Reflective Writing Assignments - Essay Example

Reflective writing Q1. Which would be better: A world in which humans had no free will but only good things happened or aworld in which humans had free will but because of that free will bad things happened (and, of course, some were really bad)? Free will is an important aspect of human life since it makes life very enjoyable. This is because there are no restrictions on what a person is to do or a manner in which an individual is expected to behave. That is, one lives his or her life the way it pleases him or her since there are no rules or laws. However, there should be a limit to the free will since it can be disastrous at times (Campbell 9). A world without free will but with only good things happening is an incomplete world. This is because free will is an important component of life, and thus without it life can be sometimes unbearable. Conversely, a world where the presence of free will leads to occurrence of bad things is not good either. This is because people misuse the free will accorded to perform evil actions that may sometimes end up being disastrous (Campbell 13). This is because everyone perceives free will as the right to behave or do things that only pleases without considering the impact of such actions to fellow human beings. However, when comparing the two scenarios, it is better for one to live in a world without free will but has good things happening to him rather than live in a world with free will but the freedom makes him do evil things that at times prove disastrous. A world without free will is good since even though a person is denied the freedom of choice, he is not exposed to bad things associated with free will. For instance, a person can live without free will but he is properly treated and therefore, exposed to good things. This is because the person is only denied freedom of choice while accorded other good things of life, which might make life more bearable. This is true since at times the presence of free will exposes an individual to bad things; for instance, freedom of choice might lead a person to make wrong decisions with grave consequences (Campbell 18). Consequently, a world with free will is not good and forms a dangerous place since the freedom makes an individual perform evil actions. Thus, the free will leads to the occurrence of bad things with grave consequences. For instance, a world where each person is permitted to kill, maim, or even oppress one another is a bad place to live in since life becomes unbearable. In such world, people become revengeful and so evil because there is no law or person dictating the free will. Therefore, since no human being prefers facing or experiencing bad things in life, it is better to live in a world with lots of good things but without free will. This is because there is more suffering in a world with free will since every person does what pleases him or her without considering the consequences of such action to other people within the surroundings (Campbell 25). For instance, in a world without freedom, an individual might decide to play booming music late in the night without considering the unnecessary noise and inconveniences caused to the sleepy neighbors. In a retaliatory attack, the neighbors might decide to attack and severely beat him since there is no law restricting them from doing such an action. From the two scenarios, it is clear that although free will is important in the world, too much of it is so dangerous since it can lead to the occurrence of bad things. Due to such scenarios, it is better to live in a world where freedom is restricted to avoid occurrence of bad things attributed to the free will. At least such a world will have minimal records of bad things occurring and this will make life at least bearable and enjoyable. (634 words) Q2. Is it okay to spend one being in order to save one thousand human beings? Is it okay to assassinate one human being in order to save one thousand human beings? Is it okay to draw up a battle plan that deliberately costs the lives of 100,000 human being’s lives to save the lives of 50,000 human beings who you like better? Is it okay to abort one fetus in order to save another fetus? Is it okay to abort one fetus in order to save its mother’s life? Is it okay to kill a mother in order to save her fetus’ life? Is it okay to spend 1,000 human being’s lives in order to develop a vaccine that will save the lives of 1 million human beings? Human beings have various rights that ensure peaceful coexistence on earth. One of the rights is the right to life. Right to life is a fundamental aspect of constitutions in all countries on earth. Moreover, some of the major religions such as Christianity and Islam recognize on the importance of life and condemns killing of a fellow human being. Life of every human being is very important and should be protected by everyone (Yorke 15). Everyone has a right to live and that no one can be denied such right. Therefore, it is wrong to kill or terminate the life of a fellow human being for the sake of saving or rescuing other human beings. However, there occur certain compelling situations when the life of a person can be sacrificed to save a large number of persons. For instance, it is okay to abort a fetus in order to save