Assignment 4: Are Nagel and Thoreau right? Can there be universal moral ideas, at the same time, our individual conscience are authoritative arbiters of right and wrong?

In “Walden; or Life in the Woods”, Henry David Thoreau questions in his chapter “Higher Laws” the eating of animal food. He states that the carnivorous instincts of human being are accomplished in a “miserable way” through slaughter of animals. “Whatever my own practice will be , I have no doubt that it is part of destiny of human race , in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came in contact with the more civilized.” (Thoreau 140) He is convinced that the human being will stop eating animals, such as the savages stopped cannibalism when they became civilized.

“Though the result were bodily weakness, yet perhaps no one can say that the consequences were to be regretted, for these were a life in conformity to higher principles. If day and the night are such that you greet them with joy, and life emits a fragrance like flowers and sweet scented-herbs, is more elastic, more starry, more immortal, -- that is your success. All nature is your congratulation, and you have cause momentarily to bless yourself. The greatest gains and values are farthest from being appreciated” (Thoreau 140).

We have to consider if eating meat is morally wrong now? To answer this question the definition of morality is needed. According to Merriam-Webster, it’s the “beliefs about what is right behavior and what wrong behavior is.”

When an individual is confronted with a crisis and doesn’t know what to do, he would consider the experiences he already made and decide what action to take. To decide whether it is right or wrong, it depends on his experience of life and social area. Since the beginning of life you are told by your authorities what to do and what not to. What is right and what is wrong. Universal moral ideas exists in society which we experience day-by-day. That is why lying, stealing, killing, or racism is seen as a wrong and bad. While honesty, modesty, courage, or forgiveness is seen as a good. Also, all actions are influenced by family structures, culture, religious belief, economical system and more. With those moral values in life you are able to direct your behavior.

For instance, a moral code states “One should treat others as one would like the others to treat oneself”. It is constructed by society or individuals and this leads to the fact that some people might see something as normal which is not seen as normal for the others. Therefore, moral values are independent on human beliefs, and right morally values depend on the viewer.

Thoreau, Henry David. Walden; or Life in the Woods. USA: Dover Publications, 1995. Print.

Assignment 3: Taking Thoreau´s lead, can you imagine ways in which our technologically affected lives can be wedded with a sensual acuity for nature?

In nature beauty is perceived everywhere. In all places and things, variety of flowers, animals, birds, plants, even in unexpected areas on earth; nature is vividly colorful. This beauty can be found in all creations of God.  Henry David Thoreau observes this beauty day-by-day at Walden Pond.

“I did not read books the first summer; I hoed beans. Nay, I often did better than this. There were times when I could not afford to sacrifice the bloom of the present moment to any work, whether of the head or hands. I love a broad margin in my life. Sometimes, in a summer morning, having taking my accustomed bath, I sat in my sunny doorway from sunrise till noon, […], in undisturbed solitude and stillness, while the birds sang around or flittered noiseless through the house, until by the sun falling in at my west window, or the noise of some traveller´s wagon on the distant highway, I was reminded of the lapse of time.” (Thoreau 72).

He takes much pleasure in listening to various sounds around him which makes him feel closer to nature and its beauties. This enjoyment in observing nature´s beauty has the effect to imagine the simple pleasures which can be taken out in only slowing down life and esteem the surrounding. “I had this advantage, at least, in my mode of life, over those who were obliged to look abroad for amusement, to society and the theatre, that my life itself was become my amusement and never ceased to be novel.”(Thoreau 73).

With technology, whose role has enlarged rapidly in nowadays lives, nature seems to be forgotten. Furthermore, life without technology is unthinkable, only imagining one day without it would freak a lot of people out. So many humans are addicted to it that all their lives depend on it. Even early in the morning it starts with an alarm clock to wake up, until the middle of night where your last look goes to your phone to check it the last time before sleeping (and very often it is the case that this smartphone keeps you away from sleeping because you eventually start to play games or read the news just to fall asleep, but actually it keeps you away from it). Technology keeps the world going. But what happened to nature?     

