Book Review: Schooling in Capitalist America

Book Review:

Bowles, Samuel, and Herbert Gintis. Schooling in Capitalist America. New York: Basic Book, Inc., 1976. 1-340.

I read the book, Schooling in Capitalist America, written in 1976, by Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis. Bowles and Gintis present their argument that American schooling systems inhibit social mobility by encouraging social growth. They believe that the schooling systems promote capitalism in the work force because children are being groomed for the capitalist economy throughout their entire schooling career. The book outlines the distinct characteristics of a capitalist economy and proves how America is becoming more totalitarian and molding its citizens into working capitalists.

Throughout the book, Bowles and Gintis try to prove their correspondence principle, “…Schooling has contributed to the reproduction of the social relations of production largely through the correspondence between school and class structure.” (130) They believe that the school systems force their students to become a part of the economy by preparing them for the work force. They suggest that teachers represent a manager over the students much like a boss controls their employees. The authors demonstrate how students are classified and rewarded according to their personalities as well as their work ability. The schooling system works to justify economic inequalities and has been coined, the “great equalizer.” Bowles and Gintis believe that the schooling systems only add to the inequalities in American society because it separates good students from poor students, in an effort to try to allocate economic positions. Repression and inequality is not blamed on the schooling system, but on the capitalist economy.

Gintis and Bowles argue that the Capitalist economy forced schools and work places to produce people that will contribute to the prospering economy. Accordingly, it is evident that Capitalist economies are more focused on the profit and outcome, rather than the human need. They argue that Capitalist economies work oppositely of democracies because Capitalism is focused on profit. Thus Capitalism centers on the minority, which is managers and capitalists, rather than the majority of the work force.

I found this book to be a bit dry in the beginning, but as I continued to read it, it began to grasp my interest. I found in interesting to read a critique of the American schooling system from an outside perspective. I believe that Bowles and Gintis are correct in the way that our schooling system prepares us for the work force and separates the students by their ability to perform. From my perspective as a student, I feel as though I have experienced the pressures of being formed into a worker for the Capitalist economy, but I view this as a positive outcome of my education. However, I found the preparation for the capitalist economy is more focused at the college level than in pre-k through twelfth grade. After reading this book, it made me take a different view point about the American economy and how our schooling system supports out Capitalist tendencies.

Freud's Theories

I agree with Allan Hobson, that some of Freud’s work is out dated since his theories date back to 1895. Although Freud’s theories seem obsolete, I agree with Soames, that they still have merit. I believe that the mind continues to work and think while we are sleeping, and thus I agree with Soames completely. It is evident that during sleep many people’s brains allow them to do things that they wouldn’t do during their sleep. I believe that Freud’s theories about dreams are correct, and that we are in a different state when we awake. Dreams seem to be a way for dreamers to clear their minds and do what they desire. It is evident that people’s dreams have some connection with their lives, and thus have intrinsic value as Soames stated. Soames is correct that dreams need to be interpreted, and that Freud’s theory of hallucinatory is correct. I believe that dreams can present something to us and that usually we need to decipher what the dream really means. Although Freud's dreams are a bit out dated, we should not throw them out. I believe that although Freud's theories are not extremely scientific that he had brushed the surface of something very important and that someone needs to complete and expand on his theories.

Random Firing

I was disappointed we could only spend one class period on the debate between Allan Hobson and Mark Soames about Freud’s theories on dreams, because I found it very interesting. I found Hobson’s argument to be scientific, yet very strong. I partially agree that our dreams are random firings, but I also agree with Soames, that Freud was correct in believing that dreams explain a lot about our lives. I sometimes think that dreams are random because when I try to recall my dreams they seem to be very random and they don’t make a whole lot of sense. Also when recalling dreams, I have a hard time remembering the entire dream because various parts are missing. So I am torn between Hobson’s and Soames’s beliefs on dreams, I would like to believe that they have meaning and are not completely random. I do not believe that reoccurring dreams or the dreams I have that reflect on my day’s experiences are random at all.

