, not turn healthy people into gods.”
I was always under the impression that if you did not have have ADHD, that stimulants would have a negative affect on ones body.
241 Matching Annotations
- Sep 2020
-
Local file Local file
-
-
really the same as injecting hormones to chase down a home run record
This comparison is ironic to me because I know that my brother felt as though his stimulant for ADHD would cause him to perform worse in Hockey. In college, he had to stop taking ADHD medicine because it was suppressing his natural instincts. Being that he was a D1 athlete and was drafted into the NHL he could not take a drug that was preventing him to play well. So personally, I would not compare ADHD drugs to injecting hormones in order to excel in athletics.
-
the latternarcolepsy,
My cousin suffers from narcolepsy and she uses Vyvanse (a stimulant) so that she is able to stay awake and alert. But what is strange she only was diagnosed with narcolepsy later in life.
-
-
Local file Local file
-
“God” also speaks in the singular
So does this mean it only applies to one person?
-
-
Local file Local file
-
one is permitted to destroy it to save the mother’s life.
Since this is being translated word for word, I think this statement seems extremely severe and harsh.
-
An unborn fetus in Jewish law is not considered a person (Heb.nefesh,lit. “soul”) until it has been born.
I know when I came to Muhlenberg I was informed that the offspring of a Jewish mother and a non-jewish father, is considered Jewish and that of an offspring of a non-Jewish mother and Jewish father is not Jewish. I am just curious as to whether this has any role in Jewish law when determining whether a unborn fetus is considered Jewish, if it is not considered a person?
-
None of the rabbis raise the possibility of involuntary manslaughter being involved because the unborn fetus is not legally a person and, therefore, there is no question of murder involved when a fetus is aborted.
This surprises me, I wonder if people who believe in catholicism have the same view. I wonder if a Catholic priest also believes that an unborn fetus is a person? I attempted to look this up, but it does not appear as though there is one solid answer.
-
-
-
"They have a similar sense. They can look in a mirrorand say, 'Hey, that's me'."
Or they could be seeing another dolphin/whale that they think is a part of their pod and not necessarily be processing that its themselves they are seeing.
-
"We're saying the science has shown thatindividuality - consciousness, self-awareness - is nolonger a unique human property. That poses all kindsof challenges."
This is important because animals feel as well but they arent as fortunate to be able to communicate their feelings as effectively as humans are able to, but that does not mean that they arent self aware.
-
They believe dolphins and whales are sufficiently intelligent to justify the same ethicalconsiderations as humans.
I think this is a hard thing to determine especially because dolphins cannot communicate with humans, so how are humans expected to understand what they want and are thinking?
-
-
Local file Local file
-
People who still believe that it is sufficient cannot also expect to be resuscitated or maintained on ventilators without contradicting themselves
This is a very confusing concept because is it fair to not allow someone to live when there is a way to, is cruel.
-
religions and cultures where the soul is identified with breath or the blood.
I did not realize that some religions and cultures believe that the soul is within breath and blood. I would never have thought that.
-
We might lose the ability to communicate and yet still remain the same essential person.
This is a good point because we are able to express ourselves in other ways other than vocally communicating, for example in art. Not being able to communicate with others does not mean one cannot express themselves.
-
one material, the other immaterial.
Explanation on how the brain and mind is distinguished as one being material and the other being immaterial. Can thoughts simply be considered immaterial?
-
ancient puzzle
Effective analogy
-
-
Local file Local file
-
The four principles referred to here are non-hierarchical, meaning no oneprinciple routinely “trumps” another.
Important because all principles are considered equal and not one principle is considered to be better than another.
-
nonmaleficence
nonmaleficence: "The principle of nonmaleficence holds that there is an obligation not to inflict harm on others. It is closely associated with the maxim primum non nocere (first do no harm)"
-
The reader may apply these four criteria to the case above, and find that theprinciple of double effect applies and the four conditions are not violated bythe prescribed treatment plan.
Just to clarify, one can only determine if the double effect applies if all four conditions stated above are not violated?
-
The autonomous person may freely choose values, loyalties or systems ofreligious belief that limit other freedoms of that person.
The autonomous person does not use the word "limit" in a negative way, because they are limited because they are following their religious beliefs.
-
-
Local file Local file
-
Even tho ugh the verifiability theoryof mea ning is imp lau sib le, thereisso methingto be said for emotivism.By ta king moraluttera nces to be ex pres -sions of emotion rat her th an statementsof fact, emotivism avo ids someof thedi ffic ultie s facin g subjectivism. Becauseit cl aims th at moralutt eranc es are notju dg me nts of any ki nd, it avoidsthe inconsistencyof sub jec tiv e abso lu tis m andthe indiv idualinfallibili ty of subjectiverelativism. If you don’ t mak e a state -ment,you can’t con trad ict anybody,and you can’t be right
Very important to explain how it is implausible.
-
value . If ther eare any absolutevalu es, however,culturalrela tivis m is
What is a good example of when cultural relativism is false?
-
Consider the male cha uvinists who believeth at it’ s wr ong to give womenthe same res ponsibilities as me n. Feministsbelievethat there is no reasonnotto treat men and womenas equal s. Malechauvinists and fem inis ts makedif -fere nt moraljudgmentsabo ut ho w womenshoul d be trea ted. Do they havedifferentviews of the natu re of morality? Not necessari ly: they mos t likelybothacceptthe principle tha t equalsshouldbe treat ed equal ly. Thus th eirdisa greementis not aboutth e natureof morality but aboutthe na tur e ofwomen.Malechauvinists and feministssimplydisag ree abo ut whatwo mencan do. Bec au se mor al judgmentsfo llow fr om both a moralstandard and ce r-tain factualbeliefs,a diff ere nce in moraljudgments does not neces sar ily imp lya di fferencein moralstandards
Wow I found this comparison very interesting.People can have the same principles and natures of morality, but have a difference of opinion on the nature of a specific thing or concept.