Present human beings are so distracted and influenced by technology that nature fades into the background and is seen only by a few. Thus, it is disappearing all around us because it is easier to sit in front of a screen for hours of entertainment than to go outside and experience it. Spending your time with “Facebook” and wasting hours of your lifetime is not worth it. Nature is also part of our lives and should be appreciated and valued more with its full impact.

Thoreau, Henry David. Walden; or Life in the Woods. USA: Dover Publications, 1995. Print.

Assignment 2: How would Thoreau react to today´s more complex, phantasmagorical technological advancements and social media? Are these further encroaching “shadows and delusions” that we esteem for soundest of truths?

Nowadays technology is very much part of our lives. Many people feel that technology has improved the quality of life, but by some others it is seen as a force which has escaped from human control.

Henry David Thoreau deals with this topic in his book “Walden; or, Life in the Woods”. In his second chapter “Where I lived, and what I lived for” he mentions the reason why he has sealed himself out of his society. Thoreau criticizes the media and its influence on society taking away the time which is not appreciated anymore. In his opinion this stolen time should be invested in enjoying and observing life in its very little detail and beauty. In addition to that, the morning plays an important role in life, because it reminds Thoreau of heroic ages which inspires him to be truly awake. Therefore, for him “To be awaken is to be alive.” (Thoreau 59).

”I went to the woods to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practices resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to life sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to route all that was not life […]” (Thoreau 59).

Thoreau, who was far away from disturbance and nose, endeavors to find out life´s true meanness which seems for him to be distracted. Considering the fact that his book is written in 19^th century, what distraction does he mean?  He mentions the newspaper in which the same stories are told again and again, only with new details, and thus he considers it as gossip.

Also he wonders why his society lives in such a hurry and waste (cf. Thoreau 60). Their lives are so fast, and superficial; they do not even notice what is going on. What happens with reality? He makes demands on “Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity!” (Thoreau 59). The society gives in to the illusion of habit and routine which has not really changed yet. But they should observe only the reality, he wants them to “spend one day deliberately as Nature”, to find out it if its life or death they are living in.

Nowadays technology has spread so much you can see no place without it. Observing the children in this generation, everyone owes a smartphone or an I-pad; one can assume they are addicted to it. Being online and reachable day-and-night is a must have. Twittering the doings and uploading pictures of foods, places, new haircut, or puppies, is only normal in this 21^st century. But we need to consider what this irrelevant information does for our life? And further, how can reality be enjoyed, if being present in these technologically affected lives are so much more important?

The role of technology and social media in this century has enlarged, and the modern life is unthinkable without it. For Thoreau, his affected society was the reason why he started his Pond project and it would obviously be the reason again why he would live solely in this century. Because he has a desire and need for simplicity whereby the full meaning of life can only be expressed. “Every morning was a cheerful invitation to make my life of equal simplicity, and I may say innocence, with Nature herself” (Thoreau 58). 

Thoreau, Henry David. Walden; or Life in the Woods. USA: Dover Publications, 1995. Print.

Assignment 1: Compare and contrast these two perspectives. Are they contradictory or complimentary?

Henry David Thoreau and Marilynne Robinson are two authors who write about the experience they made with their society. 

In “Walden” Thoreau portrays his two years spending in Walden Pond (in 1845), Massachusetts, living a simple life supported by no one. He wants to illustrate the spiritual benefits of a simplified lifestyle.  The first Chapter “Economy” is supposed to be a declaration of social thought and meditations on independence, where Thoreau outlines his ideals as he represents his Walden Pond project. 

He has a critical attitude towards society, and education. He criticizes University for teaching students about life, when they could only learn about it, by actually living life.

