Philosophy — Socrates, Determinism & Morality
If Socrates Were Alive Today, What Would Please Or Shock Him?
If Socrates were to come from the dead, the very first thing that would shock him is the love for money we’ve developed. That is, Socrates believed in “knowing thy self,” which is a virtue he tried to impart on Greeks during his time. He disliked any man who put materialism as his or her main belief in life. Moreover, and as explained by Ergas (2017), Socrates was a strong believer of truth and moral behavior, to which he defined as a selfless action contributing to the well-being of the society. Because of his moral beliefs, Socrates was a pro-communist, which was evidenced through the need for people to work together.
Therefore, Socrates would be disappointed by today’s world, which has been plagued by greed and needs to fulfill personal goals irrespective of how it affects others. Nonetheless, he would be pleased by the technological progress the humankind has made. Such improvements have brought about freedom in society, whereby most people are free to roam across the globe and interact with each other (Brighouse, 2018). At the same time, Socrates will be expected to point out the damage the same technological advancements have brought upon mankind. For instance, Socrates would most likely describe the degradation in our morals as pathetic.
He would then ask why leaders have not tried to combat these effects unto society. Socrates would most probably prompt philosophical ways to warn us of the degrading nature of the freedom and liberalism we have acquired. From a political viewpoint, Socrates would be shocked by the manner at which leaders are oblivious of the kinds of damage they are placing on their citizens (Northmore-Ball & Evans, 2016). Of course, he would be pleased by the change in guard from kings into electable presidents, but he would still question their intentions. Socrates was known for his questioning behavior, where he would always want to know the intentions of leaders and what they would do for their people.
How Would The Determinist And The Indeterminist View A Plane Head For Empire State Building?
As simplified by Herman (2017), a determinist is someone who believes in determinism, which is basically the belief that things happen or occurs because of something prompt them to, thus there is always a reason. Unlike a determinist, an indeterminist believes that something can happen because of chance and that things are sometimes irrational. Therefore, when these two people view a plane headed towards the Empire State Building, the determinist will most likely argue that something must have caused the plane to do so.
As for the indeterminist, the explanation would be based on metaphysical attributes. That is, the indeterminist will argue that it is perhaps an accident or chance that the plane is heading towards the Empire State Building. In essence, indeterminists tend to give room to explanations of things (Monroe, 2017). This is completely different from a determinist’s perspective, who believes that there must be a logical reason and explanation as to why the plane happened to be heading towards the building.
Take the view of the determinist OR the indeterminist and explain recent hurricanes
In explaining the recent hurricanes, the best choice is to pick a determinist’s viewpoint. This is because hurricanes have logical and scientific explanations for their formation and occurrences. Hurricanes do not happen by accident or chance, but they can be predicted, thus an indeterminist’s perspective becomes inapplicable (Zuchowski, 2018). In essence, hurricanes are formed when a large amount of heat is formed in the tropical oceans. This formation can sometimes result in a hurricane or not, which makes it unpredictable sometimes. However, this type of unpredictability is not necessarily chance, but more of lack of advanced technological tools to determine predictions of the hurricane occurrences.
Why Do You Think We Separate Church And State Here In The U.S.?
The founders of the United States came from a situation whereby both the church and the government were inseparable. This coalescing of the two fraternities gave the church undue power, and it limited liberalism among the people (Ergas, 2017). Thereby, the founding fathers had learned a lesson, thus the proposal to separate the church from the state. A perfect example of the disadvantages of church and state being welted is the power of the government (or church) to throw someone into jail for simply going against the religion’s requirements.
Therefore, the separation of the church from the state is advantageous to the country, because it makes it easier to distinguish the state’s laws from the Bible’s requirements. Moreover, if the church was at the center of the governance, it would mean that other religions would be compromised (Powers, 2017). The founding fathers realized the importance of someone’s freedom to choose their preferred religion, such as Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism. Because of this, intermingling both the state and church would result in disaster, whereby they corrupt each other, which result in a chaotic governance.
Herman (2017) brings up the argument from a Christian’s perspective. Although Christians trust and believe in their creed, followers still appreciate the existence of other religions. Therefore, separating the church from the state is a two-sided decision. Better yet, churches don’t get to pay tax, which also acts a reason to why Christians welcome the separation from the state.
The need to separate the state from religious platforms is to avoid the ethical and moral conflicts that may arise from the laws created to govern the people. For instance, some state laws may carry out death sentences, yet the church’s belief is to forgive as many times as possible. As reiterated by Northmore-Ball and Evans (2016), a person’s conscience and beliefs are not supposed to affect someone else’s, hence the need to prosecute a person separately from the church’s beliefs.
Are We Born With Moral Sense? Where Does It Come From?
Deriving the viewpoints of Brighouse (2018), it is safe to say that every person is born with a morally sound conscience. This is evident in children’s innocence, which is usually lost when they grow up. Although it is worth noting that, when we are born, we usually don’t know what is morally right and what is considered to be morally wrong. Therefore, a person’s moral sensibility is molded or developed during our upbringing, particularly in the environmental setup we spend during our childhood.
Monroe (2017) even claims that most people are born with good behaviors, positive character, and incredible personalities. However, this changes depending on a child’s parents or guardians. We pick our behaviors and moral influences from the people we hang out with, especially at the ages before we hit our teen years. It is at this stage when comes to realize the different morals. Otherwise, we are all born innocent, but our moral senses are developed in the early stages of our lives.
Thereby, Zuchowski (2018) restates that a baby’s innocence is lost or retained depending on various factors. A person’s environment can change one’s moral senses, either from bad to good or good to bad. However, the shift from good to bad is always easier and more like to happen than a person changing from bad to good. Therefore, parents are responsible for the influence of a baby’s morality, but not necessarily for the creation of the same moral views.
References
Brighouse, C. (2018). Chapter 8 Understanding Indeterminism. The Ontology Of Spacetime II, 153–173. DOI: 10.1016/s1871–1774(08)00008–9; Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2RxpZ1R
Ergas, O. (2017). Reclaiming ethics through “self”: A conceptual model of teaching practice. Teaching And Teacher Education, 68, 252–261. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2017.09.013; Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2OKIh0S
Hermann, H. (2017). Dominance in Religion. Dominance And Aggression In Humans And Other Animals, 12(2), 183–200. DOI: 10.1016/b978–0–12–805372–0.00012–2; Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2j2hjjX
Monroe, K. (2017). Biology, Psychology, Ethics, and Politics. On Human Nature, 757–770. DOI: 10.1016/b978–0–12–420190–3.00045–4; Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2PjzPD0
Northmore-Ball, K., & Evans, G. (2016). Secularization versus religious revival in Eastern Europe: Church institutional resilience, state repression, and divergent paths. Social Science Research, 57, 31–48. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.11.001; Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2Nr3N6l
Powers, F. (2017). Moral Development ☆. Reference Module In Neuroscience And Biobehavioral Psychology, 3(2), 45–67. DOI: 10.1016/b978–0–12–809324–5.06490–7; Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2C1rakG
Zuchowski, L. (2018). Complexity as a contrast between dynamics and phenomenology. Studies In History And Philosophy Of Science Part B: Studies In History And Philosophy Of Modern Physics, 63, 86–99. DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsb.2017.12.003; Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2OHyl8j