Take This Life

Cyril C. House
Advanced Ethics
14/09/2015

Take This Life

       Rational suicide is morally permissible. To assert otherwise is to deny two of the fundamental human rights, as declared in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration is an accurate basis of moral standards due to the fact that it was created to prevent atrocities to humanity by means of preventing atrocities to each individual (UN). Atrocities can be understood as morally impermissible actions done unto one or many individuals. The document can therefore be understood as a strong support of morality, as far as morality can be understood to connote goodly actions.

       Suicide is literally defined as the intentional killing of oneself. It is derived from the Latin suicidium: cidium denoting ‘a killing’ and sui meaning ‘of one’s self’; therefore ‘a killing of oneself’ (Dictionary). Although the denotation of suicide is rather plain, it is the connotation of the term which I am concerned with herein. Edward S. Harris, of Chowan College, suggests that there are three distinct types of self-killing to be distinguished between, these three types are:

1> Self-Sacrifice

2> Self-Irrationicide

3> Suicide.

Self-Sacrifice he describes as “[t]he act of an individual that brings about the individual’s own death due to compassionate and/or belief orientated motivation, which is the result of either extrinsic or intrinsic circumstances” (Harris, E.S.), while Self-Irrationicide is described as an action resulting in one’s own death due the direct ignorance of the individual, drug overdose for example. Harris describes the third type, Suicide, as “[t]he act of an individual that brings about the individual’s own death due to selfish motivations, which are a result of intrinsic circumstances” (Harris, E.S.).

       Now that suicide has been given definition, I shall explain what I mean by ‘Rational’. Rationality in the sense I intend it is to mean a state of mind free from the influence of mind-altering physical/emotional forces. This is to include but is not limited to: drugs and medications, torture and other physiological motivators, dire emotional states such as hate and infatuation, and other emotional/psychological influences which possess any sort of very influential forces such as depression or schizophrenia. The presence of any one of these aforementioned afflictions immediately cancels out the moral permissibility of suicide, because these are all states of mind which can be seen as coercive to an otherwise logical train of thought and “[t]o achieve my long range goals, I must never let any belief or emotion get in the way of my ability to see the world clearly and to think about it logically” (Harris, C.E., 72).

       The moral permissibility of suicide is connected intimately with human beings’ freedom of will and autonomy of thought. It is a human right to think and believe what one wishes as is very clearly stated in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” (UN, Article 18) and this judgement is absolute outside these limitations of the same document: “In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society” (UN, Article 29.2). The eighteenth article quite clearly enforces autonomy of thought, whereas the twenty-ninth article states, a little more elusively, the right to freedom of will, meaning the right to choose how to act upon information given. This article holds a clause which prohibits freedom of will from being exercised in such a way as would infringe upon the rights of others.

       We have now established that individuals are free to think what they please, and are free to take actions upon those thoughts in ways that do not interfere with other humans’ rights. It then follows that an individual should be permitted, morally, to take his or her own life in such a way as does not interfere with the rights of those other than the individual, for example the right to life. By this reasoning it can be stated that to kill oneself with a bullet through the brain is morally permissible, while killing oneself by speeding into oncoming traffic is morally impermissible; wading into a lake while not knowing how to swim is permissible, while flying a plane into a crowded location, or flying a plane into anything while the plane carries passengers is impermissible.

       It is this principle with which we are able to evaluate the three suicide styles proposed by Chowan:

1> Self-Sacrifice

Self-Sacrifice is often thought of as a person diving in front of a bullet which is headed towards some other person, although when viewed critically it would also entail a radical committing suicide to support his or her cause. Thinking about radicals committing suicide often brings up images of terrorists blowing themselves up in crowds, although again when viewed critically may also entail a member of Greenpeace, the radical environmental group, martyring himself by drinking some toxic lake water. With the principal we may assert that the former case be impermissible while the latter case be permissible. The first case I brought up, diving in front of a bullet, would be both permissible and morally supererogatory. When “[o]ne of the men in the party, Capt. L.E.G. Oates, became frostbitten [and] . . . realized he was slowing the party’s march, thereby increasing their peril” (Harris, C.E., 2), he proceeded to walk out of the tent and to his death in the blizzard so that the party might have a chance of surviving. This is a more specific case of Supererogatory-Self-Sacrifice: Oates knew he would die doing what he was doing, but continued to take the action anyway, knowing that if he did the rest of the men might survive.

2> Self-Irrationicide

This particular suicide style I find to be irrelevant to the argument herein, because although it is ‘self-killing’, it is not, in fact, ‘an intentional killing of oneself’. Morality and intentionality go hand in hand, an individual’s actions and an individual’s intentions are two very different things and it is for this reason that I exclude Self-Irrationicide from the ability to be moral in either direction.

