain.
Appiah adopts Aristotle's definition of ethics as anything concerning human flourishing. He takes issue, however, with Aristotle's idea of virtue ethics. He argues, instead, for situational ethics, pointing to studies about correlations between environmental factors and moral actions. Such studies found, for example, that people were more likely to help pick up scattered papers after finding a dime in a payphone's coin slot, and less likely to help someone slouched in a doorway if they had been told they were late for an appointment. Virtue ethics would hold that people do things because of a certain disposition, such as helpfulness, whereas Appiah holds that people do things largely because of their situation in that moment.
Gazzaniga, by contrast, believes that all people are inclined to certain positive behaviors. He says, "It is not a good idea to kill because it is not a good idea to kill, not because God or Allah or Buddha said it was not a good idea to kill." Gazzaniga contends that moral philosophers and religious men, though generally well-meaning and reasonable, were working with incomplete information, and so could only speculate about the origins of human nature. Thus, he argues, they came up with stories to explain what evolved naturally as a sort of socialization adaptation. Supporting this idea of universal, instinctive ethics is the fact that, "all societies believe that murder and incest are wrong, that children are to be cared for and not abandoned, that we should not tell lies or break promises, and that we should be loyal to family." This is in keeping with the social evolution hypothesis, since these behaviors contribute to the functioning of society. Finally, Gazzaniga argues that "Moral emotions--those that motivate behavior--are driven mostly by the brain stem and limbic axis, which regulate basic human drives such as sex, food, thirst, and so on." Thus, moral behaviors are not generally rational decisions, but base compulsions that we do without much thought.
Though Gazzaniga and Appiah view morality from largely different perspectives, they agree in a few ways. Though Gazzaniga believes moral behaviors are largely unconscious, he contends that higher level thought becomes necessary for certain moral questions, such as the classic question, "would you push one person in front of a train to save five others?" In spite of his belief that humans act situationally, rather than consistently morally, Appiah admits that virtuous people may exist, though rarely, and that virtue ethics would be ideal, but simply isn't how humans act.
Appiah and Gazzaniga differ greatly in their analysis of human morality, ethics, and motivations. However, there exists some common ground between the two.
Appiah adopts Aristotle's definition of ethics as anything concerning human flourishing. He takes issue, however, with Aristotle's idea of virtue ethics. He argues, instead, for situational ethics, pointing to studies about correlations between environmental factors and moral actions. Such studies found, for example, that people were more likely to help pick up scattered papers after finding a dime in a payphone's coin slot, and less likely to help someone slouched in a doorway if they had been told they were late for an appointment. Virtue ethics would hold that people do things because of a certain disposition, such as helpfulness, whereas Appiah holds that people do things largely because of their situation in that moment.
Gazzaniga, by contrast, believes that all people are inclined to certain positive behaviors. He says, "It is not a good idea to kill because it is not a good idea to kill, not because God or Allah or Buddha said it was not a good idea to kill." Gazzaniga contends that moral philosophers and religious men, though generally well-meaning and reasonable, were working with incomplete information, and so could only speculate about the origins of human nature. Thus, he argues, they came up with stories to explain what evolved naturally as a sort of socialization adaptation. Supporting this idea of universal, instinctive ethics is the fact that, "all societies believe that murder and incest are wrong, that children are to be cared for and not abandoned, that we should not tell lies or break promises, and that we should be loyal to family." This is in keeping with the social evolution hypothesis, since these behaviors contribute to the functioning of society. Finally, Gazzaniga argues that "Moral emotions--those that motivate behavior--are driven mostly by the brain stem and limbic axis, which regulate basic human drives such as sex, food, thirst, and so on." Thus, moral behaviors are not generally rational decisions, but base compulsions that we do without much thought.
Though Gazzaniga and Appiah view morality from largely different perspectives, they agree in a few ways. Though Gazzaniga believes moral behaviors are largely unconscious, he contends that higher level thought becomes necessary for certain moral questions, such as the classic question, "would you push one person in front of a train to save five others?" In spite of his belief that humans act situationally, rather than consistently morally, Appiah admits that virtuous people may exist, though rarely, and that virtue ethics would be ideal, but simply isn't how humans act.
Appiah and Gazzaniga differ greatly in their analysis of human morality, ethics, and motivations. However, there exists some common ground between the two.
