From human moral to dog bite!!!!!!!!!
7This week I "must" read a lot, and I don't admire it. In mondays and Tuesday, I must review 7 (yes, you don't misunderstand, s-e-v-e-n) articles in academic journals about "retail." But perhaps God still want me to continue my life on this planet earth, so that I have the "rights" to choose them articles myself. Of course, I choose which are easiest and shortest!!! Ha Ha Ha. I did and struggled with them in SLC. Threfore, since he use the computer next to mine, Tung can be a testimony for this case. And eventually I finished it. BravoooooooThe other English (In fact, it's from Korean Newspapers.) article I read this week is about human moral, the outside reading of Listening and Speaking Class. The writer, Peter singer (striking name? :-P) refutes the conventional idea which state that human moral is from culture and learning. On the other hand, he claim that
1) Human have emotional reaction toward "personal" violent rather "impersonal" violent.
2) There is no significant different reaction among different cultures.
Then Singer (sounds like appliance?) concluded that human moral is from genes, not culture, and explained that human develop the emotion toward personal violent since human lived in group. To prevent in-group attack, this kind of emotion reaction is necessity for survival. Oppositely, for impersonal violent, it was very new kind of violent so that human haven't develop the emotion reaction toward it yet.
I cast doubt on this "hypothesis." If this evolutionary statement were true, it would conflict with the ohther existing principle, adaptation. Different group of human live in totally different environment, so why don't they "adapt" to each environment in which they live (If adaptation principle is true). In my very own opinion, I believe (I never do experiment on them like the scientist) that human moral is kind of "programmed." In fact, the second conclusion of Peter Singer strongly support my idea. Because of it's programmed, the idea of moral isn't so much different among different culture. Sound reasonable?
Let me talk about dog bite! In Thursdays night I was bitten by my dog at my home. I have three dogs and two of them are quite big (1 Thai and 1 Boxer). 14-year-old Thai was bitten by 11-year-old Boxer and I tried to pour oil on the trouble water. Consequently, My lower right arm was bitten by Thai dog. It wasn't so much hurt but there were some cut on my arm. After I washed my arm, I don't wanna see doctor since it's expensive but my mon and brother want to. Finally, I saw the doctor in the nearest hospital (I walked to the hospital) and it cost me nearly 2000 Baht. They make the next appointment in Sunday to check up and inject another vaccine but I think I won't go since my dog aren't mad, I sure. But the worse news is that, after being measured, my blood pressure is very high (180/110). Actually, I've known for several years ago. So I think that there is a hidden good thing in this situation since now I've already control the quantity of my diet and cut every thing fatty, sweety and salty (I love them all T_T)
posted by nattyprofessor @ 9:03 PM
1 Comments:
Traditionally, there has been some rivalry between Sydney University and the University of Melbourne. Because of his areas of interest, we used to call him the "veterinarian philosopher". However, he has some fairly deep ideas, especially about the foundations and nature of ethics, which seems to be what you are researching. The conclusions he draws have a habit of upsetting people, as you've probably already discovered. He does not flinch from following a set of premisses to their logically entailed conclusions.
Although I disagree with his fundamental claims about the basis of morality, I greatly admire his work, and have copies of a couple of his books here in Bangkok.
I question his acceptance that evolutionary actuality is an adequate foundation for morality, also his fondness for utilitarianism. I do not dispute that evolution explains fully everything that has come to be in teh human realm: our bodies, our brains, our minds, religion, art, language, and all the rest; however, I am less sure that that fact can properly cover or provide the basis for satisfying account of morality.
I prefer a right's based theory for the foundations of ethics, as any utilitarian or other naturalistic theory must, I think, be subject to the objection that it will always make sense to ask of it:"Yes, but is it right?"
Yes, we are the way we are as a result of three billion years of evolution, but is that fact that this is the way we are enough to make it right and moral?
But this rapidly leads into very deep waters.
Thank you Natt for posting such a very interesting blog.
Post a Comment
<< Home