Post #5: Progress Report

By: Clara Ramos

          Our group is going a rather good pace in terms of our research project. We have our presentation made and reviewed, and we have met together to correct it before our formal presentation. My group is up to date in terms of which parts of the research paper have been necessary to complete. However, we still need to revise our proposal and make sure that our annotated bibliography is updated. Practically our entire paper itself is still a work in progress: we have yet to write our introduction, conclusion, and abstract but we have agreed to work on them after we have completed out individual "chapters" of the paper; as for our individual chapters, we have agreed to complete them by the end of April. I still have to complete my individual chapter and add my additional sources to the annotated bibliography. I am also planning on fixing our proposal when I complete my chapter.
          The only problems that my group has encountered pertains to schedule conflicts. Of course, the academic calendar has been affected by the snow days earlier this year; in addition, classes had rapidly assigned work to make up for the lost time. Therefore, we have agreed as a group to focus on any immediate work for all classes but still stay on track on our research paper schedule. The outstanding work to be done as of this moment is to work on revising our previous papers for better grades. Nevertheless, we are still able to coordinate our schedules to meet together whenever necessary. Additionally, to alleviate the burden of meeting up, we are largely working on Google Drive where we compile all of our parts together to complete the assignment.

Professor Middleton; CAL-103-H

Post #4: Comparison between Murdoch and Nietzsche

By: Clara Ramos

                Friedrich Nietzsche and Iris Murdoch both elaborate on religion's role within morals; i.e. they try to explain how religion affects people's perception on what is moral. However, they take very different views sometimes. For example, Murdoch believes that religion helps enforce morality whereas Nietzsche believes that religion distracts people from morality and even gives them a false definition of it. In "Morality and Religion", Murdoch credits religion for being a constant reminder to people about their ethical codes. She says that the way religion constructs right and wrong makes it easier for people to return from doing evil. However, being religious does not mean that you are a definitely a virtuous person. She gives an example of how a man who is a devout Christian may end up in prison. The way she describes religion seems to portray (to me, at least) that religion's message of forgiveness can be interpreted as that doing bad things are fine because God will forgive you. This explains why the man in prison still keeps up his faith after his wrongdoings; he may believe that as long as he stays religious, he can be forgiven.

                Nietzsche's "Morality as Anti-Nature", on the other hand, elaborates on religion's strictness in a more negative hue. While Murdoch credits religion for keeping people in check on doing what is right, Nietzsche claims that religion does not give people the chance to be immoral. Instead, religion delivers people with an ultimatum: either live the way religion deems it should be lived or face terrible consequences. This is a complete opposite of the forgiving image Murdoch seems to create in her piece. Nietzsche is thoroughly convinced that religion ruins human nature in that rather than encouraging good behavior, it condemns bad behavior. Nietzsche also talks about the Four Great Errors, or four ways in which humans mistake morality. For example, the first error he introduces is "[t]he error of confusing cause and effect" (p. 351) in which he elaborates on how humans mistakenly reason their actions. He says that people say that one's actions will lead to a certain result or behavior, i.e. doing A will bring about B. However, he reasons that the opposite is true: behaving a certain way will lead to specific actions to be done. In other words, being B will make a person more likely to do A.

Professor Middleton; CAL-103-H

Post #3: A Comparison of Appiah and Gazzaniga

By: Clara Ramos

                In “The Case Against Character”, Appiah tries to determine what defines virtuous behavior. The common belief is that virtuous behavior is acting in a way that a virtuous person would act. However, no one knows what truly makes a person virtuous and, thus, no one knows how to act like a virtuous person. Appiah himself agrees with Rosalind Hursthouse’s view on virtue ethics, as defined on page 402:

                “1. The right thing to do is what a virtuous agent would do in the circumstances.
                2. A virtuous person is one who has and exercises the virtues.
                3. A virtue is a character trait that a person needs in order to have eudaimonia—that is, in order                  to live a good life.”

Opposing this idea, however, is the Situationist Challenge. Situationists believe that outside factors such as mood and environment influence a person’s decision to make the ethical move. It seems credible; people’s actions are a decision that they consciously makes; they have free will to act according to ethical values or not.

