Ugh

I woke up this morning sick. It was that sick one contracts when they sleep in a drafty room, the nasal area feels raw. This has lead to a sore throat, head ache, body ache, etc. I just feel under the weather.

I was late to Phil - I would have been (just) on time, however my normal parking lot was shut down. I had to park in the far south area - and walk back to Preston. I made it in about 10 min. I again decided not to attend music - by the finish of class I was feeling rather under and just wanted to go home.

Instead of going home, though, where I knew I would sit around or sleep, I went to Starbucks and drank some San Pellegrino and herbal tea, while I read Miriam Byrd's essay on Plato (very very interesting). After a few hours of productivity and sitting outside (it was quite nice, I would have liked to enjoy it more), I went home and slept. When I awoke, I felt even worse, and simply couldn't go to the lecture.

I will have to remember to ask Professor Reeder some questions about the essay and, more specifically, Plato. If he cannot sufficiently answer, I will have to contact Byrd (and, of course, apologize for not attending her lecture).

I have some phil. thoughts I would like to work on, but I need to sleep and such. Oh well....

Abortion Arguments

I just completed reading the second response to Don Marquis' Why Abortion is Immoral from the Journal of Philosophy. This response was slightly better than Cudd's (see Ethics blog re: her completely ridiculous and insulting arguments). This philosopher argues that a fetus does not have a future like ours, as Marquis claims.

A fetus cannot possibly have a future like ours, because this would require the fetus to have a mental capacity in which it plans, has intentions, etc. Because a fetus does not always have these features, argues the philosopher (name escapes me and is hard to retrieve), the it does not "possess" a future. When the fetus is capable of thought in some rudimentary sense, then it will obtain a future.

However, this is again moving the argument back to the moral status of the fetus. This response requires the reader to contemplate whether the fetus is, at the time of being an undevelloped person (personoid), a human being and a person at the same time. However, this is again the argument from which Marquis escapes.

Whether the fetus has, at any given time, the ability to contemplate its future is moot. Per Marquis, the fetus has the potential for a future, which should be fulfilled in the passing of time. The fetus' ability to plan for, change or affect this future is unimportant for this argument. Rather, the fetus has a good potential (not necessarily great, one must take several factors, such as still birth, into account) to actualize a potential future.

For the second time, Marquis' argument stands strong against these critiques. Having not taken a public view on abortion myself, and therefore not being extremely interested in what the correct argument is, I am not too disturbed by philosophers apparent inability to confound Marquis.

However, from the stance of Marquis' argument of the "wrongness of killing," I deeple want to find a reasong to prove his definition wrong. Marquis claims that killing is wrong because it deprives a person of a potential future, which ought to hold things such as experiences, enjoyments, activities and projects. This theory, at the moment, is very seductive. For some reason, it makes sense, and I cannot immediately think of a valid and sound rebuttal. Unfortunately, the argument is DEVASTATING to my moral theory, which (the short version), claims that all morality is a result of our duty to propagate the human species.

If killing is wrong because it deprives someone of their future life, the definition comes into conflict with my previous idea - that killing is wrong because it eradicates what might be a potentially important member of our species. However, if the ethical wrongness of death is involved with what is important to the individual rather than to the aggregate whole of humanity, many of my other theories fall. In the Duty Theory, human life is important because we must {instinctually} continue human-kind. However, in Marquis' contention, human life is important to the individual more than anything, who others, specifically, potential killers, must respect.

I would find it easier to absorb this theory into my contractarianism, however, the problem of duty still vexes me. I am excited to possibly learn from this - it is important that I find holes in my argument for morality so that I can ever improve my thoughts. However, I thought that I had put an adequate amount of thought into my theory as to keep it from being toppled so easily. I worry that I may be mistaken in many other aspects.

Writing Skills

I am currently sitting in my bedroom at 2:45 am. I was 45 min late to work today due to oversleeping. I am quite unhappy with this - not because of the writeup, rather, I fear that I am slipping into old ways. I began this semester in a rather satisfactory manner, however I can feel myself going back to the slothly habits in which I once conducted myself.

