Note: Since I didn't get any writing for writer's done this week (aside from what I'll try to get done within the next hour and a half), I'll share my recently graded philosophy papers. Two of them got A's, and one got a high B (my conclusion wasn't as solid as my prof was looking for). I'll let y'all figure out which paper got what grade.
Paper 1:
Maya Nibbe
Dr. Schulte
Intro to Philosophy
6-28-2023
Critiquing D’Holbach
Do humans have free will to go against nature and do as we wish, or is every little aspect of our lives already predetermined by natural laws? This is a question that people have been wrestling with for centuries. On one side, you have the determinists, who believe that humans are predetermined by natural laws to behave in certain ways, and therefore have no free will (Timpe). On the other side, you have metaphysical libertarians, who believe people have some or complete free will regardless of natural laws (Timpe). Personally, while I lean closer towards the idea that we do have free will, I also think determinism has a point. After all, it’s a little more logic-based than free will, though determinism fails to answer many of my questions about it.
At least one historical philosopher believed in strict determinism. Baron D’Holbach, who was born in Germany in 1723, was a hard determinist (Encyclopedia Britannica). He believed that free will was an illusion, and that all human actions were already predetermined by nature. To defend his stance, D’Holbach wrote The System of Nature in 1770, in which he made many arguments to defend hard determinism, some of which I agree with, others I don’t. However, for the sake of time, I will only be critiquing one of his arguments, that one being that human actions are necessary reactions to previous events (D’Holbach 4).
In D’Holbach’s worldview, everything that happens has a reason for happening. Therefore, everything can be explained and predicted via natural laws (D’Holbach 6). For instance, cars don’t just randomly start. Something has to turn the ignition, which lights a spark, which creates enough energy through fire to get the engine going and keep it idling. Human brains work similarly. In order for someone to do anything, neurons must be activated via electric pulses within the brain. Therefore, like a car starting up, people only do things when their brain starts up, all thanks to natural laws.
However, the problem I see with this argument is that humans aren’t as predictable as car engines. We can know exactly how and why a car started, but we don’t yet know exactly why someone decided to do something, let alone predict it.
On Youtube, there’s a video titled, “We’re Conjoined Twins. Ask Us Anything.” by Jubilee, where people ask conjoined twins, Carmen and Lupita, questions about what it’s like being conjoined twins. Right away, we learn that Carmen is a college student, but Lupita is a college dropout (Jubilee 0:24). How is this the case? After all, wouldn’t natural laws argue that both twins ought to be college students or college dropouts, but not both, given that conjoined twins basically live exactly the same lives?
D'Holbach acknowledges this problem by writing, “Nevertheless it must be acknowledged that the multiplicity and diversity of the causes which continually act upon man, frequently without even his knowledge, render it impossible, or at least extremely difficult for him to recur to the true principles of his own peculiar actions, much less the actions of others: they frequently depend upon causes so fugitive, so remote from their effects, and which, superficially examined, appear to have so little analogy, so slender a relation with them, that it requires singular sagacity to bring them into light.” (D’Holbach 7).
In other words, D’Holbach argues that everyone, including conjoined twins, live different lives, and experience different things, which sets off a chain of events that cause them to be… well… different. Even if these different experiences are impossible to figure out. However, I find this argument lacking, because there seems to be no way to prove this point, and it doesn’t actually address my initial question “How can natural laws predict human behavior the same way they can predict a car engine starting, when humans tend to react very differently to the same things?”
Again, we know how car engines start, and can predict that every time the ignition is turned, the engine will start the same way in one car as it will every other car like it. But, humans aren’t nearly as predictable as car engines. So far, there seems to be no natural law(s) that can explain why Carmen is a college student, and Lupita is not, despite the fact that they are conjoined twins. If human actions are events, and natural laws can explain and predict these events, why haven’t we figured out why Carmen is a college student, and Lupita is not? What miniscule event (or events) determines whether a person goes to college or not?
D’Holbach fails to properly answer this question. He simply shrugs his shoulders and says, “Nature did it.”, which to me, isn’t a good answer to, “Why is Carmen a student, but Lupita is not?”, for the same reason you can’t explain away lightning with, “Nature did it.” The question, at least to me, isn’t what happened, but why, in detail, something happened, which hard determinism can’t seem to answer when it comes to human (and animal) behavior.
Works Cited:
D’Holbach, Baron. Chapter XI: Of the System of Man’s Free Agency. 1770. file:///C:/Users/mayaj/Downloads/DHolbach%20Chap11%20System%20of%20Nature.pdf.