3> Suicide

“The act of an individual that brings about the individual’s own death due to selfish motivations, which are a result of intrinsic circumstances” (Harris, E.S.). This third suicide style is the most commonly thought of when suicide is brought up, and is also thought of as the most morally impermissible of the three. It is considered so impermissible that many religions refuse to permit honourable burial to practitioners of this third type of self-killing, these religions believe it to be  morally impermissible to deprive oneself of a gift one has been given, such an amazing gift as is life. This line of thinking seems to suggest some sort of proof that consciousness is indeed a gift from some Other. “Albert Camus begins The Myth of Sisyphus by categorically stating that the one truly serious problem of philosophy is suicide, because suicide is the confession that life is not worth living” (Masterplots). This is a very interesting point, and hotly contested from both sides of the argument. Even so, no one has come anywhere near a conclusive theory of whether or not life indeed has a purpose or any other such reason for continuing to be rather than not to be. Essentially therefore, each individual is left as his or her own philosophical device, and it is up to the individual to either subscribe to one of life’s partial theses out there, or to create his or her own thesis, and if neither of these two options is viable for the individual then there is nothing stopping him or her from concluding that life is meaningless. There is no evidence to support the contrary and therefore there is no evidence to support the opinion that the killing of oneself contravenes some higher purpose/ultimate authority. Without some Other authority, judgement falls upon the vices of man itself, and these vices are basic human rights. Each individual has the right to life, the right to think freely, and the right to act upon his or her autonomous thoughts in any way that does not interfere with other individuals’ rights to the same freedoms. It is important to note that an individual may revoke his or her right to some freedom or another. “The Miranda decision required that the police inform a suspect who has been arrested or detained of . . . the right to remain silent . . . the right to a lawyer; and, if the suspect cannot afford a lawyer, the right to have a lawyer appointed before an interrogation commences” (Justice), yet the individual is not obligated to comply with these guidelines, in fact the officers making the arrest will often tempt the person into talking before a lawyer is present in order to obtain evidence to support their case. The individual has a right to but is not obligated to remain silent and, being so informed, if the individual chooses to not remain silent that is entirely acceptable; therefore an individual is not obligated to but has a right to life, should they choose to commit suicide that is not morally forbidden/restricted.

       I believe I have sufficiently covered the moral and immoral grounds of suicide in each of these three types of self-killing: morality is requiring of intentionality, and without evidence to support any claims to a being or beings higher than ourselves, we are left as the ultimate judges of human morality, meaning that the morality of the intentions of human beings may be derived from a cross-evaluation of the actions taken by an individual with the basic rights guaranteed to each individual. A person may think and act however he or she so pleases, so long as their thoughts and/or actions do not infringe upon the rights of others. This means that suicide which kills only the killer is morally permissible, while suicide which kills others in addition to the killer is morally impermissible.

Works Cited

Harris Jr., C.E. “The Ethics of Self-Interest”. Applying Moral Theories. 5th ed. The Thomson                    Corporation: Belmont, 2007. 63-87. Print.

Harris Jr., C.E. “What Is Ethics?”. Applying Moral Theories. 5th ed. The Thomson Corporation:                Belmont, 2007. 1-18. Print.

“History of the Document”. United Nations. N.a. N.d. Web. 07/10/2015. URL =                                          www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/history.shtml

"The Myth Of Sisyphus." Masterplots, Fourth Edition (2010): 1-2. Literary Reference Center. Web.          17/09/2015

“A Review of Brydges Duty Counsel Services in Canada”. Department of Justice. N.a. 07/01/2015.            Web. 12/10/2015. URL = http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/rr03_la4-                             rr03_aj4/p4.html

"Suicide." Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. N.d. Web. 22/09/2015. URL =          http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/suicide>.

“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. United Nations. N.a. N.d. Web. 07/10/2015. URL =          www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

No Country for Incomprehensible Beings

Cyril C. House
Philosophy of Religion
29/10/2015

No Country for Incomprehensible Beings

       Blaise Pascal and William Clifford find themselves as the two faces of a universal coin in the realm of religious faith: Pascal parallels the contemporary Evangelist worshipper, arguing that it is best to believe in God whether or not there is evidence of such a being because if there is then it will pay out in the end, and if there is not then one really does not lose much out of life in having believed. Clifford, meanwhile, parallels the contemporary Atheist, arguing that one ought not to believe anything without sufficient evidence for such belief. Each Philosopher’s arguments are strikingly compelling, and each are also composed in a potently concise manner, leaving few moving parts to be trifled with. This argument shall support Clifford however, in attempting to trifle with the logic Pascal has presented, and I am confident that it shall be done ably so.

       Clifford offers an example of a ship setting out to sea; I will present a synonymous tale here which will be more suited to the culture of the present day world. NASA has discovered a new planet capable of sustaining life, we shall call this planet Phebos, and due to global warming they must ensure that a collection of breeding-age humans are shipped to Phebos as soon as possible. NASA gathers the ripest hundred humans from the world and puts them in the only space shuttle available at the moment: an 80’s era rocket. Upon hearing of NASA’s intentions the American Society of Aeronautic Engineers (ASAE) calls up NASA and tells them that they should not send these people into space in the rickety, old rocket because it will not make the journey to Phebos in one piece, and all the hundred ripest humans of the Earth will perish in the terrifying vacuum. NASA tells ASAE that they have heard the concern and will deliberate on the matter, this rocket is ready to go and has been out in space once before in the 80’s so why should it not be fit to do so again? Also there will be considerable cost and time involved in developing a new rocket especially for this purpose. NASA decides to send the people in the old rocket after having carefully weighed their options and deciding, whole-heartedly and as one, that the old rocket was ‘good enough’ to make the trip. On the predesignated day NASA launches the rocket up into the air, and watches as it crumples and explodes about 1000 miles above the launch pad. NASA sincerely believed that the rocket was good enough to make the journey. Clearly that did not exempt the rocket from failing and killing many people, but does their sincere belief exempt them from the guilt of those deaths? Belief absolutely does not exempt, or even diminish the guilt of NASA because “[they] had no right to believe on such evidence as was before [them]” (Clifford 104). You may object, saying that if the rocket makes it to Phebos safely then the beliefs of NASA are justified; and following this line of thought claim that justification of belief seems untethered to the outcome of a situation. Because their beliefs are either just or not just, and the rocket either makes it or does not make it, and they hold their beliefs prior to the event of the rocket’s making, or not making, it and therefore their beliefs must have been either just or unjust prior to the rocket’s departure; accordingly it would seem that the just-ness of their beliefs does not require the outcome of the situation before being decided and as such the two things are not tied to one another. In this way you might say that it was just of NASA to believe, regardless of the outcome, because true belief justifies itself inherently. But I say to you Objectors that the just-ness of a belief lies not in the content of the belief itself, but in the basis of that what is to be believed (Clifford 104). What one believes is meaningless, how one came about such beliefs is the true source of justification. Had NASA come about their belief by way of experimentation and testing, such would have been a just belief, but to have more or less indoctrinated oneself into belief by way of dismissing controversial evidence as ‘nothing to fret’ is not a proper way to come into believing.