Hobson exercises the notion that we are story loving creatures and argues that we make sense of these random firings through stories. But I have always believed that our dreams are thoughts that are trapped in our self-conscious and make their way through our dreams. We save ourselves from ourselves through dreams by confronting our demons in our dreams where we are safe. I think about the dreams that I have had that stick out in my mind, and I can see all of the different demons that show up in my dreams. Now, these are not monster demons, but fears that I have as a human being. One of the biggest fears that I have is death, much like the rest of the human population. Many of my dreams I have had to decipher in order to better understand them, like Soames suggests that we need to do. Sometimes our thoughts in our self-conscious come out in dreams that we have a hard time understanding. But once we interpret the dreams, it is easier to understand what are dreams really mean.

Moral Rights

We watched the film, “No Dogs or Philosophers Allowed” in class, and it left me with a few ideas. Are moral or legal rights more significant? It is evident that moral and legal rights are completely different and have different meanings. Legal rights are the rights that everyone has and that are generally used in court and law. Moral rights are a bit different and usually need some interpretation. I believe that both moral and legal rights are important because sometimes people’s beliefs are over shadowed by legal rights. Although someone’s moral beliefs may be different that their legal rights I believe that they should still have to follow the law, because after all it is the law. And we also have the option as Americans to voice our opinions about what we do not morally believe in. But if we gave more power to moral rights over legal rights, complete mayhem would be the result. We are given legal rights and laws for a purpose, and although moral rights exist, they are just a means to support legal rights when needed.

Entertainment value or educational?

Acompora related zoos to pornography by the way that nonhumans, or animals, are changed into a different image much like the way that women are given a different image in pornography. I believe that zoos are similar to pornography in the way that wild animals are forced to live a certain way than what is natural to them, just so that humans can gaze at them. It is evident that animals in zoos are completely innocent and have no choice in their inhabitance at the zoo. Pornography is a bit different, people that participate, do it by choice. Although, some argue that people get stuck in the porn industry because of drug and money problems.

Many people try to justify zoos as places with educational value. I see the educational value in zoos, but unfortunately zoos are not used for this purpose by the majority of the general public. Most people go to zoos just to see wild animals. And, quite ironically, people do not view true wild animals, but only images of what humans desire to see. While some people go to read the information provided about the animals, most people just walk around and avoid the learning experience. In this sense, zoos are much like pornography because they are for purely entertainment value.

An Image of a Wild Animal

Acampora’s essay has definitely grasped my attention with the regards to zoos being pornographic. When I first learned of his comparison of zoos and pornography I was a bit shocked because I have never thought of zoos as obscene and offensive. Rather, I have viewed zoos as educational areas where people can see animals and converse with other people. I would have to agree with our class discussion that circuses are much more pornographic in the sense of forcing animals to be un-natural. Circuses force animals completely out of their habitat and natural state. By forcing animals to perform and do things that humans desire to see, they are taking the animal’s freedoms away. Although zoos take animal freedoms away to a certain extent, it is not nearly as bad as forcing an elephant to dance and do tricks that are out of its’ norm.

Zoos take away animal’s natural rights and animals are turned into something different than a natural wild animal. Ironically, people go to zoos to see wild animals because they wouldn’t normally be able to see them. Therefore, zoos create an image of what wild animals look like, much like the way pornography creates an image of women. Animals in zoos do not have a choice to stay or leave because they are caged in. Similarly, people are also forced to remain the pornography business due to poverty, drug addiction, or other factors. Therefore, I agree with Acampora’s claims that zoos are pornographic, but I still do not consider zoos to be as obscene as pornography.

Zoos are pornographic?!