This began (slowly) about 2.5 weeks ago. I was starting to fall behind in reading - not required readings for courses, rather the extra information I had taken upon myself to study. I was not keeping up with articles, watching the news, and I was even starting to get up a bit later in the mornings. This week has been the worst of the semester. Because of a)computer issues and b) lack of serious motivation, I did not start writing my essay until Sun. Even then, I did not spend a whole helluva lot of time on same - rather, spent a few min at a time while multitasking. Not long after, my monitor went out again. Curse.

I decided that although I needed to work hard on this essay, I expected my laptop to arrive around 1 pm the next day. I was perturbed to find I did not receive my new toy until about 4:30. I spent 2 hours setting things up, and then had to be at work at 7:30. Tuesday, I went to a study group for the essay, but found that we really did not work to hard on our topic, rather discussed the random phil. questions that came to mind. Josh Usry, a classmate, came to the session, and was quite refreshing. He was intent upon staying on topic and did his best to work on the paper. I think he got frustrated and decided that he was going to get nothing useful from sticking around. Pity.

I went home, changed, and went to work (to close, and therefore not allow more essay writing time). During the session, I had only gotten a basic outline done, and so spent about 8 hours worrying myself sick over the essay. The next day, I went to class, got done, and went to work (Starbucks) to work on my essay. After about 4 hours of planning, outlining and rough drafting, I went home. I got some laundry done, ate and spent a couple of hours in the evening with friends.

Finally got back to the essay around 10 pm, and then came ill. I worked until 1 am before I had to get to bed and rest. I think I was exhausted and made myself sick because of same - I found it hard to fall asleep. I rose at 7 am to polish up the final draft. At about 8:30, I went to print, had a nice scare when it looked as though my printer was out of ink (thank God it continued).

I then took my astro exam (no more than 1hr studying -eek. Oh well, intro level astro....I should survive). I came home, knowing I had one more day off work. Nothing productive! Didn't go to Friday class (I slept past 8:30 for the first time all semester, weekend or weekday), which I felt refreshed me. Last night, Paige and Matt came over and spent the night, but I overslept and was late to work, as pointed out earlier. This was a shock - I didn't go to bed extremely late - I just slept! I really do not wish to go back into my old habits of irresponsibility - I liked the momentum I built.

However, I have been reading some of the accomplishments of my professors - these gentlemen astound me at what they seem to have the energy for. They are highly published, quite obviously well read and seem to be the pinnacle of responsibility.

To further worry me, I read a disturbing blog written by my professor. He expressed his ire at us (students) regarding out writing skills. He explained the problem with typos, spelling, voice, etc. I should make clear - I have not written a scholarly essay in nearly 2 years. I realized immediately how rusty the skill had become. When once I could write 10 pages on any topic within a few hours, I found the 7 or so hours spent on this essay excruciating. When I reread the essay today, I immediately found an error in the intro (I believe it was a mistake in cutting and copying). Of all places, it was in the first or second sentence.

Anyhow - I will feel very lucky to get a high C, low B on the paper. To my standards, my own work was unacceptable. I hope that I can pick up my pace again and get my ship righted. In reading my Prof's blog, he mentioned his distress that students could make it to the university level with the writing skills demonstrated - I actually remember as a freshman in 2001 feeling the same sentiment. If there was one thing I could do, it was to write a coherent essay. I fear the skill might have escaped me.

Another point in the blog - he said that to keep his writing ability sharp and honed that he had written something every day of his life since the age of 15. I therefore resolve to a) write something, anything, be it working an essay, blogging here, an email to an editor everyday (within reason) and b)read at least 2 scholarly works a day, be it periodicals, journals, books (other than JUST novels), current events, etc. At the age of 21, it is a damned good time to begin taking my ability to think and understand the world to the next level.

Hmm - after looking at the size of this blog, I believe I have practiced quite enough for tonight (this morning?). I do hope that this blog will post, its size being formidable.

