An outdated perspective

                 The article White Privilege and Male Privilege by Peggy McIntosh describes a very accurate image on the 1980's and earlier than that. Upon closer examination of the notes section at the end of the paper it can be seen that McIntosh referenced a piece from 1949, thats 64 years ago. This paper was published in 1988 making it a quarter of a decade old. This particular piece doesn't apply 25 years down the road. Although the white male is very much "privileged" in today's society our culture has taken major steps in leveling the playing field of race and gender. There are now laws that prevent unfair hiring practices according to race and gender and other discriminatory practices. Times have changed but that doesn't mean everything is better there are still many things wrong with society but grievance numbers 24, 10, and 6. But also find number 9 oddly funny as that McIntosh's paper was published but I sincerely doubt that an editor will turn down a top notch paper written by a person of color or a woman than a lesser peper by a white man.
               I grew up in a school district where I, a white male, was the minority and then I came to DePauw. There was a huge difference going from the minority to the majority but the only real difference was the amount of white people and their dominating opinions. I find it funny to hear people talk about minorities and stereotypes, while I sit back and laugh to myself. I find this funny because they themselves are fulfilling a stereotype of a rich white college kid. In my opinion stereotypes come from experiences that stick with them, whether it be a personal interaction or media portrayal of a race. The reason why it sticks with people is because generally the loudest and most annoying people are recognized despite their race. But once the loudest and most annoying person is recognized the person observing the situation then associates the person's actions with the race of the loud and annoying person. All the while everybody else that is keeping to themselves and carrying on with their business in a less loud, rude, or annoying fashion are not seen. Once a person creates these stereotypes they will start to look for them in their surroundings. Someone once told me that once you get your first car all you will see are cars like yours. The same goes for behavior in a social setting.
               The only way to break these stereotypes and to end Macintosh's 40 some grievances against the white male is to recognize this and see it for what it truly is. That those who stick out are noticed just like a car going 120mph in a 40mph zone will attract the attention of a police officer more so than a car going 45mph. Once we recognize this we can start to mend the stereotypes in our society so no one is perceived as lower or higher in status because of race, creed, religion, looks, or gender.

The Young and Obese

The food production industry replies to the demands of consumers, but are they still to blame in the childhood obesity epidemic? Is it possible that consumers are not always fully aware of the psychological and scientific manipulation that food companies use in order to even marginally increase their sales? On February 20, 2013, Michael Moss of the New York Times published an article titled, “The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food,” in which he gives several small case studies that show the reasoning behind food production and its sales due to the perspective of an insider from that specific industry. After dealing with some of Moss’s listed case studies, we must each ask ourselves the question: Who is to blame for childhood obesity?

Can There Be Humor In White Guilt?
Austin Fry

In her article, White Privilege and Male Privilege, Peggy McIntosh both analyzes gives detailed accounts of how Caucasians have an easier time in modern society.  She describes white privilege as an “invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, assurances, tools, maps, guides, codebooks, passports, visas, clothes, compass, emergency gear, and blank checks.” (McIntosh 1988, 95) After discussing what white guilt means in society, McIntosh lists off forty six privileges that are given to Caucasians simply because they were born with a specific skin tone.  These reason range from not being hassled by security guards

A White Male on White Male Priveledge

After reading White Privilege and Male Privilege A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences through Work in Women’s Studies, by Peggy McIntosh, I have to admit that I was a little taken aback and I felt almost attacked.  It was interesting how towards the beginning of the paper she said, “I think whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege, as males are taught not to recognize male privilege.” (McIntosh 1998, 95) I must be one of the males taught not to believe that I had any sort of privilege here in the United States because I certainly in no way believe that.  At first the writing as a whole offended me, but then I kept referring back to that quote and thinking that maybe she was right.  It’s probably true that most white people take for advantage the fact that he list of 46 things is actually true and all of those are very applicable. I personally just struggle to agree, and therefore support her theory, that males really have that much of an upper hand in the work place.  She states that “Virtually all men deny that male over-reward alone can explain men’s centrality in all the inner sanctums of our most powerful institutions.” (McIntosh 1998, 96)