Ralph Acampora depicts zoos to be overly pornographic and demeaning to animals in his essay, “Zoos and Eyes: Contesting Captivity and Seeking Successor Practices.” When I first read the title of the essay I was confused as to how an educational facility would be portrayed as pornographic. According to www.dictionary.com, the definition for pornography is: –noun obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit. I found this interesting because I do not think of a zoo in this fashion. Acampora suggests that Zoos take animals out of their natural state and force them to be what humans’ desire. He said, “they are visual objects whose meaning is shaped predominantly by the perversions of a patriarchal gaze.” I agree that zoos take animals out of their natural habitat and force them to live awkwardly among other zoo animals, but I do not see this as pornographic. I agree with Acampora when he makes the connection that both pornography and zoos alienate their subjects and force them into non natural situations and expect them to perform a certain way. But I do not agree that zoos are completely pornographic, they are learning facilities that are not obscene in any way.

The unexamined life

In class we spoke briefly about one of Socrates famous quotes, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” I have always enjoyed this short quote because it forces you to think about and observe your own life. Although many people believe that Socrates may have been looking down at the lower classes that are stuck in turmoil, I believe he was challenging people to live their lives to the fullest. Although the lower classes may be stuck in the fields working all day, they can still flourish within the life that they have. Even if you work in the fields every day, you can still think and use your mind for different reasoning skills. I believe that Socrates was challenging humans to not become lazy and not use their minds. The mind is an amazing thing and it is a shame when people do not take advantage of it. I have always thought of Socrates quote and forced myself to go beyond what I usually would. I think you can interpret this quote anyway that you choose, but I believe that Socrates was trying to encourage people to better their lives. You only have one life to live, so don’t shouldn’t waste it, live it the way you want to.

A Necessary Evil?

I believe that working is a big part of everyone’s life, and that is cannot be avoided. Although it would be more appealing to go to work if you were not “alienated,” but it is something you must do for survival. Work is a necessary evil in order to live and it is necessary in order to accomplish life goals. In today’s world everything costs money, and thus we must work in order to earn money. Therefore, work is a part of us, and will be until the end of our lives. We must except that work is a part of us and that we are dependent upon working. I agree with John Locke, that we wouldn’t work unless we had to.

Although this seems very true, I feel as though we prepare our wholes lives to work and after retirement we can only enjoy the rewards for a small amount of time. It seems as though we are prepared for the work force from the time we are younger all the way throughout our lives. Today, most students only attend college so that they can get a higher paying job with their degree. Sadly, our entire lives are devoted to working so that we can enjoy a small ending. As disappointing as this is, it is reality. I’m not saying to accept the fact that we cannot change this, but unless we can find a way to make money and not work, there is no solution. Perhaps I will find a job in the future that will be fun and feel like I am not working.

Is there a way to avoid work?

Many people view work as a means to an end as well as a way to pleasure. Work can be viewed as pain and as humans we try to escape pain and thus working can be viewed as alienation. College can also be viewed as a means to an end because college is associated with making more money in the work force. The human race is always trying to better their lives and work towards having a pleasurable end. I completely agree with Marx, that people are continually preparing their whole lives for a small pleasurable end. Most people begin working when they are still teenagers and work throughout their lives until retirement, so that they can enjoy the remainder of their lives. Although I believe working is important and that it is critical for survival, one can never know when he or she is going to die. Therefore, someone could work hard their entire life and never be able to enjoy their hard work. Our society is programmed to be successful and to work hard in order to have a pleasurable end. Unfortunately, this desirable end comes with many costs and hard work that force people to become alienated by their work. Today, society is encouraged that you have to go to college in order to get a decent job. It seems as though people are only attending college so that they can work towards the pleasurable end that they desire. I believe that Marx is right when saying that work alienates us, and that we might be working towards something that we cannot enjoy. But I believe that we have to work in order to survive, and that there is no way to avoid working.

to work or not to work?