       Pascal defines God as “infinitely incomprehensible, since, having no parts nor limits, He has no [kinship] to us” (Pascal 100) and claims “[w]e are then incapable of knowing what He is or if He is” (Pascal 100); finally claiming that “it is in lacking proofs that they are not lacking in sense” (Pascal 100), describing the belief of Christians and their inability to prove what they believe. This latter claim is both logical and nonsensical at once. It is logical in that if Christians were able to prove God exists it would have to be in human-comprehensible terms, and by Pascal’s very definition nothing about God is comprehensible to mankind. But Christians do not claim to be able to prove the existence of God, and therefore one may not utilize such an objection against them and their beliefs, this is why the claim is logical on one hand. On the other hand the claim is completely nonsensical because in lacking proofs there remains no justification for a belief in God. In fact simply by believing in a being or a force such as God is to claim some degree of comprehension of the concept ‘God’ and therefore defeats itself in that God is “infinitely incomprehensible” (Pascal). Pascal continues to marshal evidence against himself in his second of the three statements I have provided above. If we are incapable of knowing what or if God is then perhaps someone could tell me exactly what we are talking about here! I can clearly contrive what it is we are speaking of, as I am sure Pascal could. So if we are capable of knowing what He is, then we are not incapable of knowing what He is. Therefore God does not exist for the primary reason that I can comprehend what God is. Pascal uses his argument to claim that it is better to believe than to not believe, because if one believes and there is a God one is infinitely rewarded; if one believes and there is not a God one’s lose is minimal, a few Sundays a year spent in church; if one does not believe and there is a God one will suffer for eternity; if one believes and there is not a God then one gains little by doing so, a few Sundays a year spent free of church.

       Pascal’s claims are literally about belief in God, but let us extrapolate them to just general belief, such as belief in the ability of an old, creaky rocket ship. Pascal’s arguments would support NASA’s belief in the ship because “it is in lacking proofs that they are not lacking in sense” (Pascal), and may well be the case should we apply Pascal’s formula: if they believe and the ship makes it then humanity is saved; if they believe and the ship does not make it, then humanity is assuredly doomed. Since either Pascalian quadrant denoting disbelief will not yield an attempt of the ship to make it or not, there truly remains but one other option which is to not believe, in which case humanity encounters peril in the face of global warming whilst NASA attempts to build a new spaceship. But having evidence that the current ship is too old for use, is the 50/50 chance of the ship making the journey any different than the 50/50 chance that there will be time to build a new, and safe spaceship? Yes actually, there is a difference. We have already established that catastrophic global warming is absolutely imminent, so everybody on Earth is going to die no matter what. We have the ability to salvage our species by sending 100 of us out into space; the people whom we choose will not perish to global warming. So we have two potential parties, Earthers and Spacers; the Earthers are going to die with 100% certainty, the Spacers have a 50/50 chance of survival. Based on the evidence before them (NASA) that the only potentially surviving party may have less than an optimal chance of living out in space, it is morally obligatory that NASA take the time to build a new spacecraft and give the Spacers the best chance possible. The evidence is not always evident, but it is evident whether or not there is evidence to be had. Perhaps in another Universe there are laws of faith which make the most sense, but in this Universe, our Universe, the necessity of evidence is evidential.

Works Cited

Clifford, William. “The Ethics of Belief”. Philosophy of Religion 5th ed. Michael Peterson, William          Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, David Basinger. Oxford University Press: New York, 2014. 103-            107. Print.

Pascal, Blaise. “The Wager”. Philosophy of Religion 5th ed. Michael Peterson et al. Oxford                        University Press: New York, 2014. 100-101. Print.

Mastery

Cyril C. House
Philosophy
11/09/2014

Mastery

       Does life have a meaning? If so what is it? I cannot presume to theorize on such a vast subject. I am however capable of theorizing the meaning of a single life, more particularly, my own. What I can tell you about my life right here and now is that it does have purpose. I can prove that my life is meaningful due to the concepts of mastery and unity.

       Let us begin with some exposition: I am a recovering drug addict. I started doing drugs around the age of fourteen and absolutely fell in love with them. It started out harmlessly enough with heavy drinking combined with the use of marijuana, cocaine, and ecstasy. My life was manageable for many years and it would not have been out of the ordinary for me to have one day simply stop partying and start a family, as many of my associates from that era did. I, however, was in love; I progressed into heavy use of methamphetamine and barbiturates. The people I then associated with were lifers, many had ten to twenty years under their belt and although these persons' often fantasized about quitting, one can only go so deep before it is too late.

       I have always wanted to make a difference. When I played sports, as a young lad, I annihilated my opponents (did all I could to do so, at the very least). Many times after a match, the opponent would be left not only physically, but emotionally violated as well. I made sure of it because I wanted to create experiences in others' lives that would be difficult for them to forget.

