There were so many other things I wanted to write about today, but I can't ignore what happened at Virginia Tech Monday morning. I feel some sort of connection to them, partly on just a human level, but more so on a college campus level. It troubles me that things of this nature are happening in our world and not much is being done about it. But what are you supposed to do? How can you tell who is crazy enough to do something like this? I have had my share of students angry at me for sure, but am I supposed to report them to the police? That would be a little extreme.
I heard one criminal profiler say that she believed that we should arm the citizens. That doesn't sound like a solution to me, it sounds like the old West or the streets of Iraq. I don't want one of my decisions every morning to be, "Do I carry the nine today or do I go with the .22?" And of course, if I am carrying a gun I probably need a bullet proof vest too, and a vest is no good with out some sort of head gear, so here I am in full riot gear getting ready to go teach class. That is ridiculous!
This profiler mentioned other things that I am more inlcined to agree with. She mentioned how much garbage we are allowing into our minds through the internet, movies, television, video games and so forth that we are creating a society that essentially grows sociopaths. I am not convinced that this is entirely true, but I am convinced that it is not entirely false. Evil has been a part of this world for much of its existence and it lurks around finding anyway possible to devour our souls. I think too much emphasis is put on eliminating particular methods and not enough emphasis is put on fighting the source.
Well, there is a lot more to write about, but I am going to have to think about things some more first.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
Hardwired Morality?
So it has been mentioned that my blog is out of date. I have no idea why someone would think that! I just haven’t had much interesting to write about these days, well that is not the total truth. I really haven’t had much time to do any blogging of my own. I do try to make the rounds and read everyone else’s (well not literally everyone).
I end up reading a lot of magazines. I like pictures to go along with all the words so magazines are the way to go for me. I have magazines that cover all sorts of topics, plus every month you get a new one! Well, I ran across an interesting article the other day that made me think some so I will relay the information to you and see what you think.
The article was about having an innate moral code of right and wrong. Of course they were coming at the thing from a strictly evolutionary point of view so they started off base, but I still found their logic amusing. The following scenario was given:
A healthy man walks into a hospital where five people are awaiting organ transplants. The five will die unless they receive these transplants. The question is: Is it ok to kill the one healthy man to supply the five with the necessary organs to live?
Most would say that, “No, that is not an ok thing to do?” Then another scenario is given:
A runaway train is headed down the track and cannot be stopped. There are five people in the direct path of the train and will surely die if nothing is done. An operator can flip a switch that will divert the train to another track where only one person is in harm’s way. Is it ok to flip the switch?
In this case, many would say that, "Yes, it is better to flip the switch and sacrifice the one to save the five." So the question then becomes, what is the difference? Why is it ok to sacrifice one to save five in one case and not the other case? The author's point was that most people couldn’t say why so there must be some hardwired sense of morality in our thought process that has been adopted through evolution and natural selection. They even mentioned that religion had no effect on the answers to these questions.
However, I think there is a flaw in their logic. Actually, I think there is a flaw in the conclusions that are being drawn. I would argue that the results they are seeing are not a hardwired morality, but a reflection of how we visualize a problem. I bet if we asked the same questions with more detail the answers would not be so overwhelmingly lopsided. For instance, what if the one person on the train track was a child and the five were members of a notorious gang? Or what if the five in the hospital were five young adults with gunshot wounds and the one was the shooter? Or maybe the difference is in how the death occurs, one by a speeding train and the other by more direct human intent? Who knows? I think the more intersting thing would be to ask people what they envisioned when these two questions were asked. I at least found it interesting to think about. What do you think?
I end up reading a lot of magazines. I like pictures to go along with all the words so magazines are the way to go for me. I have magazines that cover all sorts of topics, plus every month you get a new one! Well, I ran across an interesting article the other day that made me think some so I will relay the information to you and see what you think.
The article was about having an innate moral code of right and wrong. Of course they were coming at the thing from a strictly evolutionary point of view so they started off base, but I still found their logic amusing. The following scenario was given:
A healthy man walks into a hospital where five people are awaiting organ transplants. The five will die unless they receive these transplants. The question is: Is it ok to kill the one healthy man to supply the five with the necessary organs to live?
Most would say that, “No, that is not an ok thing to do?” Then another scenario is given:
A runaway train is headed down the track and cannot be stopped. There are five people in the direct path of the train and will surely die if nothing is done. An operator can flip a switch that will divert the train to another track where only one person is in harm’s way. Is it ok to flip the switch?
In this case, many would say that, "Yes, it is better to flip the switch and sacrifice the one to save the five." So the question then becomes, what is the difference? Why is it ok to sacrifice one to save five in one case and not the other case? The author's point was that most people couldn’t say why so there must be some hardwired sense of morality in our thought process that has been adopted through evolution and natural selection. They even mentioned that religion had no effect on the answers to these questions.
However, I think there is a flaw in their logic. Actually, I think there is a flaw in the conclusions that are being drawn. I would argue that the results they are seeing are not a hardwired morality, but a reflection of how we visualize a problem. I bet if we asked the same questions with more detail the answers would not be so overwhelmingly lopsided. For instance, what if the one person on the train track was a child and the five were members of a notorious gang? Or what if the five in the hospital were five young adults with gunshot wounds and the one was the shooter? Or maybe the difference is in how the death occurs, one by a speeding train and the other by more direct human intent? Who knows? I think the more intersting thing would be to ask people what they envisioned when these two questions were asked. I at least found it interesting to think about. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)