I found this article very interesting because I sometimes view working as pointless and as a means to an end. I agree completely with Bentham, that we are pleasure seeking individuals and that we try to avoid pain when possible. It is evident that this motivates us and that work helps individuals seek pleasure, although it can be stressful, annoying, and tough. It is evident that work helps us satisfy our needs as well as our wants, so we are pressured into working. Working can be alienating, but I believe that it is partially our duty to the rest of the world to work. Although jobs cleaning up after other people such as janitors and maids are jobs that could be eliminated, most professions provide needed services for people. I do not think that working alienates people because people need to work in order to buy food, keep their house warm, pay bills, as well as many other necessities. Working can also be a rewarding experience and force people to work harder and contribute to society. I do not believe that working is negative or that people are working for only the end. I believe that working helps society and that it can build character as well as provide people with goals, assets, and build towards their future.

Theses on Feuerbach

It is clear that Marx’s Theses on Feuerbach is a very significant document. In this critique Marx displays his theory of human nature. He believes that we are partially in control of our human nature. Marx believed that our human nature is formulated by material conditions and that it will condition according to the way that we express our lives. Marx believed the humans were naturally good and that it allows our human nature to flourish. This is a significant document because Marx challenged the way of thinking during his time period, and he challenged philosophers to think differently to try to change the world. By going against theorists such as Kant and Hobbes, Marx encouraged people that they are naturally good and capable to take control of their human nature. Marx concluded his eleventh thesis by challenging people to change the world with the knowledge that they have learned from other philosophers. He was trying to encourage people to be skeptical and to challenge everything that they hear, which will help our human nature to grow and improve.

One determinant?

I have always had a personal theory that we are created by our experiences in our lives. Although there are some other determinants that play a role in our human nature, I believe that personal experiences are the most significant. Although it has not been proven that there is a “nice” gene or personality genes that can be passed through generations, I think genetics plays a small role in our human nature. It is evident that the combination of genes in our bodies will give us the ability to act, think, and perform in certain ways. All of our experiences, whether small or enormous, will cause us to act and think in a certain way, and thus form our human nature. Certain experiences will force people to mature quicker or to see things differently, which directly affect their human nature. These experiences could be your religious experience, work, school, friends, death, as well as many other experiences. Evidently, there are many determinants that play a role in the formation of our human nature. One determinant cannot be held responsible for the way that all of the billions of people on this earth act, think, or perform. It is clear that we develop our morals, ethics, and beliefs all throughout our lives. Thus, these determinants are constantly affecting us and forming us, and therefore one determinant cannot withhold all of these responsibilities.

What determines our human nature?

I believe that the driving facture in determining our human nature is nurture and how we are brought up. It is evident that the way that your parents raise you will directly affect your ability to perform in society. Our parents' care or even the lack of care is not the only variable that plays a huge role in our human nature, there are many other factors. It is evident that perhaps a bigger influence than our elders is, society. We are constantly trying to mold ourselves to be what society wants and demands us to be. Clearly, society and its demands force us to bend and shape into a certain type of person. There are thousands of different variables that play into the overall determining of our human nature and how we act, think, and even learn. It is proven that parents that avidly read and talk to their children when they are younger, their children will have a higher IQ than children that didn’t receive this treatment. Clearly, our parents and society play a huge role in our lives and our human nature. I don’t think that any one determinant can determine what type of person we are going to be or what ethics or morals we are going to have, rather it is a diverse combination of determinants.

In my opinion the primary determinant that defines who we are as humans is social determinism. Clearly, we develop from education, customs, culture, interactions, and many other things. On the other hand, our genetics do not determine what type of person we are. Genetic determinism only determines our genetic make up and they way that we look. Although if our genetics include a disease that greatly affects our lives, it could affect the way we act and live our lives.


I view the environmental determinant as a slightly more important factor in determining our human nature. It is clearly evident that where people live determines how they live and the way that they act and behave. It is proven that people become lazier in warmer climates and that people have better work ethics in other colder climates. Now this is not true of everyone, but it is an overall average. Thus, it is evident that your immediate environment can directly affect the way you act and your social ability.

Language: a determinant?

