Is hunting morally wrong? (QA7)

Hunting on the most basic of levels seems to be justified in terms of past historic conditions. Today, however it seems to be more a pleasure with game hunting and such (and of course we have poaching which is wrong morally and by the law). I was discussing this topic with my housemate who is a environmental studies major. In the past hunting was a way to get one’s dinner for the night. Native Americans would hunt buffalo by herding them over cliffs, yet they still had a deep connection and respect for all things around them. In regards to ethics today, it seems that the killing of animals is immoral. I still eat meat, although have considered becoming a vegetarian (although I will never eat veal), but I don’t think there is any way to justify my actions in support of killing for food when there are so many alternative ways to still get protein. In the same way, I supposed meat is similar to smoking cigarettes; you know you shouldn’t smoke, but you smoke anyway [if you are a smoker]. 

Game hunting I initially thought was an immoral practice, although their are some benefits to hunting which may assist with protecting the environment. To this extent could hunting be a force for good paradoxically? Fisheries are created for the breeding of fish in lakes which are in turn helping population control by rising populations of fish in ecosystems. Many of the fish die on the way of transport, but the ones that survive go and replenish the stock of the wild. Now it may seem that hunting would be bad in this aspect as it is depleting the stock, but the agencies that are replenishing may very well be putting more fish in lakes and rivers and, therefore, actually helping the environment. This is all funded by hunting associations which, I assume, are required to regulate hunters in the first place so environments can be protected.

It seems then that game hunting can help keep environments functioning, which thus protects animals and biodiversity, which is then morally good. Although a some fish have to die, the greater goal of keeping the ecosystem functioning and healthy keeps alive, which is similar to many situations in historical circumstances. Could we get to a point however, where instead of having regulations, people are just eager to assist the welfare of the environment because they know it is for there own benefit? That seems to be the biggest problem of our age and a constant threat to the ideas of big business which we are forced to bow down to. 

Q&A#6 Question Two

Is our ‘experience’ within the block the closest thing we can get to reality?

The experience we are living seems perfectly real to us (as long as we allow to not question it), but is there a way in which we are actually able to understand what is out there? We have touched on this question in past discussions such as with time and supernaturalism vs. naturalism, but we still seem to be at a standstill for a real answer. Since we can’t arrive at an answer it seems that everything is a matter of opinion which derives from our experience. It seems then quite easy to say that our experience is the closet thing we could get to within regards of reality. Everything is really just a concept, but now this sounds like constructivism/idealism. At the same time though, the conclusions we come to take to be real through the interactions of others shows that their must be some kind of consistency “out there.” Since now it seems it is just our experience at play, it seems ignorant to take any one side too highly and should agree that maybe there is a harmony between the two, or until there is we can really never know for sure.

Q&A#6 Question One

Can one actually change his/her life (have free will) and thus use discretion/judgement?

If we bring to mind the “eternalized” idea of the universe then free will is just an illusion. If our universe is developing as it progresses then we could possibly have a choice in what outcome the universe has by consciously making decisions, but to some degree it would be influenced by the past no matter what. Where the distinction of whether this means we can have a choice is still debatable though. Since we can not be sure of if this reality actually is progressing or has happened, whether your a realist or a constructivist one would have to admit that what we see is just an illusion whether the ‘material world’ is actually there or not. For the realist should know objects are made of atoms so to some degree it is an illusion, while the constructivist would be in favor of an illusion regardless if it actually there. Is there a way then that makes sense for us to use judgement, regardless of if it is an illusion or not? I would say yes. 

In Pedro Calderon de la Barca’s ‘Life is a Dream’ he brings up the idea that life is merely an illusion, interestingly enough though he suggest that there is free will (or at least the illusion of it). In his play though, a king is told by the oracle that his son will grow up to kill him. The king now frightened locks his son in a tower and tells his people his boy died shortly after his birth. The boy grows up in the tower thinking this is reality. The king now plans to tell his son of his heritage so he has him drugged and to wake up in the palace. When the son learns that his tower life was not the ‘real’ reality he gets outraged and acts out. The king fearing his own safety has his son drugged again and brought back to the tower. The son wakes up and begins to cry as he can’t tell if what he was just living was a dream or not. From then on he decides to do good at all times, for he would never be able to tell whether anything is really just a dream or real. To this end, we can assume that whether an illusion or not we should use our judgement (regardless if this too is an illusion) for the sake of good and therefore are forced to use our discretion . . even if it is just an illusion. 