The Societal Impact of Outlaw Emotions

           One focus in Alison Jaggar’s article entitled, Love and Knowledge: Emotion in Feminist Epistemology, is the effect of emotions on our moral judgments. Positivists believe that emotions are irrational. This means that the less emotional and biased group of individuals has a claim to power. However, Jaggar offers the audience an altruistic view that claims emotion as an inevitable part of the human construct: “The alternative epistemological model that I suggest displays the continuous interaction between how we understand the world and who we are as people. It shows how our emotional responses to the world change as we conceptualize it differently and how our changing emotional responses then stimulate us to new insights.” (Jaggar, 184) The author claims that emotions are social constructs, but also to some extent active. The keyword here is active, and I believe that this premise can be explained by outlaw emotions described to the audience using feminist examples.

Are Emotions Really Fully Socially Constructed?

Are Emotions Really Fully Socially Constructed?

In my opinion, the most engaging part of Jaggar’s article Love and Knowledge: Emotion in Feminist Epistemology was his section titled “Emotions as Social Constructs.”  Jaggar begins by introducing the possibility that emotions may be instinctive and biologically determined.  This idea claims that we all feel emotions, and these feelings are individually independent of any other person’s emotional experiences.  Next, Jaggar refutes this position and reveals his belief that emotions are actually socially constructed.  He gives several reasons for his belief.  First, he explains that children are “deliberately” taught appropriate responses to various situations (Jaggar 171).  Jaggar continues by explaining how children also are taught appropriate and inappropriate ways to express their emotions to these specific situations.  These responses and emotional expressions can also vary across cultures; similar to the cultural relativist view in ethics.  Jaggar also deduces that emotions involve judgments, which necessarily require concepts (171).  This framework, he declares, can be seen as socially constructed ways of organizing and making sense of the world (171).  This leads Jaggar to conclude that “individual experience is simultaneously social experience” and, inevitably, emotions are social constructs of cultural experience (172).  While reading this section, several things came to mind.  First, I agreed with both viewpoints.  The biological instinctive reactions vary between people, but also most of us channel those feelings into socially (and culturally) accepted actions.  I agree with all of what Jaggar has to say about emotions being socially constructed, except for when he says that the first view is “quite mistaken” (171).  I started thinking about individuals who suffer from emotional and social disorders.  For instance, someone with Bipolar Disorder has a difficult time absorbing cultural norms when reacting emotionally.  Their genetic makeup is different and causes them to experience the severity of emotions in different ways than you and I.  Additionally, people struggling with anger management seem to experience non-socially constructed emotions.  These people have been brought up in a culture similar to anyone else and thus have been taught the appropriate responses to different actions and appropriate ways to express their emotions.  However, they fail to comply with these socially accepted standards.  I am not sure if my analysis on these people is correct or not; maybe the only difference is that people with anger management have a lack of self-control.  Nevertheless, their intense emotional feelings could be a product of their biologically instinctive makeup.  In conclusion, I believe that our emotional feelings are a direct result of our biological genetics mixed with social construction.  I find it hard to believe that someone such as James Holmes (killed people in the Colorado movie theatre) could be the product of socially constructed emotional expressions and reactions.

White Male Privilege: Will It Ever End?

In Peggy McIntosh's, White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences through Work in Women's Studies, she discusses the issues surrounding racial stereotypes and how they interfere with all aspects of life. She first focuses on how white privileges aid some and hinder others. She explains how this racism is dealt with between cultures, and the levels of denial that are in play. In some cultures it is widely talked about with angry voices, whereas others know it's going on, and pretend it does not exist. Next, because she has difficulty studying racial profiling in her own life, she finds this problem parallels male privilege in the workplace. McIntosh then goes on to list forty-six different ways white privilege plays a role in her life at work.

First, McIntosh goes on a rant about men ignoring their privileges. Those that do acknowledge it believe that it won't come to an end. McIntosh writes, 

"Virtually all men deny that male overreward alone can explain men's centrality in all the inner sanctums of our most powerful institutions. Moreover, those few who will acknowledge that male privilege systems have overempowered them usually end up doubting that we could dismantle these privilege systems. they may say they will work to improve women's status...but they can't or won't support the idea of lessening men's."