In class we briefly discussed language as a determinant in the nature verses nurture topic. I believe that many languages are all encompassing and directly relate back to the culture. It is evident that all languages are based upon different symbols and that some ideas and sayings do not translate from language to language. Language also determines who we communicate with, and thus if we are not familiar with different languages we will not communicate with those people. By not being able to communicate with different people we might be missing out on certain ideas and thoughts. Perhaps we are not aware of different thoughts of ideas until we see or hear of them. Therefore, by not communicating with other languages we can inhibit our ability to flourish and thus language can be considered a direct determinant of our human nature.

Continuation of thoughts on torture.

It is clear that torture is frowned upon and is completely immoral. It is undeniable that it is morally wrong to cause and induce constant pain to someone. Some people even consider torture to be worse than killing because the tortured person is suffering and under pain for a long period of time. But there are always exceptions to everything. In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, they is an article about torture, and they suggest the “ticking bomb” situation. It is evident that in this situation one must evaluate which side is the lesser of two evils. Is it morally right to allow thousands of people to die because you cannot get the terrorist to tell you where the bomb is? Or is it morally right to torture the terrorist to receive information on where the bomb is located so that you can save thousands of lives? The answer is blatantly obvious; we must allow torture in this situation to help save the thousands of innocent lives. Although torture is not morally right, in this distinct situation it is the moral decision that will inhibit the multiple terrorists from taking many innocent lives.

Can there really be a middle ground?

My feelings about torture are most consistent with Clarence’s point of view. I believe that torture can be used constructively in certain circumstances. I partially agree with Erica when she says that torture will not diffidently force someone to talk. She also argues that the person in captive may not even have any information to provide. Although this might be true, I believe that in certain situations, this is a risk we must be willing to take. We are living in a world today that is becoming more and more intimidating and we must emplace better tactics that will help us. I believe that allowing torture in situations such as the ticking bomb scenario will greatly help us. I also think that our problem with terrorists is a completely different situation, and it cannot be dealt with like a normal war situation. We must enforce our ability to torture in extreme situations to help keep our citizens, armed forces, and the world safe.

But can there really be a middle ground? How can we determine what situations are worth torturing? By the numbers of people in harm? I feel as though it is a clear yes or no situation. I lean towards Clarence's point of view, but I believe that there must be rules about the extent of torture used.

It is obvious that allowing torture is not ethical in any means. Some argue that torture cannot realistically be used in the real world. If torture was allowed, there would have to be strict rules about the type of torture allowed, how many people are allowed to be tortured, in what situations is torturing allowed, if innocent people are allowed to be tortured, as well as many other rules. But when someone is emotionally attached to a situation and know someone who is in danger, they argue with their hearts, and not their ethics. As Professor Johnson said in class, it’s what people want to do not what they are supposed to do. It is clear that if torture was allowed there would have to be strict rules or else it would get out of control.

Faceless Enemies

Today we watched the documentary, Faces of the Enemy. I found the first part of the movie that we watched to be very interesting. It was a powerful movie that suggested that people all over the world are the same, whether they are enemies, from different racial backgrounds, or if they believe in different forms of government or religion. In this movie all of the different Countries portrayed their enemies as faceless animals or monsters. Evidently, it is easier to encourage your army to kill a group of faceless beings instead of a friends or humans that are just like everyone else.

The soldiers were trained to relate to the enemies as pronouns and not as ‘Joe’ or ‘Mike’ because then killing someone would be much more difficult. By dehumanizing the enemy Countries are able to encourage and instill hate into their armed forces so that they are able to kill. Of course all of this seems unreal, but it has been happening for centuries and is even happening today. Perhaps this is just a way for armies to creatively change murder into killing. As one of the men in the video said, that only a soldier knows the fine line between murdering and killing. I believe that because the soldiers are instructed to kill the enemy, that it is not considered murder. I have nothing against our armed forces; rather I completely support and honor their hard work to protect our Country. But I did find this movie to be very interesting because it showed how all of the Countries deface their enemies to encourage hate and hostility against their opponents. I may be unaware, but I do not believe this is occurring in our world today, like it did during the World Wars and the Cold War. Perhaps new war tactics and different ways to deface our enemies have been developed in today’s world.