-
re be fore. The best explanation of th e fa ct tha t weseemto be ma king moralpro gress,the n, is th at ther e are universal moralstandards.
The correlation between moral progress and universal moral standards.
-
To achievere flectiveeq uilibrium among your mor al beliefs, beginby cr iti -call y examiningthe mora l judgments you’vemadeand the mora l pr inciplesyou accept. Ask: what moralprinciple lies behindthis ju dgment? Wh at mo raljudgmentsfollowfrom this principle?
Questions that should be asked and answered in order to ensure that the judgments and principles are consistent.
-
1) a caus al exp lanationof the beliefor (2 ) a logicaljust ificat ionof the belief.
Explanation or justification on how to explain why one someone believes in answer "x"
-
Th e attempt to iden tify those pr inciplesis know n as “nor -mati ve ethics”becauseth e principles it seeksare no rms that prescribe howpeopleshouldact. “Descriptive et hics, ” on the oth er hand,”tries to id ent ifythe principlesthat pe ople,in fact, use to makemor al ju dgments. Des cripti veethi cs is the provinceof sc ience s su ch as ps ychol ogy , socio logy and anth ro -pology.
Normative ethics versus descriptive ethics
-
-
Local file Local file
-
An argumentis fallaciousif it contains(1) unacc epta ble pre mises , (2) ir -rele vant premises,or (3) insufficientpremis
This is important information!!!
-
preced ents. A pr ecede nt is a ca sethat has alreadybeen de ci
So this is saying that almost every case brought to court has already been addressed and has an outcome, but the lawyers job is to prove why a new version of a particular case differs from the original case in order for the case to result in a different outcome?
-
. The fallacy of af firmi ng a disjunctoccu rs when an inclus ive or is inter -pret ed exclusiv
The issue of stating a disconnect occurs when something that is inclusive is interpreted as something exclusive.
-
nt fol lo wing the “i f” (know n as the “a n-te cedent”),an d anotherto the state ment followingthe “th en” (knownas the“consequent”)
Isn't this how we were told to form a hypothesis when we were younger. It was always a "if" "then" statement with the cause being the independent variable and the effect being the dependent variable in order to test something.
-
You have no controlov er the neuronsin your brain. If you have no con -tr ol over the neuronsin your brain, you have no contr ol over anyt hingyou do. It follows that you have no contr ol ove r anythingyou do
Would statements 7, 8, and 9 not be logically possible because they lead to a contradiction?
-
- Aug 2020
-
Local file Local file
-
tr ue. Th e firs t act ivit y in -volvesidentifyingandeval uatingother peoples ’ argum ent s. The secon d in -volvescon structinganddefendingyour ow n ar guments.
These are the first two things one does when trying to either determine whether a claim is true or demonstrating that a claim is tue.
-
-
Local file Local file
-
Philosophy differs from science in that it tries to explain how it’s possible for a concept to apply rather than how it’s possible for an event to occur.
Both philosophy and sciences are trying to answer questions, but what they do with their findings is what differs and how they explain them.
-
A necessary condition is a requirement, it’s a condition that must be met in order for something to occur or exist.
So there are no exceptions to a necessary requirement? I feel like with everything in life now there is some sort of exception.
-
Identifying necessary and sufficient conditions is difficult because we can have a concept without being able to state the conditions for applying it. For example, we can have the concept of a joke without being able to say what it is that makes something a joke.
So would this also apply to if we have a particular belief, but we have no background to support the belief and are unable to apply or express out beliefs, would anyone value a particular belief? In order to have backing for a belief we would have to clarify using a hypothetical approach to give the belief some weight.
-
While philosophers are in the business of trying to identify the necessary or sufficient conditions for the application of concepts, scientists are in the busi-ness of trying to identify the necessary or sufficient conditions for the occur-rence of events.
The difference between philosophers and scientists is that philosophers try to identify the situations in which concepts can be applied, while scientists try to identify the certain conditions in which events occur.
-
solving problems and getting at the truth.
IMPORTANT philosophy and science are similar because they are both looking to solve problems and uncover the truth.
-
philosophy tries to eliminate these inconsistencies from our belief system
The goal of philosophy is to eliminate the inconsistencies within our belief system in regards to eliminating and questioning false beliefs so that we are able to succeed? Unsure if I am reading that correctly.
-
Material objects have properties like mass, spin, and electric charge; minds, apparently, do not. Take, for example, your thought that you’re reading a book right now. How much does that thought weigh?
How does one attach a numerical value to a question like "how much does that thought weigh"?
-
It entails questioning assumptions, analyzing concepts, and drawing inferences.
This is similar to how one studies any science. There never just seems to be one correct answer and it is normal to question everything. The goal of studying any subject is to deepen understanding.
-
The desire to know the truth—the love of wisdom—is only one motivation for doing philosophy, however. The desire to lead a good life is another.
Does this still remain true today? I feel like now it is more analytical that, I think now the motivation is beyond a love of wisdom. Of course people want to find out more information for the greater good, but there are definitely more factors that contribute to the motivations behind philosophy.
-