       So it was that I took to my addictions. I studied the workings of the streets and the philosophies of underground business and I strived to excel, thinking I could make a difference in how the industry was run. I exceled, straight down; straight into the clutches of the demon known as meth addiction.

       Without writing an autobiography here, one thing led to another and I knew I had sunk too deep. I was deeper than many around me whom I knew would never come to surface if they tried, but my stubbornness had me swimming like a mad man for the shallows. I made it there, but not without help. I had many encounters along my perilous journey with masters that taught me the tools, and tricks of the trade, I would require if I desired to feel the warmth of the sun again. I encountered other addicts who held long-term sobriety. As well as psychologists, therapists, and counsellors who had never used drugs but had studied the effects of them their entire life. I absorbed the teachings of them all, entirely, and took that which I had been taught and modified it to suit me more properly.

       Here I am now, I have escaped the treacherous depths of the ocean and the last beads of salty water have long since evaporated from my skin. I am now a master in one sense, having surmounted such an insurmountable toil, although in another (sense) I am but a child. I have lived my entire life amongst the drug sub-culture and to now live without it is to know nothing of the world around me. I must learn to walk, talk, and think again; as though I never knew how to do these things in the first place.

       The concept of mastery is not to have mastered some thing or another and it is not to be the best at some thing. The concept of mastery is to possess the tools/abilities to overcome, and to teach those tools to those without, to give back that which you have been given; to complete the circle. I strive for this every day. I mentor young men who seek to achieve the things I have achieved and I encourage and embolden them with new strengths, fresh perspectives, and hope to accomplish that which they have set out to do. I expect nothing in return, save that they too help those beneath them to rise up.

       Albert Camus speaks of “a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, [in which] man feels alien, a stranger” (Camus 644). When I was young, very young, the world was filled with bright lights, and curious scents, and interesting sounds: wee-ooh wee-ooh! I was filled with wonder and awe and would fall asleep at night imaginatively wondering what could possibly be the cause of such great and incredible things. As I grew older I came to understand that the bright lights were focused electricity, the curious scents were just food being cooked in peoples' homes, and the interesting sounds would happen because some person somewhere was hurt or in trouble. All of my illusions and lights were stripped from my universe as I came to comprehend the simplicity of them. My peers were fascinated with all these phenomena, yet I did not think they were so special anymore. It was as though I had been divorced from the natural order of things. As though my “heart vainly [sought] the link that [would] connect it again” (644). When drugs came along, they lit my world back up. Suddenly I could experience things that had no explanation. There was no way to describe, or explain, or reverse-engineer the occurrences of an ecstasy trip or an ether binge. Life was wonderful again, I was again at one with nature.

       Absurdity stems from the juxtaposition of man desiring to know the meaning of the universe, with the universe providing no meaning to find (SparkNotes 4). In recovery we are faced with the absurdity of desiring to stay sober forever juxtaposed with the unfathomable concept of forever. To combat this absurdity recovering addicts are advised to take it one day at a time. One need not think about tomorrow, as it has yet to come along. This takes a huge amount of pressure off an addict struggling with an attempt to comprehend never getting high again. Instead it allows one to think ‘I can get high whenever I want, just not today’. In a similar fashion I have divested my own curiosity of life’s meaning, of life itself. I focus on the meaning of today, does today have meaning? Yes because I am doing what I want to be doing. So just as staying sober for a day at a time can bring about a lifetime of sobriety, so too can finding meaning one day at a time bring about a meaningful life.

Works Cited

Camus, Albert. “Life Is Absurd”. Philosophy: The Quest For Truth. Louis P. Pojman, Lewis Vaughn.        9th ed. New York: Oxford University Press. 642-647. Print.

“An Absurd Reasoning: Absurd Walls”. SparkNotes Editors. “SparkNote on The Myth of Sisyphus.”        SparkNotes.com. SparkNotes LLC. N.p.. N.d. Paragraph 4. Web. September 2, 2014.

Lasker's Rule

Cyril C. House
Philosophy
08/10/2014

Lasker’s Rule

       A hot topic on the philosophical table is whether or not to act in a manner which maximizes happiness. Utilitarianism is a theory which approaches this very subject. Utilitarianism is the philosophy that every individual should act in a manner that distributes the largest amount of happiness over the largest percentage of the population. For example:

[s]uppose a raft is floating in the Pacific Ocean. On the raft are two men starving to death. One day they discover some food in an inner compartment of a box on the raft. They have reason to believe that the food will be sufficient to keep one of them alive until the raft reaches a certain island where help is available, but if they share the food, both will most likely die. Now, one of these men is a brilliant scientist who has in his mind the cure for cancer. The other man is undistinguished. Otherwise there is no relevant difference between the two. What is the morally right thing to do . . . if you voted to give the food to the scientist, you sided with the teleologist, the utilitarian, who would calculate that there would be greater good accomplished as a result of the scientist getting the food and living than in any of the other likely outcomes (Mill 520). 

I do not believe this philosophy is entirely accurate.

       My own philosophy of happiness is not unlike Utilitarianism, except for the crucial point which proposes that one should sacrifice for the happiness of the majority. I believe one should sacrifice solely for the happiness of one’s self. If sacrificing for the happiness of the majority somehow benefits one’s own happiness then so be it, but I do not believe that the layman ought not fight the doctor over the last meal on the raft, for the layman’s happiness is worth just as much to the layman as the doctor’s happiness is to the doctor.