I dream that I am here

of these imprisonments charged 

and I dreamed that in another state

happier I saw myself.

What is life? A frenzy.

What is life? An illusion,

A shadow, a fiction,

And the greatest profit is small;

For all of life is a dream,

And dreams, are nothing but dreams.

Q&A#5 Question Two

Can time be slowed down by our mental processes such as in a state of nirvana? 

Nirvana is essentially a state when you are in complete harmony with the world around you and due to this everything slows down to an instant which would seem like an eternity (this is how I have come to understand it). This seems rather impossible to most people (for those who think time is a physical time is real) as time seems to move at a pretty constant rate, at least in the physical idea of it. Psychological time would then need to come into play when talking about Nirvana. This is because it is effecting the subjective experience of the person. For instance, when I am on stage or acting, time seems to become irrelevant and usually altered. If you mess up, or there is a gap of time when a line slips, that moment seems at least three times as long than the audiences perspective of what it actually is. Or you can just be acting and time seems to have gone by in a no time at all.This must be due to the adrenaline and your brain function during that time. 

Now brain function is composed of neurons and electricity. The appearance of time being longer would then be relative to the activity in the brain at a faster speed. If we think of how fast we can send messages wirelessly today, we see that electric waves move at an almost unfathomable speed. This speed of electricity though is occurring constantly within our bodies and brain effecting how we interpret and interact with the world. If being in a trance like state, such as acting, can effect our psychological time, then why couldn’t a meditation master control his brain functions to the point of it seemingly stopping time? It seems almost unreal, but the experience/state/idea of nirvana to me then seems real and possible, just extremely difficult (why else would so many Buddhists dedicate their lives to becoming enlightened?)

Q&A#5 Question One

Was there a beginning to physical time?

        I do not think that there could be a beginning of time. If we look at time as going forward, then we see it moves within the confines of a linear fashion. This is because of time, at least in our perspective, of having a “now” (present), past, and future. If we look at an instant however, we can see that it has no real duration. A duration of an instant is always a fabricated measurement by us. Time then is just our perception of change (whatever that actually is) from instant to instant. This would mean then that for physical time to be real it would have to have these instants be connected. This would imply there is a point of contact between the past and now, along with now and the future. If they were connected though, how could any change actually occur? Since an instant has no real duration though how could physical time continue? It seems then that time is only real due to our subjective nature of it. Since it is not real then how could it have had a beginning?

An easier way of looking at this questions is by saying, okay, there is a beginning of time. This for instance could be the Big Bang, but as soon as we have discovered this “beginning” we can right away ask, what came before that? Thus, this idea of a beginning falls flat on its face. In terms of questions then, asking if there is a beginning of time becomes a pointless question.

Q&A#4 Question 2

 Would it be possible for all the people of the world to fall into the idea of internationalism? The idea that everyone is a citizen of the world which they should protect and promote allegiance to. 

        This question is extremely difficult to answer in terms of realistically approaching the situation. Assuming you were able to get away from the problem of having everyone agree on something in the first place I feel this ideology would really have to start with the idea of education. As I may have mentioned in some of my other blogs, assimilation is how people think and act how they do. I feel pretty confident in this idea because how is one perspective more valid than another when you really get down to it? But anyway, onto education. If we taught people a better and more optimal way of living and perceiving it would initially have to start at a young age. This is not in all cases, but in most for they are easily persuaded into opinion and thought. It is also much harder to change the perspective of an adult who is already a firm believer in what it is they are assimilated in. 

What now maybe you are asking would be a optimal way of living and perceiving the world? I would say one that is obviously open to new ideas and not focused on the self, but of helping others (establishing community). A lot of these ideas stem out of Aldous Huxley’s novel Island which inspired my idea of how society should be. One of these notions is living here and now, which is a phrase that pragmatic empiricism is fond of. He goes and demonstrates ideas of personality within animal fables that were told to children, which has a more notions of just straight up morality. The book explains that it shows how all people are part of a system, suggesting interdependency and having a sense of where we come from in terms of the environment. Thus, the idea of a citizen of the world, internationalism, is more or less produced for we are all apart of the giant system embedded on Earth. 

