Philosophy Midterm

I just finished this yesterday and thought it might be fun to post it. If you were wondering what the assignments in a Philosophy class look like, check it out. A lot of it factors directly or indirectly into my writing, surprisingly. Also, note my morally AMBIGUOUS (thanks anonymous poster) replies.

Question: Do you think the world will be a better or a worse place 100 years from now?

I think whether the world will be better or worse in 100 years has a complex, multi-faceted answer. Put simply, the answer is better and worse. Advances in technology, especially in the field of nanotechnology, will improve our lives in ways that not even science fiction writers could imagine fifty years ago. Nanomachines, or microscopic machines, are not just a cool idea but a realistic goal. They stand to revolutionize the way we use medicine to treat people, from diagnosis to full on tissue and organ replacement. It has potentially unlimited applications in chemistry. So too are it’s potential applications in human beings, from helping regulate normal functions to any number of interesting uses, like assisting muscle regrowth to allow people to exercise more often to even possibly augmenting strength, perception, and longevity. Medical technology and knowledge is also at an amazing point and moving at an increasing rate as well. Every day we are getting closer and closer to cures for all sorts of cancer. When HIV first broke out in a major way, it was considered an almost guaranteed death sentence; now, it’s a treatable, lifelong condition, which could very well even be cured in the near future. New technological innovations will allow for more precise machines that will more accurately detect physiological problems. Stem cell research alone makes many advances towards cures viable and reachable within our lifetime alone. Research in telomeres and cell division and degradation could give us insight into how to slow or even prevent aging. Technology is at a very exciting precipice nowadays, and within a hundred years, we could be seeing radical changes in human lives.

On the other hand, as civilization becomes ever more advanced, so do people more and more begin to become alienated from each other. Rousseau’s sentiment of “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains” couldn’t be more right in modern society, and the chains are still primarily man-made. The very same technology that advances us in such amazing ways is also what limits us. Telecommunication, through phones and the internet, has all but removed the need to deal with anyone face to face. Dating, schooling, socializing, all of this can be done without any real interpersonal interactions on a physical level, through usage of the internet. This class is a prime example: while I am learning a lot from the lectures and discussions, in all likelihood I will never meet my classmates or my teacher in person, and if we did, chances are good that we would not even be aware of it. The removal of the physical allows us to build up a persona, to hide our flaws, to essentially gloss ourselves over in what amounts to attractive lies. We can be wittier, we can be more thoughtful; the concealment of our natural reactions to stimuli in real time allows us to project an image that is more rational and stable and definitely more appealing but is, at its base, false. The relationships we make through the wire are safer, and as a result, less substantial. And in this setting we are alienated not only from each other but from ourselves in a certain sense. Technology has replaced the titles and social standing of the past as the primary mask we wear to conceal ourselves from each other, and it’s by far and away more effective. We’re less compassionate towards our fellow man simply because we hardly know him anymore. And in 100 years time, there’s no telling how that state of impersonality will grow and evolve.


Question: If you could wake up tomorrow having gained any one ability, what would it be?

I’ve thought long and hard on this subject before for no real explicable reason other than it is nice to daydream of such things, and the one ability I desire over any other by miles is the ability to live forever. Mortality for me is the most terrifying reality of human existence. The thought that not only do we not live forever, but there’s a very real chance that when we die, we completely cease to exist is horrifying to me. To be honest, I don’t care if after we die, we all go to a giant celestial mine and toil for minerals that smell like dead bodies for the rest of time. I will gladly strap on a miner’s hardhat if it means that I continue to exist in some fashion. If you had asked me what I believed when I was eighteen years old, I would have told you that I was an atheist through and through. As I get older (and I’m only 21 years old now) I find myself wanting to believe more and more that people do have souls, and that there is something beyond this, no matter what it may be. I’m not sure how much of that is based in my own primal fear of death. If I could gain the power to never have to deal with this mortal dilemma, no matter what the means, I would take it without even thinking about it. I once told my mother that I would literally watch every single person in the world die one at a time if it meant that I never would, and I still hold that to be true. True, it is quite an extreme statement, but if you think about it, is there anything scarier than complete oblivion? For me, there isn’t. And while flying, or super strength, or the ability to read minds, or any other fantastic powers might make the world seem more interesting, for me, it’s a waste of a gained ability. To me, the world is more than interesting enough without being able to punch a bus in half or breathe in space. I also acknowledge that this is probably the most selfish power one could desire to have. The intellectual vanity of thinking that I am so important to the universe that I cannot be allowed to die is staggering; or at least, it would be if that were the reason I desired it. This intense fixation of death is interesting to me; I’ve long wondered if it would fade with age. Is it biology that motivates me to maintain my survival at any cost? Is it because I’m young and that’s simply the way a human mind works? Is someone older or at least closer to death more resigned or at ease with their ultimate fate? These are questions I’ve asked myself and cannot seem to find an answer in, except that everyone is different. I’ve heard of children with cancer who die before they reach ten, being at peace with the end, and I can’t even imagine how that is possible. Or is it that my own intense fear is in itself, an anomaly? Surely it must be, if I’m willing to hypothetically throw away the ability to make my life more fantastic, even if still temporary.