A Useful Scare Tactic?

The death penalty can be a very useful scare tactic that a state government can implement. But as we discussed in class, does Texas have less crime than Massachusetts? It is evident that there are different demographics and other elements that affect the crime levels in these two states. The question is if the death penalty discourages people to commit crime in Texas. In states like Massachusetts that do not execute the death penalty, it is said that people are more likely to commit crime because they can live a decent life in jail. People that live on the streets or have a poor home life may commit a crime to go to jail so that they have shelter, food, and warmth. On the other hand, people that live in places such as Texas that use the death penalty, discourage people from performing crimes because their lives will be at stake.

Although the death penalty seems like it could be useful, it also has many downfalls. The biggest argument with the death penalty is that innocent people can be killed. There may be plenty of evidence that someone is clearly guilty, but we will never actually know the truth. A great movie that shows the problem with the death penalty is, The Life of David Gale. This movie displays how an innocent man was sent to death because the jury believed that he committed the crime, when in fact he was completely innocent.

As discussed in class, racism can also play a huge role in the decision of the death penalty. Clearly this serves as an enormous problem because if a state enforces the death penalty, they cannot be racist when choosing who is going to be killed by the death penalty. Many minorities are put on death row simply because of their racial background. It is evident that there needs to be something done about these problems so that the death penalty can be enforced with faith that it will constructively discourage crime all over the United States.

God has Provided us with Animals

Animals play a huge role in our lives as a source of food for survival, companionship, entertainment, as well as many other purposes. It has been proven that the presence of animals brings happiness, helps with stress, lowers anger levels, and helps reduce the possibility of suicide in inmates. The animals seemed to help replace voids of family members and other companionship that these inmates have lost. It is evident that animals provide affection and other emotions that we cannot always receive from other humans.

The idea of humans having ownership and rule over animals is deeply rooted in religious tradition. In the Bible, God tells his people that he has provided them with animals to use for food and for pleasure. In the Genesis 9:2-3 it says, “All the wild animals, large and small, and the birds and fish will be afraid of you…I have given them to you as food, just as I have given you grain and vegetables.” It is evident that the Bible encourages its readers that the animals were put on earth by God for food, just like the wild vegetation.

The documentary showed the tradition in Spain of running and eventually killing a bull through the streets. Throughout the year there are more than four thousand of these traditional fiestas. These traditions of torture are done in the name of God or a celebration for God. Clearly, Christianity encourages the use and pleasure of animals, but do they encourage torture of animals? It is evident that in Spain, these torture sessions are traditional, so they argue that God and the Bible approve of it. But in the United States and other areas that have a vast population that practice Christianity, do not have traditions of torture. Perhaps, this torture is a part of the Spaniards culture and has been entwined with their religious beliefs.

Human Use and Abuse of Animals

The documentary, “To Love or to Kill, Humans vs. The Animals” was a very graphic depiction of human use and abuse of animals. I found this movie very interesting and informative. The movie not only showed the type of animal treatment in the United States but also other Countries around the world. The United States is always targeted for our poor treatment of animals and Countries such as Spain and China are over looked. It is evident that this animal abuse occurs all over the world, not just here in The States.

I found the documentary to be slightly biased. It seemed like they tried turning everything into abuse of animals. I do not believe that hunting is abuse to animals, rather it is population control. There are specific areas of land, times of the year, and specific rules that are clearly spelled out to hunters. The movie depicted hunting to be an angry sport by which people hunt animals just to watch the animal die and suffer. The men that were killing the animals in the movie were enjoying watching their prey undergo pain. Hunters do not wound the animals they are hunting to watch it suffer. There is an enormous difference between hunting and what was depicted in the documentary.

