Moral Dilemma

What is a moral dilemma? A moral dilemma is a situation a solution maybe be morally wrong or unacceptable yet is the most preferable one. The fundamental nature of a moral dilemma is choosing between two or more opposing beliefs or values. One example of a moral dilemma that I can think of  in the real world can be: You are a dean and you have to select a student to give a scholarship to attend one of the colleges in the country for free. You have two possible candidates, one is arrogant, obnoxious and comes from a wealthy family yet attains the best grades. The other one is hardworking, patient and comes from a poor family that cant possibly achieve to get to the college using their own funds however his grades are much lower than student A. Who do you decide to choose?
Personally this is a difficult choice as the one that works hard with less wealth and grades requires this opportunity to get somewhere in life yet the one with the best grade surely deserves to achieve the best education. I would choose to pick the student that is wealthy, obnoxious and has the best grades as I think schools need to maintain the high standards. I chose the ethics of justice as the one with best grade deserves it while, if I chose the ethic of care, the poorer student deserves this opportunity.

A post on Greg Craven's argument

Greg Craven's video from 2007 argues that we as humans should take action to reduce global warming no matter what. He arrived at this conclusion through applying a 'decision grid' in which he compared the consequences of taking action and not taking action depending on whether global warming is true or not. His argument and conclusion make sense to a certain extent, simplifying the trouble of dealing with the global warming problem. Through the grid we saw that the consequence of global warming without action is greater than the consequence of we taking action and there being no global warming. The major loss in taking action against global warming is the reduction of the growth in the economy according to Craven's main argument. Looking at it in a non scientific point of view and assuming that the effect of global warming is total annihilation then Craven's argument is valid and the conclusion is correct. However, looking at it in the opposing manner, the effect of taking action against global warming and figuring out it didnt exist anyway has a very large impact on the economy.  According to some calculations by various professors (http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/12/reponse-to-greg.html), fighting global warming for the next 100 year will limit the economy growth by $718 trillion per year. Accumulated over time, this makes us question whether global warming is worth that much and the chances are it is very unlikely. The loss of money could be used in eradicating poverty around the world yet $718 trillion per year could be wasted leaving the world unable to eradicate poverty. Overall, I believe that Greg Craven's argument is valid and the conclusion is true. Taking action would most certainly increase our comfort in thinking we are hampering the progress of global warming if it is existent yet it is irrational and the amount of money spent on stopping the unstoppable limits the world from progressing to be a better place.  

Seeing is Believing?

It is often said that seeing is believing yet it is generally clear that it depends on the individual to interpret what they see and how they tend to believe what they see. Seeing is one of the major ways humans take in their surroundings therefore making sight one of the greatest sense perceptions. However this does not necessarily mean that seeing can be directly interpreted to be believing, as in order to believe, our perception is run through previous knowledge. Therefore to a certain extent seeing can be believing. A case of seeing being believing in our society can be observed as people tend to react by saying, "I don't believe you! Show me...." In particular an example could be seen as a student tries out for a football team even though his or hers credentials are good the coaches always say, "Show me what you got" meaning that they need to see to believe what has been said. However, despite being an important method of perception, seeing can not always be believing as it can be clouded by other ways of knowing such as language and emotion. As of the example we saw in class of the McGurk effect, we can see that despite hearing the same thing our sight interprets things differently giving us a different outcome all in all. I believe this is evidently showing that seeing is not believing necessarily as what we see leads to different beliefs in different people due to different interpretations and emotions.

Language [Reflection]

Language has a wide variety of roles including expression of emotion and giving directions but language's purpose overall is a way of communicating between us. There are many wonders in language including interesting connotations, denotations and ambiguity which are the main cause of miscommunication as each party does not fully understand what is being said. This is one of the things that struck me the most as we all experience a situation with the literal meaning quite often being not the actual meaning. We saw different examples of connotations in speech, for example the difference between 'shit' and 'faces'. Despite having the same literal meaning, we can see that 'shit' has a negative connotation and is associated with inappropriateness. Look at these two words describing a group of people: 'childish' and 'youthful'. What can be assumed? 'Childish' implies the fact that this group of people are immature while 'youthful' suggests a group of energetic and willing people. This is not the literal meaning yet is used to describe the actual situation without being rude and this is particularly a useful part of language to maintain friendships.
Another major thing that caught my interest about language is Benjamin Lee Whorf's theory of Linguistic Determinism. It is stated that our thoughts are controlled by our native or mother tongue and this does enable us to think certain thoughts. His general point was 'if a language has no words for a certain concept, then its speakers would not understand the concept.' I found this rather interesting as it seemed partly true to me. From my experience, I have seen  people have different ways of thinking based on where they come from yet I do not believe this limits us from learning concepts that are recognized by other languages. It is clear that concepts can exist with out words to describe it. For example, in my native language there is no word or phrase to describe homosexuality but this concept is existent proving that a certain concept can exist with out words to describe it. On the whole, language is a method of communication and this has been evolved overtime to the complex nature it has now such as ambiguity and connotations, but I believe it does not limit our thinking.