       Happiness is like a game of chess: maybe your opponent’s queen-piece is vulnerable and you take it out: score for you! But in doing so you, unknowingly, leave yourself vulnerable to a checkmate. Maybe you really enjoyed taking out your opponent’s queen-piece and that is all that mattered to you at the time but it is my opinion that in all cases of and the like, one would best enable one’s own happiness by sacrificing the spike of joy in the moment for the more subtle joy of winning the match. Happiness of the future must be anticipated and prepared for in the present. It is more felicitous to propagate a lower mean of happiness over an extended period of time than it is to acquiesce some sublime happiness for only a short period, and I can prove so by detailing an instance of life which I am sure most, if not all, are familiar with.

       Let us talk about drugs. People take drugs because drugs are awesome and they make you feel great! Why then is there such a stigma attached to drugs and the drug-culture? Perhaps this topic will be more easily absorbed on a more local level: alcohol. Alcohol is a fine example of a drug. It has less stigma associated with it than methamphetamine or heroin, although in many ways it is much more treacherous than the two combined. In any bar on any given night one may find anywhere from a handful to dozens of individuals indulging in alcohol, and if asked why most would reply that he/she is ‘out having a good time’ or ‘relaxing after a hard day of work’. Whether they are in a relaxed mood or an excited mood, the underlying lure is the same: happiness. People are happy when they enjoy themselves and people are happy when they are relaxed. So if alcohol is the source of happiness then it would be perfectly logical for everyone to drink alcohol all the time. This is called alcoholism and in theory it is a brilliant plan, in practice however we see a great deal of divergence in the expected results. Quickly one goes from a state of impaired motor function and slurred speech, which can be both fun and humorous, to a state rife with headaches, vomiting, and unconsciousness. If that is not enough to disparage one’s state of happiness, and alcohol continues to be consumed over a long period of time, one can expect to experience: liver disease, nerve damage, sexual dysfunction, brain damage, and cancer, just to list a few. Alcoholics make a deal with the devil when they drink, they trade a lower average level of happiness over a long period of time for an extremely high average level of happiness over a short period of time. I do not think any anecdotal evidence is required to convince you that the former is the lesser evil by far.

       I can demonstrate my argument again from a different perspective, the perspective of relationships. An intimate relationship between two partners can fabricate a great deal of happiness. As a relationship progresses however, it requires more work to sustain the happiness it provides. Often times there are periods of time within a relationship that the happiness being presently ascertained is dwarfed by the potential happiness one might procure from another partner. In such cases infidelity seems to be the logical course of action. Many people choose to act in this way which seems so logical to them at the time. When their partner discovers the infidelity however, the logic which they acted upon no longer seems as sound. Their current partner will typically terminate the relationship, which leaves the infidel with even less happiness than they had within the lull of the relationship. Perhaps they could engage in a new relationship, spiking their happiness, and continue in such a cycle. This is, once again, a valid theory but much less viable in practice. As the infidel continues in such a manner he/she gains a reputation as an infidel, and as such becomes less attractive to potential mates. Each time the cycle completes itself it becomes more and more difficult for the infidel to attract a new mate. Theoretically, after this cycle completed itself so many times, the chance of the infidel finding a new mate becomes nil, as does the chance to escalate their own happiness. Once again we can see that the lower average level of happiness over the longer period of time (staying committed to the original relationship and forgoing any acts of infidelity) is the more beneficial.

       I have already stated I believe the layman has every right to fight the doctor over the food because the layman’s happiness is just as important to the layman as the doctor’s is to the doctor. The layman’s happiness to the doctor in such a situation is effectively nil, as is the doctor’s to the layman. What this suggests is that happiness is subjective. Were the two both going to survive then one’s to the other would increment, yet it would still be from a purely subjective point of view because now the one would need continue to live alongside the other and thus the other’s happiness is influential of the one’s and so it is that we should go about life. Happiness will not be subject to an objective moral standpoint, as happiness is a purely subjective experience. The only logical reason for one to attempt to please another is because we all must live together and our environment is a major factor in our quality of life (happiness). One can do everything in one’s power to make another happy, but if the other decides they will not be pleased then nothing one might do will change their mind: happiness is a subjective experience and therefore cannot be subjugated to an objective moral standpoint. Do everything you can to make yourself happy, but keep in mind that the environment is a major contributor to your state of affairs and that other people are major contributors to your environment.

Works Cited

http://www.drugfreeworld.org/drugfacts/alcohol/short-term-long-term-effects.html. N.p. 2006-2014.          Web. 07/10/2014

Pojman, Louis P., Lewis Vaughn. Philosophy: The Quest For Truth. New York: Oxford University            Press, 2014. Print.