I did find the pidgin killings to be a bit excessive and abusive. But I find myself asking why these people are allowed to do this? If this is animal abuse, why are they allowed to do it? If it was abuse, wouldn’t it be outlawed? Perhaps it isn’t outlawed because the animals that they are killing are lower on the animal chain. I completely agree with the Rabi, the United States is not consistent with the differentiation of animals and pets. We allow slaughtering of cows for food but frown upon slaughtering of horses. Why? We need to develop a better system that will clearly state what animals are pets and what are for food and “our enjoyment.”

The Chinese are very consistent with their culture, because there is no difference between animals and pets. Everything that moves is considered food in their culture. There is no difference between cats, dogs, frogs, beetles, snakes, or any other animals, they are all necessary for their survival. Although this seems outrageous to us, their system eliminates the doubt of animal abuse. Even though their culture seems consistent, I still find myself squirming at the thought of killing kittens for food.

It was interesting to watch everyone’s reaction during the Chinese section of the movie, because no one could watch the TV. I found myself relating the kittens and cats to my own pets at home, and I’m sure that’s what everyone else was doing. It is evident that there has to be a line drawn between pets and food. We obviously need animals for food and our survival. (You may disagree if you do not eat meat.) So something needs to be done to decide what is morally and ethically right.

Levels of Morality

It is evident that not all people and non-humans receive the respect and justice that they deserve and demand. In Miller’s essay he concludes by saying that all humans and non-humans are entitled to degrees of consideration, respect, and justice. I agree with Miller that we need to have respect for everyone. It is clear that I am going to have more respect to a being of my kind because I have more in common. Evidently, non-humans are not capable of making their own decisions and doing things of their own, so we have lower standards for them. Non-humans do not have the capability to make moral judgments or know the difference between right and wrong. Although there are animal that seem to be highly intelligent, they do not understand when they are doing the “right” thing. I believe that animals respond and learn from rewards or punishment. A ‘smart’ animal is going to keep performing an action that rewards him/her with treats. Or, naturally a dog is going to be less likely to keep going into the trash if he/she is severely punished each time. Although it is proven that animals are intelligent beings, they are not at the same meta cognition level as humans.

morality of humans and nonhumans

There are various levels of competence that exist between all humans and nonhumans. There are three distinct different levels that help us distinguish between moral agents and moral patients. The lowest level of moral ability is cognition, which is a being knows but they do not understand how. This is where most people place animals and other nonhumans. The other divisions are meta cognition and moral reflection, which is where humans fit in. It is clear that nonhumans do not have the same thought capacity as humans, and thus they do not have the ability to make moral or ethical decisions. It could be argued that animals have some of the same thought qualities as humans but they do not understand the difference between right and wrong. Thus, some higher intelligent animals can be labeled as ‘quasi morality’.

Even though every living being on earth does not have the same capabilities, we all deserve respect. Miller suggests in the end of his essay that all humans and nonhumans are entitled to degrees of consideration, respect, and justice. I feel as though this is important for everyone to understand, because everything no matter its competence, deserve respect.

Middle Ground Must be Found

We cannot be certain if there is a definite supernatural world, but it is clear that naturalism and supernaturalism will never be able to coexist peacefully. Although we cannot be certain, it is evident that the idea of the supernatural world forces us to challenge ourselves and try to go beyond what we are capable. This incredible world helps people place faith in something important and encourages them in most cases to be a better person. So even though the natural and supernatural world will never be able to coexist peacefully, it is evident that both worlds are necessary and required by the human race in order to remain flourishing and successful.
Religion provides people with a stable philosophy, guidelines of how their lives should be lived, personal support, and happiness. Our governments also provide us with key qualities that influence and enhance our lives. It guides us to success by providing us with rules and laws, protects us from our enemies, and grants us with everything we need to enhance our lives. It is evident that both religion and government help shape our lives in unique ways and that we cannot live without one or the other.
So then the question arises: where does morality come from? Many argue that religion teaches us between right and wrong and demonstrates to us what makes a good person. Governments also provides us with laws that clearly display to us what is right and wrong, and punishes us for wrong behavior. So which one provides us with morality, supernaturalism or naturalism? It is clear that not all people are religious, and that they still have good morals and know the difference between right and wrong. Therefore, we cannot conclude which side provides us with more morality and guidance to be good and ethical people. It is also clear that all religions and governments do not provide their followers will the same “ethical” support.
So it is apparent that we can still have virtues and morality without religion, but it is evident that religion is demanded and needed by a vast amount of people. Although naturalism and supernaturalism cannot coexist peacefully, we should find a medium between the two extremes to help continue human flourishing. By finding a middle ground between religion and government we will be able to benefit from what both sides have to offer.