Question: For an all-expense-paid, one-week vacation anywhere in the world, would you be willing to kill a beautiful butterfly by pulling off its wings? What about stepping on a cockroach? Would you be willing to murder an innocent person if it would end hunger in the world?

These questions pose an interesting set of moral quandaries. I think that just about everyone would be willing to pull the wings off a butterfly or step on a cockroach for a fantasy vacation – if it were an act that were not witnessed by fellow man. In terms of what is lost, to be honest, the impact would only be felt by an entomologist or a little girl. One less butterfly in the world has zero impact on it, beautiful or not. The same goes for a cockroach, which does not even have the luxury of beauty or even of a favorable reputation. So if one were all alone when offered this deal, I think the person who didn’t act on the offer would be an anomaly. This changes of course with public perception. If the very same individual was offered the opportunity in front of friends, family, or respected peers, I imagine the answer would be very different. At the core, I don’t think people care much about the beautiful things they destroy for personal gain; if they did, civilization wouldn’t be as advanced as it is now. Literally the only real objection standing in the way would be the individual’s ability to live with their sick, selfish, and fairly insignificant action. I think humanity has shown an amazing level of flexibility in that regard. However, I think many people are concerned, even intensely so, with the image that destroying something beautiful for personal gain projects. Especially when the killing is done in the manner a sociopath might engage in. That’s where the self-righteous indignation kicks in, and the offer itself will often be derailed as sick and insulting. To be brutally honest, despite all of the emotional and political costs it would cause me if done in that situation, I would probably still do it, considering the insignificance of the life lost. Unsavory though the act may be. As far as the cockroach goes, to put it bluntly, he really is screwed in this situation. The morality of the situation becomes immediately altered by most of society when the object in question is not only not beautiful, but disgusting and perceived as a menace. I’d step on one just to kill it, if it were in my house. You don’t have to throw a fabulous reward at me. If you can find someone who wouldn’t step on a cockroach, not because it’s gross to but because it’s morally inconceivable, congratulations, you’ve just found one of maybe a couple hundred people in the entire human race who thinks that way.

As far as killing an innocent for the sake of ending world hunger, that is another matter entirely. This one isn’t about personal gain or greed but one of the greater good for the entire race, so to speak. Therein though lies the crux of the argument; does ending world hunger really constitute the greater good, to the extent that one could justify doing something extremely immoral to achieve it? Personally, the answer is no, and for two reasons. The first reason is that to admit that the cost of an innocent life is acceptable is to also say that your own life is, for the innocent person killed could very well be you. I am not willing to make that sacrifice for the good of the untold mass of strangers I’ll never meet. The other reason is that I do not believe that ending world hunger is necessarily to the benefit of the human race. I believe the planet is taxed beyond its means to sustain the human race as it is; the last thing we need is for every single member of the human race to thrive. World hunger is one of the few checks and balances our race still adheres to; we keep curing all the diseases and extending our longevity and nature is not killing us nearly quick enough to prevent our overpopulation. Technology has allowed us to overcome the natural restrictions that were meant to keep us in place, and if world hunger ended, that would be a huge population of healthy, child-having people sucking even more out of our global resource pool. World hunger is one of the necessary evils that help us maintain our existence; at least, for the moment.


Question: If you knew you could devote yourself to any single occupation-music, writing, acting, business, politics, medicine, etc.-and be among the best and most successful in the world at it, what would you choose? If you knew you only had a 10 percent chance of being so successful, would you still put in the effort?

