Utilitarianism: Useful and Dangerous

Although useful, I feel Ulitarianism is a dangerous philosophy to follow blindly. It does serve its purpose to allow individuals or governments to make decisions to give the greatest benefit to the most about of people, however as Colin Griffin stated on the Ning, it "falls apart when it is assessed in the context of death and one's own existence." If one could sacrifice a random stranger to save two others, is it right to do so? If you were forced to make that decision, and you chose the single individual, you are essentially killing another person. If one takes no stance, and the two die, you are simply letting fate run its course. Would you be able to sleep at night, knowing someone died because of your decision? Or would the comfort that two lives were saved let you rest assured you had made the moral decision. Personally, this is why I don't want to go into a field where these decisions are in my hands, i fear the ethical considerations would paralyze me from decisive action.

When one begins to look at a human as anything other than what they are, a human life, they lose sight what makes humanity so sacred. To say there is a value greater than one life is purely subjective, as value is an idea conceived by humanity, that didn't exist before it was thought up. Can we make decisions based off of something that could differ to vastly from person to person, individual to individual? I think instead we must take each decision carefully and not create numerical values, but use reason and logic to see what is right.

Somewhere to Turn

"Do you understand, sir, do you understand what it means when you have absolutely nowhere to turn?... For every man must have somewhere to turn."-Crime and Punishment

When men are backed into walls, into corners, into small closets that become their home they shed their layers of humanity and civilization and fall to their animalistic tendencies... to overlook what they know is right, to kill, to drink, to steal. Can we blame these individuals for pushing back against a society that constantly leaves them no other option but to retaliate? Although these people endanger our society, can we really condemn their actions, believe that we are above them? In their struggles they made a choice... can those who live in apathy look down upon them? Instead of labeling these individuals as criminals, dangerous beings unfit to live amongst others, I think it is necessary to observe their situation, feel the pressure of a wall against your back and the weight of society and poverty against your chest before we set them on a scale against ourselves.

The Dangers of Science

As a future science major, I must admit I love technology and humanities ability to consistently better itself outside the realm of selective reproduction. However, in the path we are headed, I see technology not being our savior, but being our demise. I don't believe it will one day turn on us like in the terminator, but we will still lose a part of ourselves to it, the essential core aspects of humanity that makes life so precious and treasured. For example, in Never Let Me Go, humans live off of the organs of donors, essentially making them close to immortality. Once humanity loses fear of an impending death, the dynamics of human life, thought, and society will change dramatically. As we also lose touch with the world around us, instead pulled into a virtual world composed of zeros and ones, not carbon and nitrogen, we come to the event horizon of our future. Do we keep taking steps forward, getting pulled into a path of technologically dominated lifestyles, or realize the dire nature of our situation and save ourselves while there is still time? The objective viewpoint of science is necessary towards research and development of new technology, however once we apply that lens to other aspects of our life, we lose what seperates us from lines of code.

Curse of Knowledge

“Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth.” - Thoreau

When the act of knowing our fate cannot affect it in any way, is it better to be blissful in ignorance? In Never Let Me Go, Ruth lives a life of believing instead of knowing, hoping instead of searching for truth. It is easy to codemn her actions as ignorant and unrealistic, however she lived a life full of hope and optimism, something many other carers were incapable of. Why look down on an individual for being happy? Some, such as Thoreau, would speculate that Kathy and Tommy's knowledge, fallout, and heartbreak make them better than Ruth's daydreams, however I do not think the answer is that clear. I think without the spark of dreamers and the optimists, the darkness of reality would be crushing. However, time often requires that we lose our innocence, no matter how much we wish to never let it go.

Foundations of Reality

For those who have yet to see Shutter Island, I would hate to ruin the experience for you, but essentially the viewer learns to question what appears to be real. Our experience of reality is simply the firing of neural pathways. Like all circuitry, it is prone to break... so how can we trust our senses, our perception of the world and what is real? Leonardo DiCaprio's character has a difficult time adjusting, constantly battling his own psyche. I saw many existentialist themes throughout Shutter Island and thought it fitting that it came out during our Existentialist unit. However, I do hope Never Let Me Go doesn't have as big of a surprise ending... I can't handle the foundations of reality breaking under my feet another time.

Lion and Men

"There is nothing alive more agonized than man
of all that breathe and crawl across the earth." - The Iliad



As individuals, what is the strength of the bond we share with others? For Achilles and Patroclus, it unleashed a rage that slaughtered hordes of men. For the greater and lesser Ajax, it gave them strength to protect their ships from ruin. However strong these bonds are, they can be used to manipulate the other. Hera blinds Zeus with passion and betrays his orders, and the Gods consistently abuse mortals trust to get them to do their bidding.

As Valentine's Day came around, I was presented with two views of relationships: the power to destroy or the power to create. While Hallmark cards whispered sweet nothings into a couples heart, Homer revealed the power that lies within a pact between men. The suffering we endure throughout life, agony not apparent in many other lifeforms, lies in our ability to form relationships with others. When Achilles refuses to make a pact with Hector, he essentially refuses to form a bond with him, thus shielding himself from the strongest blow Hector could possibly give.

Entaglement

Recently, a physicist has discovered how to transport energy, utilizing the quantum theory of entanglement. Two "entangled" particles can exist that share the same existence, and a "measurement on one particle immediately influences the other, even though they are light-years apart."

Despite its incredible impact on the scientific community, entanglement holds more value to humanity and existence than advancing technology, as it gives us insight into the
nature of the universe. The idea that space separating matter can be an illusion for these molecules that exist simultaneously in two places, emboldens romanticists everywhere.



Even though we may be insignificant masses of carbon, the universe lets us be linked to other human beings just as these entangled molecules are to each other. When you know you aren't alone, the dark void of space is a little less frightening. In The Illiad, the relationships between fighters are the driving force that keeps them moving, running into sharp point of death only because their comrade is right beside them. The next time I look up and am belittled by the vastness of the universe, I will keep in mind how connected everything really is.