George Orwell 1984- Newspeak and Oldspeak

In chapter 5 of the novel 1984 by George Orwell, the totalitarian regime is cancelling the old word system of Oldspeak and imposing a new word system of Newspeak. This happens as the imposing regime removes words from the Oldspeak and makes the language more basic and less complex in nature. The regime wants to necessitate the use of Newspeak as over time it is believed that this will narrow the vocabulary of the nation thus limiting the range of thinking that can be carried out by an individual. As one of the character in the book states: 'Don't you see the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?' This shows us that the totalitarian regime believes that the thought of a person is channeled by the language he or she speaks. The character further states: 'In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.' Thoughtcrime is when an individual thought differently of the regime and had their own personal opinion and the abolition of thoughtcrime through the use of narrowing the vocabulary clearly shows a connection between language and thought. There is a general assumption in the book that our thoughts are formed and controled by our language, consequently meaning that the regimes main purpose of implementing Newspeak is an attempt of radical control over everyone's thoughts. This assumption can be found in real life in the form of 'Linguistic Determinism' which is sometimes called 'Sapir-Whorf hypothesis' which boldly states that our thoughts, indeed, are completely limited by our language.

Real Life Situation- Military Strike

I will create my own real life situation and apply the ladder of abstraction to reach a good Knowledge Question on it.

Real Life Situation: The United States of America and several other western powers want to carry out a military strike on Syria after the suspected use of chemical weapons by the government forces.

Poor Knowledge Question- Is a military strike necessary in Syria?
Intermediate Knowledge Question- Can empirical knowledge justify the reason to attack Syria?
Good Knowledge Question- To what extent can one interfere with the rights of another over inadequate knowledge or evidence?

Ladder of Abstraction

Mr. Moussay's grandfather claims that the fruits on his tree are ripening earlier and earlier in the year and this must be due to global warming.

I will be attempting to achieve a good Knowledge Question through the use of the ladder of abstraction.

1. Knowledge claim (Real Life Situation)- fruits are ripening faster and faster due to global warming 

2. Topic- Global warming

3. Poor Knowledge Question- Is global warming real? 

4. Intermediate Knowledge Question- In what ways can the existence of global warming be verified? 

5. Good Knowledge Question- How certain can we be observable changes and empirical knowledge are scientifically  factual?

As of above, I have managed to reach to what i believe is a good knowledge question. It might not be good but over the next year or two, I believe it will eventually improve.

Importance of Subjects

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” 

― Socrates

Education. What is education? Education is much more than writing, reading or doing simple arithmetic. It is fundamental in forming, shaping and generating a highly intellectual society in which, if not all, some are provided for. We as humans endeavor day and night to achieve the perfect Utopia for our planet; yet we are destroying it. Over the century, the education system has become more and more refined as technology aids in proliferating information through medias such as the internet and through books. The International Baccalaureate Diploma Program course is premeditated in the manner that it will produce well rounded and highly intellectual individuals to aid the global society in international mindedness. As a DP student, undergoing the vigorous program I believe some subjects provide a better quality of knowledge, thus being more important. In decreasing importance, my list would be as follows: Math, English and French, ITGS, Chemistry, Physics. In my opinion, I would rank Math as the most important due to its history and achievement. For years and years scientists looked around to understand the complexity of the universe and without Math none of today’s information would be available. It doesn’t require all to understand it but to the few that do, it is amazing what one can calculate with Math including things like ‘where are terrorists hiding the bombs’ aiding in International security. Secondly I believe that the languages are important as they are required in communicating with others around you and others around the world. I trust, despite the contrary belief, that French is essential and can make one more aware of other cultures. In addition I ranked ITGS third most important as the world today is becoming more and more revolutionized by the internet. ITGS can help in understanding the increasing globalization taking place through the internet and highlight their social and ethical implications. Ultimately I ranked the sciences last not because they are not important but because the list refers mainly to the modern times, which makes science more easily available to us.