My first reaction to this statement was denial, and that there have to be some men who agree that sometimes, male privilege is exactly the reason why certain men are in power, and not because they are qualified. When I revisited the thought, however, I fell in accordance with McIntosh. What man would be willing to say that another man of power is only holding that power because he is male? At the same time, isn't a fair accusation. There is no way for us to know if a man of power would still be in his position if there was no male privilege. He could be perfectly qualified for his job. McIntosh goes on to explain how most of men's oppressive is unconscious. The notion that women are less than men has been engrained into the minds of men everywhere. Even in daily conversation between my male friends and I, there are hints made about how they think women are less capable of doing certain things as they are.

McIntosh notes the parallel between male privilege, and white privilege, and how, similar to men's unconscious oppressiveness, white people can be oppressive too. She comments:

"whites are taught to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative, and average and also ideal, so that when we work to benefit others, this is seen as work that will allow 'them' to be more like 'us'"

Being a white person myself, I can agree with this. It is an uncomfortable topic, but one that needs to be discussed. When I think of an average lifestyle, I think of the one I am living now, except for the fact I go to a very expensive, private school. I grew up in a white collar neighborhood, attended public schools and have a mother, a father, and two pets. I view my life as an average one, where I get to enjoy a few luxuries and can live comfortably. When I think about people in poverty, I want to help them to be able to live a life like mine, but this isn't right. What I fail to recognize is how privileged my life is. I'm white, so I don't have to deal with racial profiling at work, or by the police or by my teachers at school. Because I am a white girl, with parents who make a comfortable amount of money, my teachers have automatically assumed that I am a good student. Police officers don't give me a second look if I drive by in my car late at night. My employers think that I am a person worthy of their trust, simply because of my skin color. I agree that this is privilege, and that it benefits me, but I wish it didn't have to exist this way.

Lucky for me, my eyes have already been opened to this issue of white privilege. I have become very close with a male friend on campus who explained to me his difficulties with racial profiling. I even have experienced it myself. We were driving late at night, not speeding or disobeying any laws, when he was pulled over. The officer asked him to get out of the car, and followed by asking him a series of questions. Then, he told my friend to get back in the car, as we waited, a very long time, for him to write a ticket. It turns out that they pulled him over because one of the lights illuminating the license plate had gone out. I can't help but think that he was pulled over because of his skin color. While I wish white and male privileges to come to an end, I am not sure they ever will. Whites and males have been privileged since the beginning of time, and has been engraved into our society. Hopefully, years from now this way of thinking will come to an end, but I believe it will take a very long time. 

Technology in Ethics: Surrogacy

Surrogacy is definitely a practice that is becoming more and more relevant.  I believe Professor Molly Shanley said that experts have yet to collect significant information on surrogate children because most of them are younger than 6 years old.  As Nick already touched on, surrogacy introduces a wave of new ethically controversial ideas.  Pro-choice/Exploiting underprivileged wombs is one of the most prominent.  Nick also discussed how families searching for a surrogate would most likely be against abortion.  We discussed this idea and it is based on the notion that surrogate-seeking families have obviously tried, unsuccessfully, to have children.  They decided to find a surrogate because the idea of a human life that would be theirs is something they have always wanted.  Using this logic they should find the idea of abortion repulsive, right?  Nick also discussed how this is contradictory because these families are pro-life on one topic (abortion) and pro-choice on another (surrogacy).  This has lead me to think about the role of technology in ethics.  Without technology, surrogacy would be impossible and this contradiction would have been prevented.  Does anyone have any opinion on the role of technology in ethics and what role it will likely assume as it continues to become a more integral part of our lives?