the life of the mother. The situation occurs when continued existence of the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. Therefore, upon doctors’ approval, it is okay to terminate the pregnancy in order to save the life of the mother (Yorke 18). In case such action is not taken, both the mother and the fetus risk dying. Therefore, it is logical to kill the unborn fetus since no one knows whether it will survive to adulthood rather than lose both the pregnant woman and the fetus at the same time. Such a loss would be double and thus the need to prevent the scenario by whatever means. Conversely, it is not okay to kill a pregnant woman in order to save her fetus. This is because every human being has a right to life and taking one’s life is a crime (Yorke 25). However, the scenario changes when it is the consent of the mother to be killed in order to save her baby. Therefore, it is only okay when the mother requests that her life be sacrificed to save her unborn baby. In such situation, the doctor can go ahead with the operation since he will not be responsible for murder. This is because the mother of the fetus died out of personal will. Consequently, it is not okay to draw up a battle plan that deliberately costs the lives of 100,000 human beings in order to save the lives of 50,000 people that one likes better. This is because the loss of 50000 people is big since it will be hard to close the gap. Consequently, all human beings are equal, and thus there is no need for an individual to sacrifice the lives of people he does not like in an attempt to save the lives of some people he likes better. Consequently, it is okay to spend the lives of 1,000 human beings in order to develop a vaccine that will save the lives of 1 million people. Even though it is painful to sacrifice 1000 people, a prevailing situation might sometimes call for the sacrifice in order to save an extra 999000 people. Thus, it is logical to lose 1000 people instead of one million lives. This is because it is easier to recover from a loss of 1000 people rather than a million people. Therefore, if by any situation the only way available to save one million people from perishing is by spending 1000 lives in developing vaccine, then it proves logical. Further, under compelling circumstances, it is okay to sacrifice one person in order to save one thousand individuals. If by any chance the existence of a person can threaten the existence of one thousand people, it is logical to sacrifice the person in order to save more people from perishing (Yorke 57). (620 words) Q3. Is it more likely that God exists than that God does not exist? If so, what does the term “God” even mean? Is God all-powerful? All knowing? All good? Male? Female? Both? Limited in anyway? Located in space? Located in time? Everlasting? The product of some other creator? Destined to end at some point? Aware of you? In favor of certain countries more than others? Conscious? Watching? Intervening? Interested in the outcome of football games? Interested in your performance during a football game? Interested in the outcome of wars? Capable of emotions (even negative emotions like anger, grief, sadness)? Finally, what is your evidence? Or is it even appropriate to ask for evidence? It is more likely that God exists in the world. This is in accordance to the happenings as well as the creations existing in the universe. Consequently, various religious groups preach about the existence of God who is worshipped and obeyed. The term God refers to a supernatural being who is very powerful and who controls everything in the universe (Ashton & Westacott 21). He is powerful than any other creature since he controls everything, and thus everything goes according to His plan and wish. Since He established the foundations of the universe, He knows all of the creations and is therefore all knowing. He knows and understands all of the creations by name and controls them. Since He created everything in the universe, God is believed to be all-good. This is because as the owner of the universe, He is pleased with the creations and wants them to be good (Ashton & Westacott 28). Therefore, God is all-good and do not want bad things to befall on His creations. He guides and protects His creations. God controls the universe to ensure that none of the creations gets destroyed or harmed. Consequently, no one knows the sex of God. This is because nobody has ever seen Him and therefore there is no information relating to whether He is male or female. Consequently, God is not limited in any way because He is the creator and the controller of everything in the universe. God is not limited in terms of space or location since He is omnipresent. Though most religions believe that God lives in heaven, nobody knows exactly the location of heaven. This is because there is no single human being who has gone to heaven and returned with information regarding its location. Moreover, God is everlasting and nobody knows when His kingdom shall end (Ashton & Westacott 35). Even most religious groups speculate the end time but cannot tell the exact time or period it will occur. Since He is the creator of all things in the universe, God is never a product of some other creator. Nobody knows His origin, beginning, or end and thus most religious groups