“[…] defrauding himself of the experience which alone can make leisure fruitful. […] you do not mean that students should go to work with their hands instead of their heads? I do not mean that exactly, […] I mean that they should not play life, or study it merely, while the community supports them at this expensive game, but earnestly live it from beginning. How could youth better learn to live than by at once trying the experiment of living? Methinks this would exercise their minds [...]” (Thoreau 33).

In his opinion you can only learn about life through making your own way in the world, instead of learning solely in the classroom. Students have to be more self-reliant and self-supporting to achieve more education and value it accordingly, for instance student housing. Considering Thoreau´s idea, with an advancement of education and reduction of costs students would learn more.

In “Night Thoughts of a Baffled Humanist” Marilynne Robinson is a Calvinist essayist who writes about human life with political aspects of society. In opposite to Thoreau she has a positive attitude towards society and culture. She writes about how living together in its best way can be attained. “Western Society at its best expresses the serene sort of courage that allow us to grant one another real safety, real autonomy, the means of think and act as a judgment and conscience dictate” (Robinson 5). This accommodation can only be achieved with “[…] respect, educate, inform and trust […]” (Robinson 5).

While Thoreau describes his society in an economical way, Robinson outlines her society more political. At first glance both of them have a different point of view that is why it seems to be contradictory. But, considering their different perspectives– Thoreau, a transcendentalist born in 1817 and Robinson born approximately a hundred years later, they seem to write about the same problem. Both of them focus how an improvement of a better civilization can be achieved. 

Thoreau, Henry David. Walden; or Life in the Woods. USA: Dover Publications, 1995. Print.

Robinson, Marilynne. “Night Thoughts of a Baffled Humanist”. The Nation 8. Nov. 2011. Web. 11 Jan. 2014 <www.thenation.com/print/article/164466/night-thoughts-baffled-humanist>.

Assignment 4: Can there be universal moral ideas, while, at the same time, our individual consciences are authoritative arbiter of right and wrong?

Society is an interesting thing. Today, we look back on the Dark Ages and wonder how it was possible that people accepted things like the burning of witches, public executions, and the hard punishments for blasphemy. For the major part of people the answer might simply have been: Because I grew up with this. Because it has always been like this. Because society accepts it. Nowadays society has changed, and we look back and wonder whether people at that time were lacking an individual sense of right and wrong, whether they didn't have a conscience. The same goes for so many other cases: slavery, segregation, National Socialism, the fact that homosexuality was illegal until the 1970s. And it is not as if there were no more of these issues nowadays. Society is by no means always in accordance with everyone's individual consience. Can there be universal moral ideas at all? What role does our personal conscience play? Who or what is the final judge of right and wrong?

I agree with society in many respects. I think most laws are good laws, and that they go along with what one usually considers to be morally right. In some cases this might seem obvious: of course it is wrong to murder. Of course it is wrong to steal. Of course it is right to let everybody choose their own nutrition freely. Or is it? Even on these „obvious“ cases we can have very different opinions—not to talk of contoversial issues such as abortion or euthanasia. But is it really always wrong to kill? German society and law would agree; society and law of 58 other countries around the world would not: they still practice the death penaltyⁱ. (I will not extend on the huge paradox that this implies—the fact that they kill in order to show that killing is wrong.) And think about it: can it really be reconciled with your conscience that there are people dying of sheer poverty while others are wallowing in money? Imagine a mother stealing from Bill Gates in order to feed her undernourished, dying child—is stealing still wrong, in this context?

In the eleventh chapter of Walden, called „Higher Laws“, Thoreau expresses his belief „[…]that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came in contact with the more civilized.“ As vegetarian, I would love to agree to this belief wholeheartedly; I sincerely wish that eating animals was only a stage in our development to a higher and better life. However, the development of mankind has not exactly been a straight line, improving from generation to generation as we would like to think. There were many set-backs: antiquity was followed by the Middle Ages, Enlightenment was followed by the Holocaust.