Ignorance Is Bliss

Cyril C. House
Philosophy
21/01/2015

Ignorance Is Bliss

       Plato’s The Allegory Of The Cave suggests to us that life is similar to being chained within a cave, knowing only darkness and shadow, and only as we pursue higher intellectual thought are we freed from these bonds and able to wander out of the cave to view things as they truly are. At first glance, it is suggested: just as a man coming out of a lifetime of darkness in to one of light would be momentarily pained, bewildered, and in disbelief; so too is the case of a man coming out of a primitive acceptance of the world into higher planes of thought and understanding. For example when a child is young and he (or she) is ‘within the shadows’ about the nature of Christmas. He (or she) believes that Christmas is a day when a jolly fat man travels the globe distributing gifts to all the boys and girls. As the child grows older he (or she) comes to realize that Santa Claus is nothing more than myth and folklore. When the child finds out he (or she) has been fooled for all these years and one of the child’s favourite people is actually not even alive, he (or she) is bound to be distraught. After some time in mourning however, the true nature of Christmas (family, sharing, caring et cetera) will be impressed upon the youngling and over time it is this function (of Christmas) which will come to hold the truest merit in the child’s mind. Does this mean that once a child discovers that Santa Claus is not real that the child has escaped the allegorical cave and is now subject to solely pure knowledge? Of course not. For there is always some other thing which humans do not know or understand and in every instance of discovery is unveiled a dozen more instances of questioning. It is as if one is within the belly of a vast cave infrastructure and with each new discovery one climbs into other parts of the cave system which are progressively brighter as one goes along, yet nowhere is there an opening which grants access to the surface. Escape from the cave is not only impossible, yet also absolutely incomprehensible. It is only happiness which prevents us from going insane trying to get out.

       “Wealth consists not in having great possessions, but in having few wants” (Epictetus 1). Epictetus is not talking about monetary wealth, he speaks of intrinsic wealth; happiness in other words. Happiness seems to be a sort of internal force which prevents one from looking too much into things. Happiness is often invoked by the setting of goals and subsequent achieving of them. For example one might set a goal to become a student of Philosophy before one turns thirty years old. If at twenty-three years of age one is accepted to college and begins to take Philosophy classes, then all the criteria for the goal has been met and one thus experiences happiness. While experiencing happiness one is not terribly compelled to seek happiness, for it is already with them. As time goes by the happiness requisitioned from achieving a goal will begin to fade and one must set and achieve another goal to refurbish the happiness. The process of happiness acquisition operates parallel to one’s journey through the allegorical cave system: one desires to escape the cave and one finds a way out into another room. Although the brightness of the new room is often debilitating at first, it ultimately gives way to happiness and one is content to remain in the new room for a time. After some time however, seeking new pleasures, one inevitably wanders further along into an even brighter room and though it is, again, shocking to behold, it ultimately gives way to happiness. What it is that I am suggesting is that happiness is in fact not an end, yet is simply a force to obscure our comprehension of there being no end. This is perfectly logical considering the processes I have just put before thee: we set goals and achieve them to attain happiness, only for the happiness to give way to a further desire. So if one were to achieve the ultimate happiness (stepping completely out of the cave into broad daylight), when that gave way to a further desire what then? Try to comprehend exiting the outside; to be outside and need to go out- it is unfathomable, the mind cannot grasp the concept and so it does not allow one to put oneself in such situations. Therefore every question we answer our mind asks us a dozen more. Each time we walk from one dark cave to another not so dark cave: a dozen cave mouths appear for us to walk down next, growing exponentially each time.

       It is not possible to leave this cave we find ourselves in. We may venture all around and go in any room of the cave we so desire, but we may not leave; there is no way to leave even if we tried. Regardless of the allure we have to achieve that goal (of stepping completely outside), the mind cannot imagine such a place (as is demonstrated by the previously mentioned thought experiment) and the mind cannot create what it cannot imagine. Therefore no such place exists, the cave is all there is and all there ever will be.

Works Cited

Plato. “The Allegory Of The Cave.” Pojman, Louis P. et al. Philosophy: The Quest For Truth. 9th Ed.        New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. 18-21. Print.

“Epictetus.” BrainyQuote.com. Xplore Inc, 2015. 21 January 2015.                                                              <http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/epictetus384225.html>

I.D. Please?

Cyril C. House
Philosophy of Religion
15/10/2015

I.D., Please?

       Intelligent Design is a fascinating topic of conversation, fascinating in that it remains to be a topic of conversation. This debate may be seen to be quite present in the Dover Trials, as is reported on in NOVA’s Intelligent Design On Trial (Nova). Even in the face of staggering amounts of empirical data, logical explanation and theses, there remain to be a boggling percentage of advocates for Intelligent Design. “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection” (Intelligent Design). Intelligent Design theorists claim there is evidence that natural selection is incapable of supporting many features of the world; they are wrong. Their need for the comforting embrace of ‘a loving Father’ or a ‘promised land’ lead these people to ignore the facts put in front of them which discredit their claims. I will discuss a few of these topics herein and the reader will see plainly that the ideas of Intelligent Design theorists are not only archaic, but entirely irrational as well.

       “Scientists of the 19th century correctly observed that if a person were so unfortunate as to be missing one of the eye’s many integrated features, such as the lens, or iris, or ocular muscles, the inevitable result would be a severe loss of vision or outright blindness. Thus it was concluded that the eye could only function if it were nearly intact” (Behe). Behe’s argument here is inherently contradictory, he attempts to explain why evolution does not support the functioning eye, yet his statement directly supports the evolution of the eye. Evolution is a series of minute changes over many generations of an organism which cumulatively add up to create a noticeable difference in the organism’s ability to interact with its environment. Behe claims that the eye could only function if it were nearly intact, and that if it were missing one of the major pieces that it still could ‘see’ but with an extremely reduced quality of sight. So let us imagine the eye 100, 000 years ago as having a few less pieces than the contemporary model and we shall call this a ‘simple eye’, now Behe would agree, based on his own conclusion, that the simple eye would still work; not as well as the current model, but nonetheless it functions to some degree. As man goes about using this simple eye the brain is sending energy to operate it, but things are stressful 100, 000 years ago and at some point the brain feels the need to redirect energy normally reserved for operating the simple eye, now to the legs for increased capacity to escape threat. Suddenly the simple eye is attempting to function on 80% of its required energy load, and due to an equilibrium effect in the system the simple eye incorporates some new method to make the best use of the energy it has and here is developed some new crutch (or ‘piece of the system’) to do so; after a myriad of generations of course. The new eye now operates at 100% of the energy it is given, which, with the extra piece, is 100% of the energy it now needs. Another untold progression of generations down the line of this organism’s existence, security is increased and so the need for an increased capacity to escape threat is accordingly decreased. The brain says ‘Oh excellent, I can redistribute energy back towards the eyes’, and does so, leaving the eye with 120% of the energy it needs to operate. Again an equilibrium effect occurs as we progress down through the generational mixes, and the eye, begins to ‘see better’ by burning off this extra energy in using its pieces more effectively. Rinse and repeat this process and one is able to see how an eye might evolve from Behe’s “severe loss of vision” into the ‘intact eye’, for intactness is a matter of perspective: surely when the eye was no more than a light sensitive spot on the face of some organism, it was then to be considered intact, and only as it acquired a more complex construction could it be considered to be anything less than it was and therefore ‘not intact’, but by that point we have already debunked Behe’s myth.

