Ethics!

Ethics is defined by Collins Dictionary as “the philosophical study of the moral value of human conduct and of the rules and principles that ought to govern it” so it is the study of what is considered to be correct or not, in other words morals. For example, those who believe in God have a set of ethics that they have to follow: Catholic people have 7 deadly sins by which they base many of the decisions from. This is because these sins are extremely incorrect and are said to be mortal because they “kill the life of sanctifying grace”.

On the other hand, there are two types of beliefs I discovered in this lecture since I believed there was only one. Atheist strongly believe that God doesn’t exist, meaning that they are against the belief that there is a supreme being that is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Agnostics are not entirely sure of God’s presence, so they are not completely against that belief. Additionally, these two don’t have a set of morals that were decided by a divinity, but they base their decisions on experience and that’s why their morals are constantly changing.

After these two beliefs were introduced to me, the question “should there be a universal moral?” arose in the class. I believe there should be one because to a certain point we ARE all equal and there should be a basic set of morals. For instance, the fact that some people are stronger, smarter, or quicker than others makes them think they are superior, and if they were able to gain authority in the society, such as the police, in some cases they believe they can take someone else’s life. This is the reason why I strongly disagree with the dead penalty, and in this case I take the agnostic belief: I’m not sure whether God exists or not but I’m sure not one human has more power than other, and therefore no one has the right to play as if he were God or a supreme being; and decide to kill someone. Even in an extreme situation there are punishments that can be taken before the decision of killing someone. This is why I believe murder for any reason is not acceptable and should be part of a universal moral. However, I have a high respect for the morals that religions impose and I follow some of them even if I’m not part in that religion but because I know they make me a better person.

However, getting to this decision was not easy at all. So how can someone arrive to an ethical decision? Here each person should utilise all their areas of knowledge: with the use of language, we need to be careful with the significance of words. In addition, emotions can guide us in an instinctive way and they can also allow us to know other’s emotions and develop our moral behaviour. Most importantly, you must always be true to yourself and not let other's opinions guide your decisions of what is wrong or right.

Finally, I believe ethics is one of the most important areas of knowledge since it allows us to live in a peaceful, enjoyable environment and it is a code of how someone can be a better person which I think can be improved daily and by which I base my life upon.

What is History but a fable agreed upon?

What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon

With this sentence we commenced the lecture, and we agreed that history is the search for truth. Furthermore, we study history because it provides an understanding of the present by looking at how we got to where we are. Hence, I believe that we are condemned to repeat mistakes, if we don’t study the past; this is the reason why this area of knowledge is essential. We also study it because it provides a sense of identity, “a country without history is like a person without memory.”

What called my attention was that when we were asked to organize a set of events from the most important to the least important, not one group in the class had neither the same order nor the same events. This fact allowed me to understand better and link this topic with other areas of knowledge: everyone’s sense of identity is drastically different from each others even if they were raised by the same parents, in the same place. This is because our way to perceive the world is unique and different from anybody else. As a consequence, what I consider to be extremely important might not even be of someone else’s interest.

For example, if Dana buys a dress that she considers to be the prettiest that she has ever seen but that cost 800 dollars, she would consider this purchase to be one where she bought the greatest dress ever. On the other hand, her parents would consider this purchase as one where she spent the greatest amount of money in unnecessary pieces of clothes and will probably punish her. In this example we can see how the same story is considered to be significantly different, in Dana’s opinion she was punished for invalid reasons but for her parents she was punished for wasting money, a very valid reason. Therefore, we can see how one simple story and its development will most probably be very biased and creates knowledge issues.

But how do we arrive to a historical truth or one that is neutral? The answer is that we can’t but we can get really close to it. We need to agree on what happened on the past using evidence and always trying to be objective. However, this is not an easy task. First, the evidence in which we rely might not be completely relevant or uncertain, evidence of what happened thousands of years ago will not be as trustworthy as one of what happened yesterday. Additionally, if we consider witnesses of the event, their testimony will not be entirely reliable since it is affected by the person’s emotions and senses during the event. Secondly, it is debatable whether history can ever be neutral since there is no formula as the ones in mathematics or physics and will permanently be bias. Finally, the way in which a historian choses what evidence to be based on depends on his means at his disposal and the culture and era he is in. If a person in China wants to find out about an event such as what happened in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square on June 5, 1989, they will find few or no information about this event since the government compelled all Chinese search engines to block it. However, if I looked for this event in Google while being in Colombia, I will find lots of articles and even videos about it.

In conclusion, in my opinion, history will never be neutral. One same story will be affected by many factors such as feelings or points of views which will always be present when writing or studying history. Hence it is a sensible area of knowledge since it contains various knowledge issues.