Similarly, Gazzaniga’s “Toward a Universal Ethics” tries to find the source of distinguishing between what is ethical and what is not but purely from a scientific standpoint. Gazzaniga argues that the brain plays a role in deciding what is ethical because humans, just like any other creature, are “hardwired” to survive. The brain contains standards and behaviors that increase the likelihood of survival for the human. This sort of defines what is ethical: a person does something nice only because it is for his own benefit. The more he is kind, the more likely the kindness is reciprocated, especially during times of need. The question, however, is whether these standards are innate or whether they were taught to people based on the views of society.

There is an argument for this though (one that makes particular sense to me). The argument states that every society, no matter how different or distant from one another, has the same or similar standards. As stated by Gazzaniga, “Highest among these are that all societies believe that murder and incest are wrong, that children are to be cared for and not abandoned, that we should not tell lies or break promises, and that we should be loyal to family” (p 421). Since all of these societies, spanning centuries and distances, have the same beliefs, these values are naturally within people. Society may just be playing a role to bring out these values and enforcing them as true.

Professor Middleton; CAL-103-H

Post #2: Essay 1 Topic Proposal

By: Clara Ramos

            The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering (IEEE), as described on its website, is an international, “professional association dedicated to advancing technological innovation and excellence for the benefit of humanity.” It has many groups of various technical subjects, such as electrical engineering and computer science. It can definitely be classified as a discourse community as it meets the 6 criteria as follows:

-Sharing a common language or vocabulary: Although the IEEE is an international association, its main language is English since it is based in New York.

-Sharing common behaviors, practices, or procedures: The IEEE has a basis of helping technology when taking action. It profusely award grants and awards to further and recognize technological development.

-Sharing common goals and beliefs: IEEE’s mission statement is as follows: “IEEE’s core purpose is to foster technological innovation and excellence for the benefits of humanity.”

-Sharing common ways of communicating with one another: Each year, IEEE holds more than 1,000 conferences where members meet together.

-Having a common set of genres: The IEEE publishes many works of technical literature, spanning from journals to magazine articles to guides to textbooks.

-Have a threshold for membership: There are many levels of membership that can be acquired, the highest being the IEEE Fellow. An example of a threshold for membership is becoming a Fellow: the candidate needs to be nominated by their peers and be approved by the IEEE Board of Directors.

IEEE upholds a code of ethics which contain 10 statements such as “to be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data.” It mainly defines ethics on how to treat other people and their work. Through their code of ethics, a high value is placed upon teamwork and fairness.

Professor Middleton; CAL-103-H

Sites used:
http://www.ieee.org/about/today/at_a_glance.html#sect1
http://www.ieee.org/about/vision_mission.html
http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html

Post #1: "Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight"

By Clara Ramos

       In his paper about Balinese cockfighting, Clifford Geertz's explanation effectively provides the reader instances of the 6 aspects of discourse communities, making Balinese cockfights a discourse community itself. The easiest aspect to identify is the vocabulary used by those who participate in the cockfighting and their ways of communicating with one another. The Balinese as a village use metaphors of fights and different chickens to convey a thought or idea such as when Geertz gives examples of how the Balinese compare different types of people toward different chickens (p. 3). Cockfights have a plethora of situations or genres in which it is spoken of: referenced during normal conversations; used to identify different personalities or people; and of course during the fights themselves. Cockfighting is an obsession of the villages and the people make it the focus of their everyday lives. They share common behaviors and pre-fight procedures/rituals; one example is seen in the following quote:

"Whenever you see a group of Balinese men squatting idly in the council shed or along the road in their hips down, shoulders forward, knees up fashion, half or more of them will have a rooster in his hands, holding it between his thighs, bouncing it gently up and down to strengthen its legs, ruffling its feathers with abstract sensuality, pushing it out against a neighbor's rooster to rouse its spirit, withdrawing it toward his loins to calm it again." (p. 3) 

       The Balinese cockfighting community is based upon a hierarchical format: loyalties come into play when someone identifies themselves with a side.  On the lowest level, family members cheer on for others in the family; as the fights grow larger and begin to integrate other groups of people, loyalties can stretch as far as which town the cock's owner comes from. Geertz also provides a list of how to place a person on a side on pages 8-10. No matter how vast the groups are, however, they all have something at stake during a fight. Everyone uses the fights as a means to compete one another; they see themselves in the fighters and want the chicken they identify with to win. In a way, to everyone the cockfights is the people's way to make them feel dominant and better than other people.

For: Professor Middleton; CAL-103-H