       Another claim by Intelligent Design theorists is a teleological argument stating that “[d]esigned things must have had a designer, and that designer must have had a very great intelligence and created the universe purposefully” (Simanek). The assumption herein is that generally organisms, and especially so in the case of human beings, are beautiful constructions of tissue put together in such a poetic way as to allow for independent motion, choice-making, and in the case of rational organisms, a human can:

“Represent to itself complex states of affairs, including non-actual states of affairs, that are strikingly remote from its present sense-perceptions . . . It can desire that certain states of affairs be actual and others non-actual . . . It can devise plans of action that draw on its beliefs about which states of affairs are actual and non-actual and probable and improbable and about the logical and causal relations that hold among both actual and non-actual states of affairs, in order to attempt to cause states of affairs it values to become actual” (Inwagen).

       In fact organisms are suited so well to their function that such an occurrence, say Design Theorists, could only have been orchestrated by some supernatural force: some ‘Designer’ who intended it all and consciously saw to its becoming. Again I reject their claims and appeal to the forces of evolution, for it has been inductively proven time and time again that evolution is the process of killing organisms which are less suited to the environment than their peers. After six to seven million years (Smithsonian) of killing off the organisms which are less suited to the environment than their peers, exactly what is it one would expect if not a remaining group of organisms which are each highly adapted for very specific functions and set near-absolutely into their own environment? This in no way suggests a Designer, the explanation is simple: organisms die, and some organisms die more easily than others, and when the dead leave behind more suitably adapted kin the status quo of ‘good enough to live’ is raised, rinse and repeat over six million years and the result is a bunch of organisms attempting to keep up with a severely high status quo, yet wielding the attributes to readily compete. The rebuttal of Design Theorists will be to state that it is God, or rather The Designer, that put these systems in place in order to achieve such results; the most accurate refutation of such a claim is stated by Matt Dillahunty: “[t]his is not a Universe fine-tuned for life, this is a life fine-tuned for its Universe”.

       These are two, of many, points made on behalf of Design Theory and the remainder are just as easily disproven. Intelligent Design flies in the face of, or rather crawls at the feet of, modern science. Science is the mechanism with which we are able to deduce claims about the world in which we exist, we can see the things we wish to make claims about and we are able to confirm these claims by means of scientific inquiry. Design Theorists make immense claims about the nature of existence, grounded in supernaturalism, yet to this day there is no known mechanism with which we may verify any claims about the supernatural world. There is absolutely zero empirical evidence to support the claims of Design Theorists, and their opinions are therefore unintelligible; it is difficult to comprehend that so many contemporary minds are influenced by the jargon of Intelligent Design.

Works Cited

Bdw5000. “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial (creationism vs evolution)”. Youtube. Nova          Institute, 03/11/2011. Web. 20/10/2015. URL = https://www.youtube.com/watch?                                v=x2xyrel-2vI

Behe, Michael. Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference. 2015. PDF file.

Dillahunty, Matt and John Morrison. “A Debate: Does Science Point Us To Or Away From God?”.            Red Deer College. 17/10/2015. Debate.

Inwagen, Peter Van. “The Inhabitants of the World”. Metaphysics. 4 Ed. Westview Press, Boulder,            CO, 2015. 183 – 188. Print.

N.a. “What Does It Mean To Be Human?”. Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History.                    13/10/2015. Web. 19/10/2015. URL = http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-                              evolution-timeline-interactive

N.a. “What Is ID”. Intelligent Design Organization.  N.d. URL =                                                                  http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

Simanek, Donald E. “Intelligent Design: The Glass Is Empty”. Lock Haven University. 01/12/2012.          Web. 19/10/2015. URL = http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/empty.htm