Surrogacy and Abortion

In her lecture entitled, Fertility Tourism and the Ethics of Intercountry Surrogacy: Renting Wombs in the Global Marketplace, Professor Molly Shanley discussed the morality of surrogacy agreements that span across the world. Much like our current discussions in class, Professor Shanley presented the opposing argument of the exploitation of women’s bodies in foreign countries for cheap surrogacy, and then refuted it with a pro-choice argument wherein women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. After hearing her argument, I could not help but to draw comparisons to another debate involving a pro-choice argument: abortion.

Ethics Behind Surrogacy: Lyndon Presentation

Lee Renshaw
Everett

Ethics Behind International Surrogacy

   Mary Lyndon (or Molly Shanley; not entirely sure how that works) spoke about the ethical conflicts revolving around the practice of surrogacy, meaning when a a couple is socially and/or physically incapable of having a baby and so they decide to "use" the womb of a woman who is able to bear a child.  She used the example of Indian women doing this for people in the U.S., but her focus was on the issue itself, not necessarily on certain nations or cultures.  She brought to light the opposing views on the subject are and then inserted her own two cents.  She obviously has her own opinion and is therefore biased to one side, but she presented both arguments quite fairly, which is something we have learned to do and are practicing in class now.  

    In her speech, Lyndon explained that the surrogate mothers in India are paid between five and seven thousand dollars.  However, at the end, during the question-answer period, an inquiry was raised regarding how exactly women were paid, meaning how the money was distributed periodically in case of a miscarriage or other accident were to happen.  That way, the women didn't get paid in full until the baby was actually born.  She also raised a point in her speech about how the Indian doctors told them that they were merely vessels for rent; that they sever no purpose in the process of pregnancy, except for being the womb to grow their baby in and then give to them  over to the intending parents, without developing any kind of attachment.  Those on the side of for the Indian women being surrogates would argue, on the other hand, that this surrogate processes develop relationships between the American families and those of the Indian women who gave birth to their child.  Another question was raised, however, and it was one of a rather interesting perspective but a valid and important point nonetheless.  The audience member made a connecting comment before her question.  Her comment was that there are some Indian women who do not want any kind of relationship with the intending parents or their family.  As was mentioned towards the beginning of her speech, Lyndon mentioned the notion that the Indian women would not do this if they had any better opportunity to make money.  So, there are of course at least a few of them who only do it for the money and do not desire any communication outside of that which is necessary during the surrogacy.  The question that followed the comment was the obvious one concerning this group of women and how their situations would be handled.  

     In my opinion, the concept of international surrogacy is a highly debatable subject that isn't solved easily.  From my point of view, the overarching question is: is it fair to the Indian women?  Is it right to give the option of carrying someone else's child and putting herself at great physical and emotional risk to a woman who has virtually no other economic option?  Yes, they are paid nearly ten years annual income for a successful birth, which would help their families enormously.  However, there are several possible dangers that come with pregnancy, ranging from the physical perils that are always a risk to the possibility of the women becoming emotionally attached to the baby inside them.  Women who go through pregnancy naturally form some form of bond with their babies, even though they may not be their own.  For me, it comes down to weighing out the fairness of the whole practice; to comparing the benefits and the detriments of surrogacy in general.  In my view, the risks outweigh the financial gains, but that is the opinion of a complete stranger to the entire concept.  The main opinion that should be taken into account is that of the Indian women.  As long as everyone involved gives wholehearted consent and cooperation, then it is a win-win situation.

Fertility Tourism, Do the Ends Justify the Means?

When listening to Molly Shanley's March 10th lecture on Fertility Tourism and the Ethics of Inter-country Surrogacy, I was surprised to learn that Professor Shanley believes that fertility tourism is ethical. While Shanley notes that surrogacy often creates an unnatural hierarchy of humans (and often social classes), can created a skewed vision of family, and seems outright exploitative (and potentially reminiscent of Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, a dystopian novel where