Encyclopedia Britannica. “Paul-Henri Dietrich, baron d’Holbach.” Encyclopedia Britannica. 17 June 2023. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Paul-Henri-Dietrich-baron-dHolbach.
Timpe, Kevin. “Free Will.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed 30 June 2023. https://iep.utm.edu/freewill/#SH6b.
“We're Conjoined Twins. Ask Us Anything.” Youtube. Uploaded by Jubilee. 17 Apr. 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8bPdC5YXnA
Paper 2:
Maya Nibbe
Dr. Schulte
Philosophy 101
7-19-2023
Epistemology Paper
When it comes to the study of knowledge (AKA Epistemology) and answering the question, “What is reality?”, there are two positions one can take: Empiricism or Rationalism. Empiricists, such as David Hume, believe that reality is based upon one’s own experiences in the world, which are dictated by natural laws, and therefore can’t be reasonably doubted (Fieser). While Rationalists, such as Rene Descartes, believe that reality is not just based upon one’s own experiences and/or natural laws, and therefore can be doubted (Skirry).
Personally, I lean closer towards Rationalism rather than Empiricism because human minds can be flawed, and therefore experience things that aren’t actually real. Sure, natural laws do exist and, in theory, can’t be flawed. However, like Descartes, I don’t think the human mind is bound by natural laws, and therefore can think and experience things that don’t actually exist.
Before I get ahead of myself, I think it’s important to point out that we can’t have knowledge of things that don’t exist. Sure, we can make up names and fun facts about dragons. But, since dragons don’t literally exist, we can’t actually have knowledge of dragons. After all, knowledge can’t simply be “made up”. Knowledge must have science and actual facts to back it up. While we can’t have knowledge of dragons, we can (and do) have knowledge of Komodo Dragons, as dragons are fantasy, but Komodo Dragons are real.
That said, what if someone swears they saw an actual dragon in real life? Well, like Descartes, I’d be inclined to doubt them. Why? Because, scientifically speaking, our minds can easily make things up about the world around us. Seeing/believing things that aren’t real is called Psychosis (National Institute of Mental Health). Since there’s yet to be any scientific proof of dragons actually existing, but there is lots of evidence to show that humans can experience Psychosis, if someone claims to have seen an actual dragon in real life, it would be much more reasonable to assume that they were either lying about the experience, or hallucinated the experience altogether, than it would be to fully accept that person’s experience as real.
However, we don’t have to accuse the person who swears they saw a dragon of being a liar or insane, to still show that their experience was flawed. In his Meditations on First Philosophy, specifically in Meditation II, Descartes writes, “…when looking from a window and saying I see men who pass in the street, I really do not see them, but infer that what I see is men, just as I say that I see wax. And yet what do I see from the window but hats and coats which may cover automatic machines? Yet I judge these to be men. And similarly solely by the faculty of judgment which rests in my mind, I comprehend that which I believed I saw with my eyes.” (Descartes).
In other words, Descartes is saying that it’s possible for someone to mistake a robot in a coat for a man in a coat, for the same reasons it’s reasonable to assume that a person who swears they saw a real dragon, but wasn’t lying or hallucinating, was merely mistaking a Komodo Dragon for a real dragon.
Yet, Hume would argue that there is no way to prove nor disprove that the person really saw a real dragon, since we weren’t the ones who witnessed it. We could come up with every rational explanation possible to show that the person who saw a dragon didn’t actually see a dragon, but Hume would still argue that the person’s experience of a dragon is just as real as one’s experience with a Komodo Dragon.
Why do I say that? Because Hume writes, “The intense view of these manifold contradictions and imperfections in human reason has so wrought upon me, and heated my brain, that I am ready to reject all belief and reasoning, and can look upon no opinion even as more probable or likely than another [Treatise, 1.4.7.8].” (Fieser).
Because of how radical Hume’s Empiricist position is, I can’t accept it as easily as I can accept Descartes’ Rationalism. I don’t have an issue with someone believing they saw a real dragon (AKA being an Empiricist). I just don’t believe real dragons exist for the reasons I stated above. If I saw what I perceived to be a real dragon, I’d question my sanity long before I started to believe that dragons (aside from Komodo Dragons and other lizards) really exist, because our senses and our minds can easily trick us into seeing and believing things that aren’t actually real.
Works Cited:
Skirry, Justin. “René Descartes (1596—1650).” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed 21 July 2023. https://iep.utm.edu/rene-descartes/.
Fieser, James. “David Hume (1711—1776).” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed 21 July 2023. https://iep.utm.edu/hume/.
