Example Of Phil Week 1 Critical Thinking

1 Is there some action you think qualifies as being objectively right or wrong? That is, some action that everyone should see as proper and moral because it is really bad and not just bad because someone or some culture says it is bad? If you think you have a candidate, tell us what it is and make sure you give some reasons why you think it is objective. If you don’t think there are any objective values, explain why.
Laws and social mores have been developed and re-worked for millennia, often using religious thought as a catalyst. Humanity is, clearly, not yet responsible enough to act with empathy and self-control of its own volition, and so we rely still on the fear/punishment model to determine our actions. This speaks quite a bit about our inability to correctly make healthy judgments. Culture exists for many reasons, one seems to be to systematically educate and enlighten the people who have created it, providing them with a basis for their preconceptions and lifelong perspective on the world. It is a necessary part of humanity, and so, it also dictates moral objectives to us. This form of hand-holding may not be absolutely necessary for all people. Perhaps we are born with the ability to sense what is right and what is wrong with an internal barometer. But that is a question all to itself.
The question here is perhaps most easily summed up by observation of society. The one irrefutably awful and unacceptable action in any culture is murder. People may disagree from landmass to landmass on the rights of the people, whether horses are to be eaten, or on the habit of compulsory genital mutilation of infants, but one thing always holds - murder is not a matter for debate. Clearly, no matter what particular notions or superstitions a society holds dear; it just isn't conducive to human progression to murder your fellow citizen. This cannot be argued.
This is a universal truth of our species because it is in stark contrast of everything we aspire to be. There needn't be any laws or mores telling a person that killing is unacceptable - all people know it intrinsically. It may be one of only a very few things that we can feel in our gut is justwrong. And it isn't wrong because society says so. It's wrong because we are a social animal, more so than any other creature on this planet. We connect so intimately, even the mere action of a meet-and-greet is incomprehensibly personal when compared to the relations most other species on this planet share.
It would be easy to believe that there are no truly objective topics - that the entirety of our human civilization is determined by a centuries-long mutation of the same laws and concepts. The similarities this metaphor has with the process of evolution in the natural world may be a point worth considering all its own. But this is, ultimately, a rather glum way of looking at things. It may even hold water in many cases. It does not, however, leave room to address the dynamic nature of the human equation. It could be that the simple question of, "from where does this come" is unanswerable. Is it dictated by nature or nurture? Unknown. Is it objectively wrong? Yes.
Murder destroys the bond; it destroys humanity. It is unforgivably ugly, mean, and self-indulgent. It is markedly wrong. There need be no laws to deter it, nor any societal perspectives considered - it is abhorrent and objectively wrong.
2 Assuming that it is possible to act for our selves OR for others, what are some reasons why we should NOT want to act in our own self-interest?
Acting in one's own self-interest is inherent to our species, undeniably. A person needs only watch small children to see the barbaric hard-wiring that ties our brains together in a way which practically shouts, "I care about only myself!" And this perspective continues throughout life, albeit with more subtle hues. We would be foolish to believe it is stamped out as we age. Rather, it evolves with us as we expand our knowledge and experience base. Certainly, it is not entirely without benefit to us as a people. Self-preservation demands a little selfishness on our part, and we could never survive as a people or as mere individuals without a little primitive encoding.
Modern civilization is very individually focused (both east and west, the latter more so). Older generations consider the ethics of the younger lacking, and have defined their progeny as intensely selfish. This cannot be denied, of course, but the wrinkled have always denounced their better-looking, more physically able counterparts. Each generation must face that entirely predictable form of hazing. The concept, however, may be a very important one in this case: are we more selfish today? Are we more self-serving?
There are no easy answers. Today it is easier than ever to serve yourself without considering others. Nearly all advances in popular technology have their foundations in the simple thought-process of accomplishing a task more easily. We are seemingly designed to be self-serving.
While this benefits us directly, we miss the opportunity to reap the rewards of serving others. It should be obviously quite necessary to serve others before yourself for one reason: that is how we grow. It is only through communal steps in a certain direction that we can overcome ignorance, barbarism, poverty, and the other myriad maladies that plague us. History has shown that the model of a privileged few lording their status will never truly work. It still doesn't work today, and will be snuffed out at some point. It is detrimental to our goals as peers, friends, and simply fellow members of the same civilization to serve only ourselves.
3 We live in an age in which we are threatened by terrorists. Suppose for a moment that we could rid the world of all terrorism on the condition that one person be condemned to suffer a slow and painful torture for the rest of his life. Clearly the majority of people in the world would be safer and happier. It seems, then, on utilitarian grounds that we should, if we want to be ethical, allow the person to be tortured. Given this supposition, would you elect to accept the have the terrorism-free world with the tortured man? Why? Why not?
I would not condone the torture of one man for the needs of the many. Dealing in 'what if' situations is a terrific exercise, but often a glaringly one-sided debate. For this experiment I would deny the need for this one man's torture due to the fact that terrorism represents a crucial stage in humanity's growth. It cannot be halted by appeals to the better nature of men, and it cannot be nullified by sacrifice. It isn't a complex issue, but it is an entirely savage one - feeding on intolerance, misunderstanding, frustration, and a speck of cowardly ingenuity. Were one to 'cure' terrorism it would merely find itself festering and replicating as any good disease does. Terrorism is an excellent indication of the inadequacies of the organizations it targets. It also represents a crucial step in humanity coming to terms with its own problems, taking that most paramount of steps beyond the childish barbarism that has defined us for centuries, and becoming something greater.
Now, it cannot be ignored that part of this question seeks to understand why the reader would find it appropriate to condone torture of a, presumably, innocent man. The implication exists also that this unfortunate would have little to no choice in the matter; the decision would be handled by society for the betterment of all its people. The concept then immediately loses most of the heroic panache it may have had otherwise when confronted with the reality of this man being unable to affect the decision himself. Personal sacrifice is a great inspiration to most sections of humanity - there is something endearing to most people knowing that a fellow human was willing to give all that they were, their entire being, to the cause. Just look at how the western idea of Christianity somehow gathered a massive following, and continues to wield considerable power today. This was accomplished, in large part due to the tale of a man's total sacrifice. Of course, this man was supposed to be some form of super-human already, so our potential terrorism-sacrifice is already more interesting by comparison.
Personal sacrifice cannot be stopped. If someone has made the decision to die for a cause then it is only appropriate to grant them this wish. It is dashing and inspiring, of course, but it would also achieve a greater good. In this situation, let the torture begin. But if that is not the only case, and it involves a group of wide-eyed fear mongers sitting in council debating whether or not to sacrifice this poor person, then it is monstrously pathetic. Any grouping of people who would condone such an act to save themselves are cowards to the nth degree, and understand nothing about the greater good. They only understand base instincts of fear and self-preservation. Such a thing is unbecoming of our species.