Fertility Tourism and the Ethics of Intercountry Surrogacy

Intercountry surrogacy: an opportunity for economic improvement in the lives of the poor or a new, exploitative practice that exerts patriarchal control over women's bodies? This is one of the fundamental questions that speaker Molly Shanley explored in her topic, "Fertility Tourism and the Ethics of Intercountry Surrogacy: Renting Wombs in the Global Marketplace". For her, intercountry surrogacy has many positive aspects to it, including that the woman is able to exercise personal agency in that she has control over the decision to do with her body what she chooses. In this case, she chooses to "rent" out her womb in the hopes of improving her economic situation. Since many surrogates are chosen from the Global South to become surrogates for people of the Global North, there is this opportunity for them to make a substantial amount of money that has the potential to change their lives. This is also helpful for many families and individuals of the Global North that cannot afford, or are unwilling to pay the much higher costs for surrogacy within their own countries. Shanley admits that more work needs to be done to study whether or not these surrogates' lives are actually improved after they have performed these services. As of right now, it is unclear.

What is truth, anyway?

Thought you might enjoy today's edition of The Stone - a Philosophy column on the New York Times.  I'm wondering whether Lynch's pluralist account of 'truth' might alleviate some doubts about the viability of objectivism.  Enjoy.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/05/of-flies-and-philosophers-wittgenstein-and-philosophy/

Response to Collin Henry's Response

I must agree with both Collin and Nick, fairly representing the opposing side of an argument is a vital part of writing an argumentative paper.  It is better for both sides, for it allows the writer to defend his views all the more,and gives proper credit where it is due to the other side.  It was difficult to find anything in the selected pages of They Say I Say, but I thought you did a nice job finding a possible improvement.  I agree with your criticism, too.  The idea that representing an opposing view accurately in an argumentative paper really does help strengthen your paper very much.  Your mention of this made it seem like an obvious point that would have naturally been expanded on in the book, but I hadn't thought of it until your mention.
In my experience, providing a clear and accurate representation of your opposition is a tough task, especially when it's an argument which you feel passionately about.  You do an excellent job of underlining why it is so important and beneficial to do it, though.  It is a point that is often looked over and not emphasized as much as it should be by instructors who are teaching beginning writers how to correctly and effectively write an argumentative piece.

The Importance of Luxury Needs

In the book The Ethical Life, Shafer-Landau introduces an essay by Peter Singer (229-236) on a solution to eradicate world poverty. Singer’s main point is that people should stop spending on non-essential needs. Instead, anyone who believes that helping a starving child is morally right is morally obliged to donating his extraneous income to foreign aid organizations. Singer’s argument can be summarized in argument form as follow:

The Proof: Morality Dominating Society

Morality plays a role in all aspects of our society, especially science. Chapter 21 in Shafer-Landeau’s “The Ethical Life” is an excerpt from the book Moral Scepticism and Moral Knowledge, by Renford Bambrough. Bambrough begins with the example of a child given anesthetics before a painful surgery and explains how this scenario places a moral obligation to make sure that the child is not in unnecessary pain. Next, by establishing the existence of moral knowledge, Bambrough tries to refute popular arguments made against the reality of moral knowledge (Bambrough 217). He places focus on five objections.

Respecting the Naysayer

Is it really that important to represent the other side of an argument fairly when writing your own argumentative paper? Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein happen to think so, and make a sound argument for it in their book They Say I Say: The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing. In their chapter on introducing a naysayer to your argumentative paper, Graff and Birkenstein assert that even though it is appealing to make little space and support for opposing views to your argument, it is your duty as the author of the paper to represent them fairly (Graff and Birkenstein 2010, 86).

What If the Anesthesia Put Others at Risk?

In “Proof”, written by Renford Bambrough, a scenario is proposed in support of the existence of moral knowledge. Bambrough poses that there is a child in need of surgery that would be painful for him in the absence of anesthesia, and as Bambrough sees it, there is not doubt that this child should receive it (as cited in Shafer-Landau, 2012, p.218). As someone with beliefs more aligned with moral skepticism, I wondered whether or not this really was objective proof of moral truths. As risky as it may be, I thought that I would at least enter the conversation on this matter.