admit it is difficult to understand Him. Further, as the creator of all things in the universe, God knows of my existence since I am part of his creation. Therefore, He is aware that I exist and controls everything in my life. Consequently, God is omnipresent and conscious of everything happening within the universe. Thus, nothing happens and goes unnoticed at His presence (Ashton & Westacott 41). He intervenes in every situation thereby ensuring nothing goes against his wish. As the creator of nations, God is interested in all the nations on earth since He equally loves all the creations and controls them appropriately. His unending love showers all the nations since people of all the nations belong to Him. With regard to the outcome of football games, nobody knows whether God is interested or not in such activities. Before the start of a football game, I pray that my team emerges victorious but nobody knows the outcome of the game. Consequently, nobody knows whether God is interested in the outcome of wars. However, most religious groups believe that He grants victory to any group or faction He wishes. Further, it is difficult to tell whether God is capable of emotions such as anger, grief, and sadness. Although some religions believe that God is angered by evil actions, no one can prove whether He actually gets angered or not. The evidence that God exist is enormous. First, there exists a powerful force controlling things happening within the universe. That powerful force is God and no one can compete or rival the force in whatever way. Secondly, God plans everything in the universe and that nothing goes contrary to His plan. Third, since something cannot come out of nothing, the presence of the universe confirms of His presence as the creator and controller of everything (Ashton & Westacott 85). These are just some of the numerous proofs of the existence of a powerful God who created and controls everything within the universe. With such proofs, it is not appropriate to ask for evidence of God’s existence. (705 words) Q4. “Ignorance is bliss/enjoyment/happiness/pleasure.” American Proverb. “Ignorance is not bliss ignorance is impotence; it is fear; it is cruelty; it is all the things that make for unhappiness.” Ingrid Holtby “The unexamined life is not worth living” Socrates Which of these positions is closest to the truth and why Ignorance is bliss is an American proverb that argues that being short of knowledge or information about a situation or event is sometimes beneficial. Thus, when a person lacks information about a situation or event he feels happy (MobileReference 15). However, on discovery or revelation of the truth, one becomes sad due to the situation. Therefore, when an individual was clueless, he was much happier but on discovering the truth, he turns out to be sad and becomes worried about the situation. The proverb therefore advocates that for one to be happy in life, he should not always seek for knowledge about a situation; one should try to remain clueless in order to lead a happy life void of worries. Conversely, Ingrid Holtby thinks the opposite; ignorance is no bliss but impotence, cruelty, fear and that it entails everything that contribute to unhappiness. Thus, lack of knowledge or information about a situation is a weakness or incapacity and that it is a cruel and fearful way of leading a life. Therefore, Ingrid believes that it is good for one to remain knowledgeable about various situations in life rather than leading a disguised life, which is cruel and fearful of the outcomes related to the situation (MobileReference 32). Since an ignorant person lacks knowledge about an event or situation, he fears the consequences of knowing the truth and therefore fears the realities of life. Consequently, Socrates believes that it is not worth for a person to lead unexamined life. Thus, human life is meaningful only when an individual strives to know and understand self as well as understanding fellow human beings. Moreover, he stressed on the significance of self-achievement, happiness, as well as fulfilling goals without harming oneself or others (Johnson 40). This is only possible when one looks within self, which helps in knowing the true value of life. Therefore, Socrates concludes that a person who is incapable of discovering inner happiness or gaining inner value is leading a life with no meaning of living. Socrates’ notion that unexamined life is not meaningful or worthier of living is closest to truth. This is because human beings are incapable of growing toward a greater understanding of true nature without taking time to examine as well as reflect on previous life (Johnson 67). Examining of human life exposes various patterns of behavior. Consequently, deeper contemplation results in understanding of the intuitive programming, which is a powerful tool controlling human life. Therefore, unless human beings understand the patterns, much of it is pure unconscious repetition. In order for man to lead a worthy life, he should take time to examine as well as reflect upon his life. This is important since it helps him in identifying loopholes as well as weaknesses in the previous life, which need rectification. Such rectification is significant since it makes one learn from past mistakes thus, reducing chances