Although I am not very optimistic about the future of mankind, I love the idea of future people teaching their kids about how people used to eat animals in former times, how they denied climate change because they didn't want to change their convenient lives, how there were countries where people died of hunger while others were so wasteful that they coined the term “throwaway society”. And I love the idea of future kids sitting there, gaping in incredulity like we nowadays do when we hear about the Dark Ages. After all, it is all a matter of what we are used to. We are influenced by what society thinks, but history has shown that this is by no means always what is right. Yet even in a utopia like the one I just outlined, I don't think all individuals would agree with society. There will always be different experiences, perceptions, ideals and opinions. Yes, if society gradually develops to the better, people will grow up with changed values and ideas about right and wrong. But who is to decide what is better?

In The New Republic, Thomas Nagel states that “one of the hardest questions for moral theory is whether the values tied to the personal point of view […] should be part of the foundation of morality or should be admitted only to the extent that they can be justified from an impersonal standpoint such as that of impartial utilitarianism.” Should an impartial utilitarianism be our guideline, then? To increase the happiness of as many people as possible—is that what we should aspire? Spontaneously, we might answer yes. However there are cases where the individual consciense would contradict: imagine a homeless old man without relatives or friends. His life is hard and lonely. Imagine he slips, falls, and is badly injured: your concience would say, take him to the hospital and nurse him back to health. Utilitarianism, however, would say, keeping him alive doesn't exactly make him happy, hospital is expensive, no one will miss him, and therefore society will gain more happiness if we just end his sufferings the way we do with badly injured horses.

I find it extremely hard to come to a final answer on the question who or what is to decide about right and wrong. Society or a impersonal utilitarianism are certainly not fit to do so, but the individual conscience is amoral authority too unstable and sometimes unwillingly selfish to be trusted. In the end I think that this question can never be answered satisfyingly. We can only hope that Thoreau is right and that society is, on the whole, improving—whatever this may mean.

i “Staaten mit und ohne Todesstrafe”. Amnesty International, 21 December 2013. Web. 11. January 2014 <http://amnesty-todesstrafe.de/index.php?id=42>

Works cited:

Thoreau, Henry David. Walden or Life in the Woods. USA: Popular Classics Publishing, 2012. Print. 

 

Thomas Nagel, “You Can't Learn About Morality From Brain Scans, The problem with moral psychology”. The New Republic, 1 Nov. 2013. Web. 11 January 2014 <http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115279/joshua-greenes-moral-tribes-reviewed-thomas-nagel/>
 

Assignment 5

 Thoreau sees bravery, intelligence and spiritual depth in the instinctual
behavior of animals. Can it be that some of the character traits we most
admire in other persons are also matters of instinct, as with the animals in
this passage? If character is a matter of insouciant instinct, can we
condemn those who don't have it? Cf. Meand, “We think that sucking it up,
mastering our fears, is a sign of character. But do we think that people
who are naturally fearless lack character? We usually think the opposite.
Yet those people are just born lucky.”

Animals act on instinct, humans do not!

Bravery, intelligence and spiritual depth is according to Thoreau the characteristics of the instinct. He refers particularly to animal´s, because they operate on instinct, therefore he sheds an heroic light on them. In addition Thoreau describes this feature of the animals as flawless and beyond perfection. Hence, he admires them as many other people admire not animals, but perhaps other persons for their bravery, intelligence and spiritual depth.

People differ from animals in many ways, one of them is the missing instinct in humans. Humans have no instinctual features, they are helpless with the moment they are born. There are few unfavorable examples that reveal children in isolation unable to acquire language or appropriate physical movements. More evidence is shown by the behavior of infants that start to breath or suck on the breast of the mother – since particular behavior is explained through reflexes and the muscle system. This argumentation leads to further considerations and requires a definition of instinct and reflex.