Just today I found an article about the health risks to recovery room hospital staff associated with exposure to waste anesthetic gas exhaled by recovering patients (Cook, 2013). “Beware the Hidden Dangers of Anesthesia” starts off by stating that anesthesia in the operating room isn't the only area where these gases can cause harm, and that even nurses in the recovery room may be at risk of exposure to these gases which have potentially harmful health effects (Cook, 2013). These effects include mild problems such as nausea and headaches, but also more serious complications like sterility, miscarriages, cancer, and liver disease (Cook, 2013). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health claims that this problem is even more pronounced in facilities that lack proper ventilation, and the organization also suggests that systems be developed that monitor the concentration level of anesthetic gases in breathing zones (Cook, 2013).

Do Movies Play a Role in Motivating us to Act Morally?

This past weekend the Oscars took place and while awards were being given out for best picture, best actor/actress, and a number of other things; one of the undertones of the awards was the underlying message in some of the movies. Movies such as Lincoln, Argo, Zero Dark Thirty, and Django Unchained, were all up for the award of best picture along with other candidates, but what all of these films had in common were that they each focused on key principles of morality that we have been discussing as of late in my Ethical Theory class. The movie Lincoln had the moral undertone of oppression and how the enslavement of others is objectively wrong; the same goes for the movie Django Unchained. Zero Dark Thirty focused on the moral undertone of torture and despite its benefits is it still morally right to do. The movie Argo focused on the moral undertone of dogmatic approaches by two powerful institutions during the 1980’s which was the American movie industry and the Central Intelligence Agency.

Bambrough's Evaluation of Typical Argument Against Moral Knowledge

Shafer-Landau's compilation of ethical readings, The Ethical Life, contains an excerpt from Renford Bambrough's 1979 book Moral Skepticism and Moral Knowledge in which Bambrough presents and tries to debunk five typical arguments moral skeptics use to deny the possibility of moral knowledge. In addition he also offers his own argument for the existence of moral knowledge.

Cultural Relativism is Objective Truth

In the analog The Ethical Life, by Russ Shafer Landau, a piece by Renford Bambrough is presented in support of objective truth. Bambrough brings up common arguments against universal objective truths and tries to disprove them. One point is the argument is “our moral opinions are conditioned by our environment and upbringing” (Bambrough 1979). The argument he brings up is of cultural relativism and whether or not relativists have a strong arguments. He brings up two arguments that moral skeptics use when trying to prove cultural relativism and disproves them. The first argument is one from the ancient historian Herodotus, when he wrote about two tribes in the Persian Empire. Two tribes differed in the way that they dispose of bodies. One tribe burned bodies and the other buried their dead. Bambrough says that moral progress in this field of burying dead versus burning the dead does not require that there be one universal truth for the issue (Bambrough 1979). I disagree with his conclusion. Maybe some people do not care about what happens to them when they die, but other cultures think it is very important. Ancient Greeks had an entire ritual for burying their dead. In the war with Troy, the two sides stopped fighting for a week so the Trojans could bury Prince Hector properly within the Trojan traditions. In the modern day, most people have a funeral that is important in the grieving process for family members of the dead. Most cultures have a funeral process for their dead, but they differ among cultures making the objective morality of dealing with dead bodies depend on the cultural truth. The next argument Bambrough makes is one about marriage. He says that in some societies, where women outnumber men, it is ok to marry more than one woman. Bambrough goes on to say that a moralist who says that monogamy is right no matter the circumstances, which is wrong. He compares it to someone in the Northern Hemisphere who would say that it is cold everywhere during Christmas, or a person from the Southern Hemisphere saying that it is warm everywhere during Christmas (Bambrough 1979). This means that some people do not take into account the circumstances of other people,and think that they are right. These people do not acknowledge that other cultures have different circumstances that change their truth. I disagree with Bambrough and think it is possible for cultures to acknowledge other cultures. Going back to his example with the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, I do not see how someone could say that during Christmas the whole world is cold or warm. Christmas is not supposed to be associated with weather but rather a day which is one of darkest of the year, sunlight wise. Jesus is supposed to resemble the light during this dark day. It is an objective truth that the Southern Hemisphere is warmer, on average, than the Northern Hemisphere during the month of December, and this cannot be disputed. I believe that most people know this and are capable of acknowledging this and believing in it.