Comprehending The Unfathomable

Cyril C. House
Philosophy
18/02/2015

Comprehending The Unfathomable

       “Religion is for people who are scared to go to hell. Spirituality is for people who have already been there” (Bonnie Raitt). Religion seems to be a source of comfort for certain people. In a world where all one knows is what he (or she) can touch, see, hear, taste, and smell, it is an incredibly daunting feat to think upon that which does not feel, sound, taste, or smell like anything. That is, to think upon death. Death is an incredible thing for it has been an apparent fact of life for as long as it (life) has been around and it is an occurrence which happens right out in the open for anyone to see; available for anyone to readily study. Humanity has been thinking upon and studying death for as long as it has been around and has yet to turn up any definitive answers in regards to what happens to one’s consciousness after death. It is a paradoxical train of thought to try to imagine consciousness simply ceasing. For to imagine requires consciousness, therefore even if one could successfully imagine a lack of consciousness, one would be using one’s conscience in doing so and thus have counteracted one’s own thought experiment before it had even begun. This is precisely where religion comes into such use and applicability. Religion carries an extremely strong connotation of belief in the supernatural, that is a belief that something more exists than what one can simply touch, see, hear, taste, and smell. Most often the ‘more’ which is believed in has to do with either an ‘afterlife’ or a ‘life-cycle’, a way of thinking which circumnavigates the requirement to imagine consciousness ending. Those whom believe in an ‘afterlife’ believe that when the body dies the conscience (spirit/soul/mind et cetera) is transported to another plane of reality where it will exist (consciously) for the rest of time. Those who believe in a ‘life-cycle’ believe that when the body dies the conscience (spirit/soul/ mind et cetera) is recycled and placed again into an entity in this plane of reality, and although the conscience will not recall its time in the old entities, it will nonetheless continue to be conscious. It is a primal instinct built into the brain of all human beings: to fear the unknown. Something which cannot be fathomed by one is a direct example of just that, the unknown, and thus when one imagines (or attempts to at least) a total termination of consciousness after a death event, the mind reacts with fear and as a result seeks ways to avoid that which it fears (the total termination of consciousness). In seeking such ways many minds come to rest on religion in order to avoid the unfathomable conscience termination, deciding instead to believe in ‘iffy’ things based entirely on ‘iffy’ evidence.

       W.K. Clifford argues that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence” (147), this statement absolutely applies to religion. Were I to walk out to my car one morning, put the key in the ignition, turn it and not have my engine turn over as a result, and then for the following two days do the same thing with the same result, I would be mad to, again, attempt to start the car on the fourth day. I likely would be mad for trying to start the car on the second and third days as well! The evidence I gleaned on the first day has clearly demonstrated to me that the car is not able to be started, and by the second day I would have no doubt that my results were not askew. Contrastingly: suppose I walk out to my car one morning, turn the key in the ignition, the engine turns over and I drive to work. When I’m done work I drive the car back home. Would I be a fool to simply assume that when I got up the morning after that my car would once again start? Certainly not, for the evidence supports the contrary. Suppose then that I should desire to believe in God and so I join a Christian congregate. My fellow Christians inform me that all I must do is worship the Lord Jesus Christ (God) and my entire life will be filled with happiness and joy and good things of all kinds, for the Lord is generous to those whom praise. I proceed to follow all the Christian rituals honestly and exactly and fill my heart with an honest love for Jesus Christ. Nothing really changes until one day starts the series of unfortunate events and all these horrible things are happening to me, is my belief in God still justified? Absolutely not! The evidence has shown quite clearly that God doesn’t exist, or if he does he does not exist for the same purpose people believe him to. On the other hand if I were to be in the same situation and suddenly began a series of fortunate events then this would be ample evidence to show that Jesus Christ exists because I love and worship him and magnificent things began to entreat my daily life. They said it would happen and it did: theory, evidence, proof.

Some out there may counter this argument by saying that it does not matter if there is or is not a God: if there is not and one does not believe then no harm nor foul. If there is not and one does believe then the only real cost has been one’s Sunday morning sleep-in time. If there is a God and one does believe then one is rewarded with eternal salvation. If there is a God and one does not believe then one is reprimanded with eternal damnation. Obviously on a cost/reward matrix one may as well believe in God. This is called Pascal’s Wager, after its founder Blaise Pascal. There are however, two fundamental issues with Pascal’s Wager:

1> Faith to a religion costs a whole lot more than just one’s Sunday morning sleep-in time, religion requires one to do life’s actions in a particular way that comply with the faith. These particular ways are often not at all a comfort to the religions followers, for example salat and zakat are two Islamic traditions which mean prayer and giving, respectively, salat decrees that one must pray to Allah five times a day, every day. For someone trying to run a business, or go to school and work part-time, five daily prayers can be a substantial amount of time required cut out of these other responsibilities. Zakat happens once a year where Muslims are required to give a certain percentage of their annual earnings to the faith, once again it is clear to see how this might impede a struggling school student or a man trying to feed his family. If Allah does exist then these are minor prices to pay for salvation, but if not then these become hefty prices for the average man’s life.

2> The second, and truly the most instrumental, flaw with Pascal’s Wager is that it assumes that God, if God so exists, is a ‘P.K.G.’ God, that is an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being. It must be supposed that this is the case because if God is not P.K.G. then God is not God. The problem here lies with the fact that God is inherently all-good, and if God is all good then there is no reason to suppose that He would be judgmental of others. What I propose is that if there is a God and if there is a heaven and if when people die they go to this heaven, then there is utterly no premise to suggest that God would turn anyone away from his Promised Land, for He is not judgmental, he is all-good. Therefore whether one believes in God or not, if there is a God then one will undoubtedly be admitted to the Promised Land.

       To summarize, even when dealing with something as circumstantial as religion one ought not believe something which is not supported by evidence. Should one believe something which presents evidence contradicting its existence or function, then one is a fool to continue to believe in that thing until such a time as an ample rebuttal of evidence has suggested otherwise.

Works Cited

"Bonnie Raitt." BrainyQuote.com. Xplore Inc, 2015. 10 February 2015.                                                        http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/bonnierait387304.html

W.K. Clifford. “The Ethics of Belief”. Louis P. Pojman, Lewis Vaughn. Philosophy: The Quest for            Truth. 9th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. 143-148. Print.