National Institute of Mental Health. “Understanding Psychosis.” Accessed 21 July 2023. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/understanding-psychosis#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20one%20cause,bipolar%20disorder%2C%20or%20severe%20depression.
Rene Descartes. “Meditations on First Philosophy.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed 21 July 2023. file:///C:/Users/mayaj/Downloads/DescartesMeditations1.pdf.
Paper 3:
Maya Nibbe
Dr. Schulte
Philosophy 101
8-5-2023
Does Vegetarianism Really Reduce Animal Suffering?
In 1998, philosopher Peter Singer’s essay “A Vegetarian Philosophy” was published in a book called Consuming Passions: Food in the Age of Anxiety. In his essay, Singer argues that factory farming is morally wrong due to the animal suffering it causes, and we (as humans) are obligated to end suffering caused by factory farming. The best way to end factory farming, at least according to Singer, is for everyone to go vegetarian and/or vegan (Singer). After all, if everyone went vegetarian and/or vegan, then the factory farmed meat industry would collapse, and livestock would no longer be brutally mass produced and killed for food.
However, the collapse of factory farming wouldn’t just benefit livestock. Singer also argues that it would benefit the environment and humanity, as factory farming “… is a heavy user of fossil fuels and a major source of pollution of both air and water. It releases large quantities of methane and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere…” (Singer).
Therefore, Singer’s conclusion that everyone should go vegetarian for the animals and the environment is very solid, right?
While I agree with Singer that factory farming is morally reprehensible in many ways, and it is in everyone’s best interest to stop factory farming, I don’t agree that everyone going vegetarian/vegan will solve the issues of animal suffering and climate change like he argues it would. I think a vegetarian world would simply go from killing livestock to killing wildlife. And wildlife is just as sentient as livestock. In fact, in some ways, wildlife is even more valuable than livestock, as the environment relies on wildlife to survive.
There are many ways I can defend my position from a scientific standpoint. But for this paper’s sake, I’ll be arguing from a mostly philosophical standpoint as to why I don’t think a vegetarian world would do much (if anything) to reduce animal or human suffering, even if we got rid of factory farms altogether.
To start, in “A Vegetarian Philosophy”, Singer writes, “Collectively, all consumers of animal products are responsible for the existence of the cruel practice involved in producing them.” (Singer). While I agree with Singer that everyone who eats factory farmed meats plays a collective role in the suffering of animals, what about those who eat fruits and vegetables harvested from millions of acres of croplands?
After all, I’d argue that croplands are just as damaging to the environment as livestock are. According to the Environmental Research Service of the USDA, crops diminish wildlife habitat, eat up all of the nutrients in the soil that are essential for plants to grow, and cause pesticides to contaminate the land and water around the crops (ERS). Pesticides are also particularly destructive towards the pollinator population, contributing to the alarming decline of bees (Xerces). If Singer claims, “…all consumers of animal products are responsible for the existence of the cruel practice involved in producing them.” (Singer), then wouldn’t all consumers of plant-based products be responsible for the environmental damage caused by crops? If so, then how does vegetarianism really reduce the suffering caused to animals?
Sure, by going vegetarian, one isn’t directly contributing to the intentional slaughter of billions of livestock. But, turning to vegetarianism hardly seems to reduce suffering to animals. It simply causes more harm to bees and bugs than to pigs and cattle. And, according to an article published in Scientific American, insects are just as sentient as other animals are (Chittka).
Once again, does vegetarianism really reduce animal suffering like Singer claims it would, all things considered? Clearly, I’d say “no”, just based on the negative impacts crops and pesticides have on insects (AKA beings just as sentient as cows and pigs) alone. A vegetarian world would simply go from harming livestock to harming even more insects than we already do, which wouldn’t promote the greater good any more than factory farming does today.
Works Cited:
Chittka, Lars. “Do Insects Feel Joy and Pain?” Scientific American. 1 July 2023. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-insects-feel-joy-and-pain/#:~:text=Bees%2C%20for%20example%2C%20can%20count,experience%20both%20pleasure%20and%20pain.
Environmental Research Service. “Overview.” 9 Sept. 2019. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environment/environmental-quality/#:~:text=However%2C%20crop%20production%20can%20diminish,quality%2C%20and%20diminish%20water%20supplies.
Singer, Peter. “A Vegetarian Philosophy.” 1998. http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer05.pdf.
Xerces Society. “The Risks of Pesticides to Pollinators.” Accessed 6 Aug. 2023. https://www.xerces.org/pesticides/risks-pesticides-pollinators.