Common Sense Tells Us...

Bambrough's argument against moral skepticism is highlighted in The Ethical Life.  He argues five main points made by skeptics towards moral objectivity.  Overall, Bambrough relates that his argument is similar to that of G.E. Moore's.  Moore's argument consisted of proving the existence of an external world by pointing out he obvious.  He had two hands, these are both material objects.  Since there are at least 2 material objects; there is a materialistic, external world.

Obligation to Do What's Right?

Link to article: Apathy towards injured kid

This article reports an accident in China, where a 2-year-old girl was hit twice by two vans one after another. The little girl was left bleeding on the road side for over 15 minutes and eventually died in the hospital. During the time she lied bleeding on the road, 18 people walked by, saw her injured body, but chose to do nothing to help the kid. Millions of people around the world have decried this “lack of morals” in the Chinese society.

Similarities in Criticisms Against Moral Objectivism and Religion

The last chapter we read from Shafer-Landau's The Fundamentals of Ethics was about the division of moral skepticism that completely denies the existence of any objective moral truths called nihilism. This week's chapter is centered on the criticisms moral skeptics such as nihilists and ethical relativists use to attack moral objectivism. One group of people that Shafer-Landau mentions in both chapters that I found to be a particularly interesting example is atheists. In the chapter on nihilism he relates them to nihilists by saying that "Atheists are, in fact, error theorists about religion" (Shafer-Landau 2013, 308). In the next chapter he looks into the criticism some atheists have against moral objectivism which can be summarized into: Morality cannot be objective because God does not exist (Shafer-Landau 2013, 329). This follows the reasoning that in order for a law to be objective it needs to be authored or created by something with greater capabilities than a human being. I'm not sure if I agree with the atheist argument against moral objectivism or their general belief that God does not exist. However, I think the atheist perspective and their stance on the existence of God is a very interesting one that could help us understand and make comparisons to the perspective of moral skepticism. This is why I decided to look into the level of present day atheism in different countries as well as examine some of the main arguments that atheists make to defend their view point.

Nihilism and The World Around You

Shafer-Landau in chapter 20 of the Fundamentals of Ethics describes moral nihilism as those who “deny that there are any moral qualities (Shafer-Landau 306).” To simplify what Shafer-Landau said moral nihilism is the belief that says that nothing is right or wrong that there are no good or bad moral actions only facts. Shafer-argues this point by expressing that “Facts exists; values don’t” like the table is made of wood would be an acceptable fact, but since “values cannot be factual, and so cannot be true (Shafer-Landau 306).”

Take a moment close your eyes and think of a World without morals. To today’s standard it would be a world of chaos and something straight out of one of the many post apocalyptic movies where the value of human life is the cost of a bullet or a movement of a blade through human flesh. Every man, woman, and child exist in a world where they have to take what you can for yourself before some one else takes it for themselves World. This is what I believed was the fatal flaw “if widespread acceptance of a moral theory would yield disastrous results, then that theory is false (Shafer-Landau 310).”  As you can see from how I picture it moral nihilism would result in disastrous results and therefore has proven to be false.

 But Shafer-Landau points out a very interesting argument. For instance if celibacy is moral and everybody practiced it and refrained from having sex, then no babies would be born, therefore the worlds population would start decreasing. With a continued decrease in population and no babies to fill the void of the dead, towns would die out followed soon by cities then countries and finally the entire human population of the World. This is if I am not mistaken a disastrous result from following a moral theory that is widely accepted and hasn’t been proven to be false yet. Therefore the argument of disastrous result cannot be used to disprove of the moral theory of moral nihilism.

The next way I tried to disprove moral nihilism is the fact that people are moral in their ways of life but some are just more apparent than others. So I sat down by the Hub and watched people’s actions for a while. I saw a guy pick up a book that a girl dropped talked to her for a while wrote down her number and parted ways surely that is a sign or morals, helping someone without asking for anything in return. But then after thinking for a while this action could be interpreted as a guy trying to get something for himself, in this case the woman’s number, instead of helping someone else out.