Question 1
The gap between ethics that governs a libertarian and ethics that controls care and compassionate is so wide. There is a great difference libertinism from care and compassionate. In a shallow understanding from the definitions of the two subjects in discussion, we can come up with one common difference that cut across them. First, libertarianism may refer to the ethical moral standard and view that allow individuals to own them fully and have great powers to control their freedom. The powers further allow them to acquire property rights in any external objects that surround them (Ryder, 48). In other hand, care and compassionate can be defined in strict sense as an act that fully emphasizes on certain traits such as sympathy, loyalty and love in a healthy relations that focuses on the survival and well-being of other individuals. The abstract principles and freedom of deontological ethics is condemned in full force.
Libertarianism mainly focuses on the principle that each individual has the freedom to choose a negative thing. It advocates on the maximum negative liberty without recognizing the side effects of the same. It further identifies and recognizes the freedom to absence of constructive interference that might limit the outcome of the decision in hand. It calls for the right to commit suicide when one desires to do so. They argue that life belongs to oneself and thus has the freedom to terminate it whenever needed and any time. The principle further states that one is never forced to do the so unless it comes from inner self (Ryder, 53). They claim that anything that comes from your heart, your body deserves it, no matter how destructive it may appear. An opposite and total different opinion comes out to reject the said freedom to own your life by the libertarians. Moreover, care and compassionate champions for love, and concern to each other. Care emphasizes on the need to save life to our level best. Compassionate condemns suicide and terms it as an unethical and unacceptable to the community.
Libertarians understand libertarianism as the common moral derivative. In most cases, it is referred as a doctrine that owns its natural rights. It is referred as a contract Arianism rule. The main target of care and compassionate is to call for appeal to consider some certain kinds of human limitations, which may in return limit the freedom that libertarians enjoy.
In addition, compassionate and care ethics focuses on the need for specific interdependent of individuals and the significance of particular interactions in the community. Furthermore, compassionate and care engages mostly in moral standards to balance the inner compassionate with care for people around our ecosystem (Ryder, 79). On the other hand, libertarianism entails the need for neglect for oneself. It further emphasizes in deep details of the need to be concerned about your well-being. Therefore, it does not entail the need for the outcome of any action committed provided one did it in the name of self-satisfaction. The focus on the community around is ignored and the individual may be considered as an island of his conscience. A libertarian rationally constructs universal rules by himself. The reverse for a compassionate and caring individual is true. The relational autonomous individual formulates his principles based on the account of his interaction with other agents that surround him.
In view of left-libertarianism, the principle holds that each and every natural resource belong to everyone and can be manipulated in any way, by anyone. The life of all living organism that survives alone can be manipulated as long it is for self-interest. The act of care and compassionate is neglected in this case (Ryder, 84). It emphasizes non interest observations and judgment. The compact libertarians argue that a kind of egalitarian redistribution is required to achieve this. On the hand, the principle of care and compassionate denies the said statement from libertarians. It encourage on participation in taking care of our natural resources and life that surround us with a significance attitude and feeling of engagement to the suffering.
Question 2
A community is a small social unit that shares the same values, norms, believes or geographical area such as a neighborhood, housing project or a rural or urban area. A community, as a group often pursues a common goal, concern and interest. People in a community are not only brought together by the geographical links but also by other unifying factors such as lifestyle, work, religion, race, hobby and interest among others (Ryder, 99). Therefore, an individual can be linked with a community depending on what association they have with other members. In that accord, there are many types of communities such as rural community, student community, football community, Christian community, medical community, business community, African American community among others.
Individual identity is determined by the membership of a particular community because ones identity is formed through the process of socialization which integrates an individual into a particular community (Ryder, 108). When a child is born in a community, they are taught the values, norms and beliefs of that particular community from their childhood. As they grow, the continue learning the same customs until they are fully integrated in to that particular community. This integration fosters a sense of belonging and the individual feels that they are obliged to follow the community culture and traditions.
In a community, every member is expected to observe the norms, values and beliefs of the community. These are the core elements that maintain the morality of the community and failure to observe them may lead to punishment or suspension from the community. A community has the governing body of elders that sets and supervises the action of its members. Each member has an obligation to preserve the community values by observing the norms and not going against its beliefs. Such adherence to the communal rules and regulation ensure the stability of the community and maintain it moral values.
Question 3
The first experiment is of Mary who was raised in a black and white environment in which she is taught functional and physical facts about colors. However, when she goes out, she learns the real fact of what it is to see red. From these experiences, she learns that there are no functional or physical facts on how to see red (Ryder, 127). The experiment poses two questions. One does Mary know what it is to see red? Rather than knowing which things are red and two, does she know it simply by virtue of having the knowledge of all the functional and physical facts about color? Mcginn argues that there is no relation between the color and experience. He says that the brain can does not have to be exposed to the environment in order to master its surrounding. On further explanation, he says that there is no color.
The second experiment was about the absent qualia hypothesis. In this experiment, it was tested if human beings can be described computationally as it was assumed in the research program of cognitive science. If this hypothesis was proven, then man would in principle be computationally identical to a robot. In that case, an important question rises, what was it like to be a robot?
Mcginn talks of a constructive solution such as functionalism. He suggests that a property that is satisfied by both the brain states and mental states is supposed to explain how conscious states can come up from the brain (Ryder, 143). In the second experiment e concludes that human are not similar to robots because they can use their brains independently.
Mcginn is wrong about the human brain and experience association. The human brain is elastic and learns through exposure to the environment. If Mary had been exposed to color, she would tell which color is red. Our experience with color is abstract and can be fooled but color is real. In the second experiment there is neither any relation nor similarities between human brain and robots.
Works Cited
Ryder, Richard D. Speciesism, Painism and Happiness: A Morality for the Twenty-First Century. Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic, 2011. Print.