We are encouraged

I do not agree with Clark, naturalism and supernaturalism cannot coexist peacefully. In our world and society today, we are encouraged to voice our opinions and demonstrate our beliefs. It is evident that both supernaturalism and naturalism do not have any parallels and as a result conflict drastically. Science and faith do not have same common ground and thus their followers and advocators have conflicting beliefs and views. But because science is more hands on and the proof of science can be seen, more people are eager to trust and support naturalism. Clearly, there are too many differences between the natural and supernatural world for it to coexist peacefully. Nationally, we try to separate church and state, but we still struggle everyday with keeping religion out of our government. Even worldwide there are problems with religion and different governments. I don’t know how these two worlds can exist peaceful together when the religious world cannot come to terms. There has been and seems like there will always be continual religious wars. It is clear that if the supernatural world is at war, then it will not be able to make peace with another enemy. Moreover, how can we be certain that there is a supernatural world? There is no scientific or hard evidence that there is a supernatural world. Do some humans believe and wish for a supernatural world in hopes to find a happier life? Perhaps some people believe in the supernatural world because it gives them hope and security. Or was the supernatural world created for people to try to find happiness and create false-hopes? I guess we will never know if there is a definite supernatural world, but we know that naturalism and supernaturalism will never be able coexist peacefully.

Are we completely determined?

I have thoroughly enjoyed this week’s discussion on free will, as it has forced made me think about all that life has to offer. I have found myself questioning my existence here on earth, and what purpose I serve. After Wednesday’s class, I found myself believing that the world is completely determined. It is evident that all of our so called choices are somehow affected. Whether we are persuaded by rules and laws, human behavior, the weather, or even science, all of our decisions involve some amount of persuasion.
In class we came up with the conclusion that ethics is impossible because they must be freely chosen, and thus ethics and morals are only illusions. Though this conclusion is defined, I still struggle with putting my arms around the determinist theory. I feel as though we will never really know if we are choosing our decisions freely, or if our actions are determined. But either way, I have always thought that some of my actions are my own choice. I believe that we have some choices in our lives, but that most of our life has already been determined for us. It is evident that we will never be free of the causality in the world because are fully involved in it.

Recap/Expansion of Q&A 1

I would like to expand and recap my Q&A number one, as a slight, yet brief introduction to philosophy. It is evident that philosophy can be divided into many different sections. Traditionally, philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato divided philosophy into sub divisions such as ethics, physics, and logic. Philosophy is known as the love of wisdom, or the examination of our existence, knowledge, and ethics. I feel as though there are too many different layers and branches of philosophy to draw in a simple diagram. It is clear that everyone in class had their own views of how philosophy can be sub-divided. But it seemed as though we were able to somewhat agree upon a few different divisions. Ethics, logic, and meta-physics seemed to be most popular divisions.
Since the study of philosophy is never limited, I found it difficult to divide philosophy into distinct sections. I believe that all of our questions about our existence can be related back to the study of knowledge. Evidently, when I drew my philosophy diagram, I made logic the center of all the sections of philosophy. Ethics, politics, esthetics, free will, and all of the other aspects of philosophy could not exist without epistemology, or knowledge. So the question arises, is there definite lines of where philosophy ends and begins? Philosophy could be suggested as the study of everything that we have encountered in our lives as humans. It seems as though all of our different aspects in life and existence relate back to logic.