of committing similar mistakes in future. Consequently, Socrates notion of dialoguing or sharing of ideas with a spouse or close friend enables friends to examine us. This is because human beings cannot at times see their own mistakes and thus, the need of a friend who can see the mistakes and later try to rectify them. Thus, Socrates’ notion of examination of human life makes life easier, enjoyable, and simple. It should therefore be encouraged since it is closest to truth. (561 words) Q5. Is it true that people have exactly the world they asked for – the world they have designed? Remember Sartre’s words from “Being and Nothingness”: “If I am mobilize in a war, this is my war; it is in my image and I deserve it.” “For lack of getting out of (something), I have chosen it” “What happens to me, happens through be When writing this response, be sure to include a comprehensive and honest list of all (and I do mean all) of the things you are truly incapable of doing at this point in your life (not things you are just accustomed to saying you cannot do) Human beings experience a complicated life on earth. They do not exactly lead a life they ask for since at times they are forced to adapt to the situation as well as the prevailing circumstances. The complication of the world sometimes makes it hard for man to get what he or she wants. However, man tries to design the world leading to adaption. Therefore, it is false to believe that man always gets what he wants since it is very difficult to change or design the world. In some instances, such changes further complicate the world and this makes life unbearable. However, Jean-Paul Sartre opposes the notion. According to his book “Being and Nothingness”, an individual solely has the right to decide on what happens to him, and thus capable of doing, performing, or becoming anything he wants in the world (Sartre 211). Therefore, Sartre believes that people do have the exact world they ask for since they can control, design, or mold it to suit their desires or tastes. According to him, a person is held responsible for the failures or success as it depends on an individual’s choice and responsibility. Thus, Sartre believes that an individual has full control of his or her life and that whatever happens is because of personal choice. Sartre believes that man can change or change anything anytime to suit his or her needs, and thus the issue of incapacity comes by choice. He therefore accepts as true the notion that people have exactly the world they ask for; thus, they design or mold the world to suit their interests in an attempt to lead a comfortable and bearable life. Sartre’s notion is partially true since man has fought with nature from past times and has become successful in some ways. For instance, man can create rain through cloud seeding, grow crops in a hostile environment by use of green houses. Consequently, change of one’s attitude can make him succeed or fail a given test, and thus become a determinant in accomplishing a given mission. These are just some of the examples that prove how man has chosen to live a comfortable life despite the uncertainties and challenges associated with nature. Despite the existence of some breakthrough in transforming himself and the world, there are certain things that prove hard to transform. Thus, there are certain things that man cannot change to suit his or her needs. For instance, personally there are certain things that truly I am incapable of doing at this point in my life. First, honestly speaking, I cannot run fast since I am poor at running. I have tried training with my friends who are good in athletes but to no avail. This is in contrary to Sartre’s notion that a person has control in choosing who he wants to be in life. Ever childhood, I have wanted to be a renowned athlete and despite putting a lot of effort in achieving that dream, I have never been successful. Thus, I see no hope of becoming a good athlete in the future. The second thing I am incapable of doing currently is being social. Befriending a stranger takes longer than usual. I normally shy away from strangers and I have tried to rectify the situation for a long time but have failed. From the two experiences in my life, I do partially agree with Sartre’s notion on one’s capacity to change or control his life, situation, and the world. There occur situations when it is possible to control one’s life or condition. However, there are also times when such attempts prove futile or disastrous. Works cited Ashton, John F, and Michael Westacott. The Big Argument: Does God Exist?: Twenty-four Scholars Explore How Science, Archaeology, and Philosophy Haven't Disproved God. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2006. Print. Campbell, Joseph K. Free Will. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2011. Print. Johnson, David M. Socrates and Athens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Print. MobileReference, . Famous Quotes from 100 Great People. Boston: MobileReference.com, 2011. Print. Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology. New York: Philosophical Library, 1956. Print. Yorke, Jon. The Right to Life and the Value of Life: Orientations in Law, Politics and Ethics. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate, 2010. Print. Read More