Currently listening to: Adiemus Adiemus, Brian Tyler Children of Dune, The Killers Mr. Brightside

Currently reading: Edith Hamilton Mythology, Plato The Life and Death of Socrates, Plato The Republic, James Rachels Elements of Moral Philosophy, Myriam Byrd The Summoner Approach: A New Method of Interpreting Plato

Goodnight.

Gravity and Expansion

In my useless planetary astronomy class today (I hate learning about the planets - I want astrophysics and cosmology back), my teacher, who is an astrophysics major, mentioned the universal life cycle. She said that we know that the universe is expanding, and there is no end in sight.

This got me to wondering - if gravity (which we cannot define, other than an idea and it's effects) is all reaching, regardless of being an endless force, shouldn't we depend on the big crunch? I then took into account the Theory of Anti-Grav, a polar opposite of the Theory of Grav (sorta like Matter/Anti-Matter), and wondered which of these two forces wins out in the end.

For me, I would hope that Grav beats it out - a big crunch is a more satisfying death to the Universe than a cold freeze. Better to go out with style than to fade away into oblivion.

Animals as Food

Today, in Ethics, my professor asked a question - "Can you think of any moral code in our current society that you would particularly like to see changed?"

When nobody answered, he presented one - the treatment of animals. He also happened to post a small treatise on his opinions (I will not post a link, as I do not have his consent). To paraphrase - he believes that it is morally wrong to cause pain to any other sentient being, and, because animals are sentient beings, they deserve a right to life.

Of course, I must post a response (although I am quite positive his blog receives more traffic than mine).

I acknowledge the fact that animals are sentient beings, and can suffer as humans suffer. And I hold their life in the same regard as I hold human life.

However - I must define the regard I have for human life. I view humanity from the perspective of someone having a large interest in cosmology and the philosophy thereof. As far as my logos is concerned, I do not hold humanity is any sort of divine regard, any more than I do a sponge in the ocean. I prefer Hume's view, that "The universe has the same regard for human life as it does for the life of the oyster." (If this is misquoted, I will revise later - I do not have any of my resources with me at the moment as I am still forced to use a public computer). This does, for anyone who wants to come back at me, apply to myself.

I am also a contractarion at present time. That is, I believe that I have entered into a social contract that prohibits me from taking human life (barring certain exceptions, such as a threat to my own life). I have many other moral beliefs for things that happen - but that is for another day.

Regarding animals, I have entered into no such contract. I do not feel obligated to these animals to maintain their life/happiness, etc. as I would other humans, with whom I am contractually bound. I therefore find it acceptable take their lives for the benefit of my own nourishment. I do understand that I could find same nourishment from alternative sources, however, I happen to be pleased with my current choice and am in no way compelled to alter my decision on a moral basis.

As a note, however, I feel compelled to say that, as personal tastes based largely on my ethos, I do prefer to afford animals with some comfort. I do believe in more humane methods of obtaining this meat and have respect for each animal that becomes nourishment to me. For instance - I will not by chicken from Pilgrim's Pride, as I have first hand knowledge of what the chickens go through. I prefer more organic methods. I also prefer to obtain and eat meat that I or someone I know have actually hunted - I can then rest assured that the animal is fully made use of, without it's sacrifice being in vain.

I do not feel that animals are on earth to serve as a resource for humanity (I have learned that this is call anthropocentricity). I do, however, feel that all sentient beings on earth are important to each other, relatively speaking. I could even argue that non-human animals and humans are equally important, as far as their lives are concerned - simply that I have no contract with animals prohibiting me from using their corporeal bodies for my gain. And because it is impractical for me to enter into a contract with these non-humans, the only way I can see this happening is for my social contract with humanity to be ammended - an ammendment I would prefer not to see (again, personal tastes).

P.S - It would be interesting to test my logic against cannabilism - frightning, but interesting.

P.P.S. - I should have addressed this on a serious note in my passage - there is absolutely no pun intended with the word "taste" when used here. I mean my personal preferences, not the sense of taste.