This is an interesting question for me because it’s already something I’ve more or less decided on: I’d like to devote myself to a career in writing. It’s something I discovered about myself in my senior year of high school, and since then it’s been the sort of end goal for me. Writing fiction has been something I’ve been doing since I was about twelve. Of course, I would say that the quality of my writing around that time would be lackluster at best, but time, practice, and exposure to influential writers such as Chuck Palahniuk, author of Fight Club, and William Gibson, author of Neuromancer, has honed my level of confidence and skill to the point that I believe a career in writing is viable for me. For me, the world sort of flows into writing; I’ll see situations happening in my life and see how I can change them, extend them, and make them fit into the context of an interesting narrative. I often like to take long walks, listening to music and just sort of allow situations to happen in my head. I can hear a certain song and be in a certain place and my mind just starts creating dialogue. It’s all out of context of course so it’s my job to assign some kind of meaning to it. I love to watch and analyze films, music, literature, and good television shows especially, because the good ones have some prime examples of character development. Now that I think about it, a lot of the things I do seem to strut the line of crazy; I hear voices in my head, I imagine that my characters are real people (if you treat them as real in your mind then I think they come across more genuinely), and I create situations that have little or no basis in fact and treat them as movements in history. I get sucked into the pathos and trials of these characters that are essentially glorified representations of part of my own personality. I have a tendency to mother them; I find I’m always asking myself, “is this too much or going to far?” or “am I pushing this character enough?” And writing is always dominating my thoughts; how to make characters more human, more real; how to make situations more interesting, how to make interactions more impactful. The presence of success has little to do with it. I don’t much care if I’m a national bestseller or if only a couple people like my writing. For me, the art is paramount, not the profit that comes from it. If I can come up with an idea or a character or a moment that inspires someone, or makes them think, that kind of influence in and of itself is immensely rewarding. And the idea that I could write something that could potentially outlast me by hundreds of years and influence someone who would consider me an ancestor is outrageous, and more than a little intellectually gratifying; although that’s more of a side benefit than the purpose. Success is nice to have, but it doesn’t compare to the mixed feelings of finishing a piece of work. You feel like you’ve given something a complete life; to put it in really self-servicing terms, you feel like you’ve sort of finished raising a kid, a child of your mind. And that’s also a little devastating at the same time, because you feel like when it’s done, it’s done. It’s no longer in your control, the destiny of these fictional people that you made up while procrastinating from finishing a report at work or writing a paper for school. I can’t think of anything more gratifying.


Question: Someone very close to you is in pain, paralyzed, and will die within a month. He begs you to give him poison so that he can die. Would you? What if it were your father?

This is another interesting moral quandary. Is taking someone’s life, or at least assisting, morally wrong if the individual desires it? In my opinion, it’s not. If the last month of a person’s life is going to entail nothing but pain, both physical and psychological, I think the poison is sort of a merciful escape. It’s not for me, nor for the government for that matter, to decide what someone in such a situation should be allowed to do. To do otherwise is to imply that you have some ownership or authority over their life. Keeping someone alive in pain and against their will to satisfy our own sense of morality is not only wrong, but completely unnecessary. As has been previously established, I personally fear death greatly and thus do not entirely sympathize with the feeling of wanting to bring it on sooner, but that doesn’t give me the right to decide who lives or dies in that situation. I don’t think it’s comparable to suicide, because death in this situation is unavoidable and imminent. In literal terms if death is unavoidable than the only thing on the table that differentiates the two is pain, and when you look at it in those terms, it’s hard to say that forcing someone to persist through pain without hope of escaping death is the right thing to do.

When you bring the father into the equation, for me that makes the question more complicated instead of less. I am not on what you might call friendly terms with my father, after all. The temptation of being an indirect cause of pain towards my father is a pleasing thought to me, I must confess, and probably indicative of a problem within my own personality as much as in his. I am not a firm believer in karma, so I believe when the opportunity for comeuppance (or in this case, petty revenge for a childhood misattended) that you have to take matters into your own hands. I find it interesting and a little disturbing that some bad history for me can throw morality right out of the window, but I suspect that this is a very human trait, albeit probably not on this level. My father was/is an abusive alcoholic who got kicked out of my house by my mother when I was three or four; since then, he’s been a part of about 5% of my life, and that 5% has not been joyous. I have three stepbrothers and three stepsisters; due to his wondrous parenting method and habitual tendency to cheat on his whoever his current spouse happens to be, one brother is in rehab, one brother is in Kuwait, and the last is mildly autistic. As for the stepsisters, one is 14 years old and has had not one but two abortions, the eldest moved out and refuses to speak to anyone in the family, and is trying to get custody of the youngest one before she too becomes a product of her environment. The thought of my father dying in pain and alone is satisfying to me; morals are completely irrelevant. He has undoubtedly shaped my worldview, as you can probably discern; I’m honestly not sure if that’s a good thing or not. The more I think about this situation, the more it begs the question to me, of which is preferable: to do what I consider is morally correct, or to throw that out the window in favor of some kind of rudimentary, childish revenge? And what will submitting to the latter cost me, in terms of self-respect and dignity? It’s a question I’m not sure I know, or even want to know the answer to.