Does Practice Make Perfect?

From p. 497 in The Philosophical Journey:

Is it possible to practice the art of being moral, much like we practice playing a musical instrument or a sport?

Your Moral Models

The following is from p. 494 in The Philosophical Journey:

What persons have been moral role models for you? Were they all persons you know, or were some of them people you read about? Were any of them teachers? Were some of them historical figures? Were any of them fictional characters? Did your moral paradigms change as you grew older? Why? What did you learn from them about life and about being an excellent human being? How would you have been different if you had not been influenced by them?

Two things:
One regarding whether something is morally right or wrong. I think people determine this because of their consequences, for the most part, especially when pain is involved in the consequences of the action. Linking with the article, it said that we are born with the idea of wanting to do good things to other people. When we are faced with a situation that may cause pain to an individual (or more), we are faced with a dilemma that may put a person's life in our hands. For example, today in class, we discussed whether killing the serial killer/disabled person is the same as locking them away from society. Some regarded this as different as we would be killing "innocent people" who can't help how their brain is structured. Similarly, back to the debate about killing the 5 people in the car and the 1 person on the track. Before we knew that we would be pushing the person onto the tracks (even also before we knew there was a person standing on the tracks), people were in support of saving the 5 people. When they found out you had to push the man, people began to have doubts as they weren't sure whether they wanted to "kill" the 5 people or the individual as it involved you depriving a person of their life. Emotional consequences are shown to play a key part in whether a person makes a decision to do something or not.
SECOND, is about the discussion today as to whether we can judge the equality of everyone. What are we defining as equality because down to the bone, we're not equal. We all think differently, look differently and many more. Do we mean equality as exactly the same or....??? I'm not sure. I'm not saying that people should or shouldn't be treated equally. I'm just saying that people aren't and never will be equal. Take a look outside, in the news or in magazines. People aren't treated equally because people are living their lives differently granting them more priveleges than others. Those who give up or don't have the ability to be at top can't thrive at the top of society so aren't treated like they are the top of society. I think we can't treat people differently or else society wouldn't function. Our society, whether we like it or not, is based on a class system. People will always have the best and worst jobs and there's nothing we can do about it. People will always hold different beliefs, whether they are right or not, that cause them to treat people differently. Would you treat a newborn baby boy and a successfull corporate business man equally? Somethings sound like they are better for society when really they aren't very practical.

The Brain and Ethics

Here is the Time magazine article Keane had brought to class:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1685055_1685076_1686619,00.html

So, what do you think are the implications of this article? How does this affect everything from federal law and our prison system to the gold stars and periods in time out that children experience?

Societal Correctness: Functionality Before Truth

One question that came up today concerned punishment of violent crimes. It was assumed that a morally correct action should synonymously be a legal action. We assume no disparity between what's correct and what's legal. This assumption breaks the whole discussion and makes some forms of ethics instantly useless.
When we think about issues of legality, we have to consider it an issue of what must happen for society to work the way that the government says it should. Legality doesn't determine whether and action is right or wrong, and right or wrong doesn't determine whether an action is legal or illegal. So when a strict relativist says it may be morally acceptable for someone to murder someone else (I can't think of a realistic situation in which they would, but I'm sure there is one) they aren't also claiming that it's legally permissible - simply that it wouldn't be immoral for that person.
With the separation in place, some earlier absurd relativist perspectives become more rational. Individual egoism, though it's no way to run a society, may have some truth for someone from a relativist perspective.
It may seem sick and twisted to have laws disallow actions that are morally correct and force actions that are immoral, but that's the way it has to be for society to work. Interpersonal interactions have to be bound by a universal, or at least constant through each society, set of rules. Truth must be put aside in honor of functionality, the real concern of government. However, for those actions that do not effect society's capacity to function, government must step aside. Morality and legality for actions concerning only rationally consenting people should be synonymous; when functionality is off the table, there is no reason for laws to determine truth.
When I wrote this the title was "Societal Morality: Functionality Before Truth." It wasn't until this last paragraph that I realized it couldn't be Societal Morality, it had to be Societal Correctness. The distinction is a hard one to make, but to consider rationally our ideas of permissible/impermissible compared to right/wrong, it must be made clearly.

I've noticed that in class we've been interchanging religion with morality.  In my opinion, the two are separate, but there is indeed a fine line between the two.  People have religious morals, AND they have a MORAL CODE.  Most people let their religious morals influence their own personal moral code.  I know abortion is a topic talked to death, but I'll use it again.  Being Catholic, I believe that abortion is wrong because of my religious belief that life begins at conception. fine. But my moral code is different-I respect people enough to make their own decisions out of the own free will, and I respect others' religious beliefs that disagree with mine.  I believe in true liberty, so along with being pro-life (personally against abortion), I'm also pro-choice.  I still agree with my religion and possess the religious moral it teaches.  The example used in class about different burial practices was not an issue concerning a moral code.  Isn't that just a common religious/cultural belief?  Burying a dead person might be a really important matter, but I don't think it's an issue of "morality" as I see it.

Penicillin and the ERA

Someone made an interesting comment in class yesterday. While exploring the question of why in the United States women enjoy a higher status and more opportunities relative to most other cultures throughout time, one person observed that in the past women were needed to produce as many children as they could because of poor health conditions that led to a high infant and child mortality. This leads me to ask...

Is penicillin the cause of the Equal Rights Amendment? In other words, should we credit medical advancement as a cause of any of our advancements in social equality? If so, what kind of cause is it? Is it a necessary cause, meaning the social change could not happen without it? Is it a sufficient cause, meaning that with it social change must happen? Is it the direct cause, meaning there are no other intervening causes between medical advancment and social change?

Religious Disclaimers

I have noticed a curious phenomenon not only in our TOK class, but in past TOK classes as well. When people talk about their own religious affiliations, they quite often preface their statements by saying that they do not necessarily believe everything their religion teaches.

Why is that?

I have never heard students talk about the sports they play by first stating, "I do not agree with everything the coach tells me." Not once have I heard discussion of an extracurricular club or the party last weekend begin with, "I do not agree with everything the others say or do." Undoubtedly there are athletes who do not subscribe to all their coaches tell them, and I am sure not everyone in Latin Club agrees on all issues. I certainly hope that not everyone who attends a weekend party is not in agreement about what goes on. Yet no one prefaces his or her comments about any other aspect of life with a disclaimer.

So why do students seem compelled to do so when it comes to issues of their faith?