Sunday, February 2, 2014
"Every generation has the obligation to free men's minds for a look at new worlds . . . to look out from a higher plateau than the last generation." Such is the aureate mindset of Lt. Colonel Ellison Onizuka, the astronaut-poet who gave his life to space travel in the Challenger explosion. More pragmatic arguments for extraterrestrial exploration exist as well, such as Earth's imminent overpopulation, and the threat of planetary disaster. It is the cross-section of these and other motivations that drive the astronautics discourse community.
Though they come from different backgrounds and countries, those in the astronautics community hold in common some distinct speech patterns. These include technical terms borrowed from scientific fields, borrowed military terms, and idiomatic regional slang from the areas where pockets of astronautics professionals gravitate to.
Similarly, those in the astronautics field abide by a common set of procedures and behaviors that govern their actions. These procedures apply to everything and lead to maximized safety and success for all involved.
Those in the astronautics field are driven by a variety of motivations, but are generally out to improve mankind in some way, and agree on several goals and protections such as minimizing contamination of space and other planets, so as to more effectively study extraterrestrial conditions.
Men and women in the astronautics community communicate through a variety of forms of correspondence, including email and other, more secure communications mediums. The genres popular in the field are myriad.
To be a member of the astronautics community, traditionally one would get a degree in aerospace engineering, or work his way up through the air force or navy. However, working for a space program, space company, or an area of academics devoted to space is the only requirement for full membership, and can be accomplished through several alternative paths.
Monday, January 27, 2014
Response to Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight
In "Deep Play..." Clifford Geertz observes, and details for his American audience, the Balinese cockfighting community, one foreign to both Geertz and most readers, but one with rules and language very familiar to its practitioners. In other words, Geertz describes a discourse community for the benefit of those on the outside.
The discourse community, as defined by John Swales, must meet six criteria, all of which are can be found within the Balinese cockfighting community. First, a discourse community must have a common language, which for the Balinese cockfighting community is the Balinese language, but with certain idioms and mannerisms. For example, when one wants to bet against the grain, it is called mpura, which is also the word for "pardon me". Next, a discourse community must share behaviors, practices, and procedures. In the case of the Balinese cockfighters, these behaviors are firmly encoded in the community, with great offense taken if, for example, someone were to bet against a chicken of a friendly or local group. Thirdly, a discourse community has a uniform set of objectives, beliefs, and attitudes. Within the Balinese cockfighting community, these attitudes have everything to do with outward displays of masculinity, solidarity with peers, and social status. Further,a discourse community must have a common means of communication and common genres of literature, which in the case of Balinese cockfighters include ignoring, calling out gambling terms, the play in the cockfight itself, and various myths. Finally, a discourse community must share a common threshold for membership, which for the Balinese cockfighters is being a Balinese man of status, who participates in the procedures of the cockfight.
According to the text, all of this is considered moral because masculinity is tantamount to morality, and because it is a specific juxtaposition to the generally tame nature of of Balinese culture, which values humanity and despises bestiality. In a way, this is similar to any American sport, where men typically play to the exclusion of women, and often act more aggressively than is usually acceptable. However, there is less spiritual significance in American sports, and also less animal cruelty.
The discourse community, as defined by John Swales, must meet six criteria, all of which are can be found within the Balinese cockfighting community. First, a discourse community must have a common language, which for the Balinese cockfighting community is the Balinese language, but with certain idioms and mannerisms. For example, when one wants to bet against the grain, it is called mpura, which is also the word for "pardon me". Next, a discourse community must share behaviors, practices, and procedures. In the case of the Balinese cockfighters, these behaviors are firmly encoded in the community, with great offense taken if, for example, someone were to bet against a chicken of a friendly or local group. Thirdly, a discourse community has a uniform set of objectives, beliefs, and attitudes. Within the Balinese cockfighting community, these attitudes have everything to do with outward displays of masculinity, solidarity with peers, and social status. Further,a discourse community must have a common means of communication and common genres of literature, which in the case of Balinese cockfighters include ignoring, calling out gambling terms, the play in the cockfight itself, and various myths. Finally, a discourse community must share a common threshold for membership, which for the Balinese cockfighters is being a Balinese man of status, who participates in the procedures of the cockfight.
According to the text, all of this is considered moral because masculinity is tantamount to morality, and because it is a specific juxtaposition to the generally tame nature of of Balinese culture, which values humanity and despises bestiality. In a way, this is similar to any American sport, where men typically play to the exclusion of women, and often act more aggressively than is usually acceptable. However, there is less spiritual significance in American sports, and also less animal cruelty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)