They also taught ideas that explain the idea of experience at a young age. Saying that we describe our experiences based on symbols (words) that we can all take from. In that sense, every experience is different from one another’s, and in turn showing that every human is unique, demonstrating the preciousness of human life. The specific example would be that everyone experiences a pinch differently, so today their would be 6 billion unique interpretations of pinch. Another idea is that “All gods are homemade, and it is we who pull their strings, and so, give them the power to pull ours.” To prove this point, the society in the book, makes scarecrows that resemble various deities and gods. It is then that the children in the fields protecting the harvest understand how the ideas of Gods and supernatural entities work. 

Q&A#4 Question 1

Gratitude, in deflated patriotism, is one of the biggest factors of this definition of patriotism. Can gratitude, however, be skewed to irrational forms of thought that could lead to a stronger sense of patriotism?

If accepting the idea of patriotism, the notion of how exactly a citizen of a particular country should act will variate to many different degrees. In the less extreme version of patriotism, the one coined deflated patriotism, it shows how gratitude is a large factor in a particular citizen’s allegiance towards a country. This is because by this reasoning for this kind of patriotism, we are indebted to the country. A citizen should have a sense of gratitude towards his or her country because he was allowed to be born and raised there, learn their values, live there, and in some regard be able to acknowledge that all other aspects of life, in this citizen’s life, were possible due to this place of origin. 

Now this is more or less true, but the real question would be does this gratitude achieve anything? If so, does this gratitude enable a sense of bonding between an individual and their alleged country? Taking into account Socrates, he was more then willing to die for what he believed in. He believed that he was bound to do what is right, and in so doing what was right, he had to achieve just actions. This sense of justice  through action, then would be to obey the law, which is exactly what Socrates does in the dialogue Crito. From this though, we see that even the most legendary philosopher had some sense of gratitude towards his country. 

Is this gratitude dangerous or beneficial then? If this gratitude is complying with laws and justice wouldn’t it surely be good like Socrates? I would say that it could be good if the laws were impartial, but this definitely isn’t always the case, especially today. Loopholes, a great lawyer, and other strange measures can get people around laws and such. In that way, I could not find that laws in our country are particularly impartial because not everyone always get the same punishment. The more money the less punishment is often the case. This then brings me to my next point.

If the laws are not impartial is any good being done? Can any good be done within the confines of unjust or impartial laws? It would seem quite obviously that this could not be so. Our country is formed on the belief that there is equality and justice for all, thus translating that the law and system of America is being impartial. I have come to the decision though, from the last section, that punishment is not always the same based on the crime (especially when the punished has more money). Therefore, our country’s laws and system is not impartial.

If the majority has gratitude towards impartial laws is this beneficial for the country? The beginning of this question I will assume to be true if a citizen were to have a sense of patriotism and gratitude for their country (and for the sake of shortening this blog). It is then that the person, agreeing with what their country is promoting, becomes real. So for Americans, saying that we are a land that gives justice and equality to all is already proven, from my previous statements, to not be true. It becomes dangerous because progress seems to halt and retrogress due to their idea of reality. For instance, if we say we have freedom then we do not. This is because the idea of freedom is constantly changing based on the circumstances surrounding it. Three decades ago, the idea of freedom of information would not seem like something worth fighting for, besides copy right laws and such. Today however, the internet is starting new debates on how information should be regulated and controlled. This can prove though that freedom is not a concrete idea, but something that morphs to its situation. 

By these conclusions it is shown that gratitude may not be beneficial in terms of the greater good of a country. I think Socrates was trying to prove that. He had to die or he would have looked like a hypocrite, instead of a tragic figure. He had to succumb to the injustice of the law in hopes of changing it in the future. Gratitude for one’s country is good, but only in so far as it is able to do good and not bad, as I have hopefully explained. (Unfortunately I feel I have left out other points that could have strengthened this blog post, but I did so in the sake of not writing a novel . . so to speak).