An instinct is innate and does not require the ability to consider the action towards environmental demands, whereby a reflex action is an uncontrolled reaction made in a response to a stimulus. An interesting thought is contrived by Lee Stanek, who defines instinct also as “an intuitive judgment or feeling about the best way to act, not based on rational conscious thoughts”,therefore humans are able to posses instinct as well. Based on that we can assume that admirable people often defined as brave, intelligent and spiritual depth execute instinct, too.

People who embody instinct are born lucky. Cf. Menand, “We think that sucking it up, mastering fears, is a sign of character. But do we think that people who are naturally fearless lack character? We usually think the opposite. Yet those people are just born lucky.” According to Meanand we look up to fearless people and not to the brave ones mastering their fears. For example a fearless persons behavior is innate as an instinct, whereby a thoughtful person is marked as unintelligent, fearful and has no spiritual depth. In result, fearless people are useful members of our community and raises the question if we could therefore condemn those who are not.

“If a character is a matter of insouciant instinct, can we condemn those who don´t have it?”

A world that seeks for a hegemony system would support this proposition. A hegemony culture with people, unlikely born lucky, are segregated from fearless people. In a matter of fact, this is not an impossible thought, actually, a similar system with different stakeholder is existing already.

For example an op in the states, fearless and unstoppable, operated by the Trilateral commission. Many members are Representatives of the government or Worldbank presidencies. One of them, David Rockefeller describing the Trilateral goals in his memoirs as following: “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” David Rockefeller with his fearless character and no interest in anything else but money – admired by many capitalist; in fact he could only achieve to become a multimillionaire by condemning all other people who lack “character“.This behavior or system is anything else but not intelligent, brave or connected with spiritual depth. In result admirable character can not be acquainted with the action of instinct and needs to be left for the animals.

Assignment 4

Are Nagel and Thoreau right? Can there be universal moral ideals, while,

at the same time, our individual consciences are authoritative arbiters of

right and wrong?

The two excerpts from Thoreau and Nagel seek both to address the same issue of morality. Can there be universal moral ideals? In comparison, Thoreau acts more optimistic and depicts the issue as a pre-construct path without the possibility of occurring obstacles, whereby Nagel observes many bumpers on the road and many complications flourishing from the ground. In addition, Nagel indicates the personal struggle and influences occurring with the rightness of morality. In contrast Thoreau relies on human nature that will lead to true moral path and may not repressed by the way of life. He offers a comparison of the savages stopping cannibalism the same way humans will stop continue carnivorousness- immorality. Nagel invested some of his time to determine the existence of a universal true moral; therefore he conducted in experiments regarding morality. His question revealed the same responses throughout different objects. In result Nagel has evidence for the existence of a universal moral.

In the next paragraph a general definition of universal moral truth is offered.

A universal truth morality is the foundation in which our society is embedded, a foundation from which human values and standards derive- it does not change like clothes or seasons. Furthermore, if the morality was right 3000 thousand years ago it will still have the same rightness today. Nonetheless, one would think that morality changes through different cultures, but this is wrong, because it appears not right because the culture claims it is and vice versa. For example, we identify what is right and wrong early on through our cultures, but the aim is to identify the rightness of the decision. Just because a culture defines morality different, it doesn’t conclude that morality is relative. In a matter of fact, there is no culture that defines true moral culture.

Individual arbitrary choices have no influence of the universal moral ideals. Same as above mentioned just because one acts in a particular way and reasons emotional, it is not an assurance of right morality. If there exist one universal moral truth, it surely abides no influence of emotions or changing values. However, morality sets universal principles that count for all cultures and should be discovered through a collective.

If we assume Nagel and Thoreau are right, the above mentioned facts need to count. In addition, the theory of an universal moral ideal would include the faith in a superior power that sets the foundation. The existence of a universal moral truth is not imaginable without a system that constructs boundaries and sets rules in this complex topic. Otherwise there would be no point in believing in morality - a truth believer needs a reference to faith that is identified through the existence in god.