In conclusion...

We have been discussing moral decisions for a couple of weeks. Analyzing other stories and movies and writing about how they came to the moral decisions, or not so moral decisions. However, in the end, I just don’t think I really fall under any of these particular categories, not completely at least. As a Christian, obviously, I find that the Bible is helpful in guidance. However, and maybe some would not agree, I do not believe during this time that Bible can help make all the decisions. It is used as guidance, not direct answers. The Bible was written many years ago, and cannot completely answer all the questions of this time. I have learned right and wrong through teachings from my parents, teachers, friends, and family. I learned right and wrong through experience. I have learned right and wrong through my mistakes. I have learned right and wrong through the stories of others. I don’t think you can find one person who would agree one hundred percent on everything they think is right and wrong with someone else. How could they? Nobody lives the same life. Everyone has different experiences, mistakes, friends, family, and teachers. It is even safe to say that even siblings don’t agree on all the things they feel are right and all of the things they feel are wrong. It just simply doesn’t happen. A perfect example is within my own family. My brother, sister and I all are very similar. However, we are not the same and definitely do not agree on all the things we have believed that are right and wrong. Even within our religious belief, it is slightly different. Everyone has their way of determining right and wrong. I personally pull from the past and those around me. I can feel it when it wrong. I know what I believe. As long as I know what I believe, I know I will be happy, satisfied, and live a fulfilled life. 

So What?

Traci Marie
November 20, 2013

                                                            So What?

            The way that I understand and make my decisions is first based on Virtue Ethics. I believe that my behavior should reflect the habits of my character. I am most concerned with the good moral character that I can demonstrate in situations. The phrase used in the Moonstruck reference, “I know who I am” best describes me when I am making daily decisions. I try my best to stick with this point of reference in making daily decisions. There are times in life situations where I still reference my moral compass but feel the need to consider the end results of the action and how it best suits all people involved. This would be an example of how I would use the theory of Consequentialist Ethics. I would most agree with the Utilitarianism point of view that an act is morally right if the total good of the action is more favorable than unfavorable to everyone involved; bringing the greatest good to the greatest number of people. I cannot say what is right for one situation will always be right for every situation or every person. I believe that we all deal with life in our own way and that no one way is necessarily correct or better than the other. My own personal belief is that we do the best we can in the current situation that is presented to us; that is what I do anyway. I walk by faith and go with instinct on what is the best solution at the time to the situation at hand.

What Now?

When I think about all I’ve discovered about the process and different theories of moral decision making, I realize the importance of the life choices and the affects of them throughout my life. Whether people realize it or not, we make moral decisions every day, and a lot of them have to do with small things that if alone, seem unimportant. When we combine all the little things that we make decisions about into a larger cluster, then we can see a pattern of character. We can either see someone make decisions that impact them or people around them in a positive or negative way. One of the classic categories of moral decision making is Virtue Ethics. Over the past four weeks, I have thought a lot about Virtue Ethics as they fit into my life. For instance, driving is a thing we do almost every day. If I jump in my car and drive like I am the only person on the road, I consider myself acting out of my character. Driving recklessly on the road is a negative outcome of a personal moral choice. I have thought about it, and I know that I am a “usual” law abider, and I believe that I am not selfish enough to consider myself the only person on the road. The problem is when I begin to speed and not follow road signs on a regular basis. This is when it becomes habitual enough that it looks as if that it is part of my character. I become someone looked at differently because of my actions. I look at the moral decisions that I’ve made in my life that define my character. Some examples of this could be choosing not to cheat on a test, remembering to take care of my pets, and choosing to love someone when they don’t deserve it. I think that the repetitive pattern of choosing to do these actions helps develop the person that I am today. I don’t mean that I am a perfect person and don’t make mistakes, but a lot of who I am, is because of the decisions I’ve made in the past. An older mentor said this once to me about the person that I wanted to be in the future. He said, “be who you want to be in 10 years, today.” I believe that if I want to be a person with good morals and ethics, I need to start making decisions today that will help me develop into the person that I want to be tomorrow.

Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde

Traci (Marie)

November 15, 2013

                                                Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde

            Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson was a perplexing novel to understand. Dr. Jekyll was concerned with being moral and highly regarded in the community. He suffered from issues of evil desire. Mr. Hyde became his alter ego personality that eventually took him over. He struggled with the issue of his character of a good person and his character as a bad person. This moral dilemma drove him crazy. Dr. Jekyll eventually became so engrossed in Mr. Hyde that he could not control his bad behavior. Dr. Jekyll struggled with the moral dilemma of wanting to get rid of Mr. Hyde but knowing that in order to do that he would have to take his own life which was very much against his beliefs. It started as just an experiment to “let the evil side out” but eventually this evil side took over and he became a murderer. He had no conscience what-so-ever about doing the evil acts. Dr. Jekyll struggled until the evil Mr. Hyde took over completely. He describes Mr. Hyde’s behavior as “centered on self; drinking pleasure with bestial avidity from any degree of torture to another; relentless like a man of stone.” Dr. Jekyll was described as “waking again to his good qualities seemingly unimpaired; he would even make haste to undo the evil done by Hyde.” It sounds as if he tried to deal with it as long as possible and then just could not take it anymore. Did he make the right decision to “kill off” the evil? Or should he have stayed with his moral compass of not believing in the that sort of action….

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Jekyll's friends

In the novel, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde written by Robert Louis Stevenson, there is definitely a lot of decisions being made that seem to lack morals. In this blog, I am supposed to discuss the moral and ethical actions of the characters. I personally want to discuss the two characters of Mr. Utterson and Dr.Lanyon. First, I want to discuss Mr. Utterson. If I had to pick the best man out of the entire novel, it would be him. The entire novel he is disturbed by Mr. Hyde and Dr. Jekyll’s relationship. He has a strong belief that Hyde is harming or blackmailing his friend. He continuously looks into the relationship trying to help his friend. I think this shows that he is on the right path of good moral and ethical decisions. He recognized that his friend was in trouble and stopped at nothing to try to help. Mr. Utterson is a good man. The next character, I want to discuss is Dr. Lanyon. Dr. Lanyon in the beginning was a good friend to Dr. Jekyll. However, one night Dr. Jekyll reached out to him and asked him to gather a drawer from his home and wait for someone to pick it up at exactly midnight. That same night he watched Mr. Hyde transform into Dr. Jekyll. At this point, he decided that Dr. Jekyll’s experiments were morally wrong and Hyde was harming people. Therefore, Lanyon lost his friendship with Jekyll. In my opinion, this makes Lanyon lack morals and ethics. He did realize that Dr. Jekyll’s work was wrong. However, he did not say anything to anyone. Innocent people were dying and Lanyon stood by doing nothing. When Hyde went missing for many months and the cops were searching for him, Lanyon should have turned Jekyll in. That would be the right action for Lanyon to take. Since he sat by doing nothing, I have made the decision that is he is lacking in morals and ethics. He is not the good man in this story, but Utterson is a good man. 

Moral Ethics

After reading the classic book written by Robert Louis Stevenson, Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, I have noticed some themes and perspectives of the short story that attract attention towards the classic category of moral decision making. The author of this book seems to try to impose upon humanity certain aspects of social conduct and morality along with impulses of severe depravation and rather satanic activity. One of the classic categories that I see as fitting to this book is Consequentialism. As a refresher, Consequentialist Ethics basically says that an action in the right type of context can be considered “morally right” if the end results show a beneficial outcome. This can be portrayed in the book as Dr. Jekyll considers taking his life because his “other self”, called Mr. Hyde, becomes too evil and out of control to handle. Dr. Jekyll is disgusted with his evil self and knows that it would be better off to humanity if he killed himself than rather than cause harm to others. So, he sees this act of suicide as a “good and moral” act because he’d rather kill off his evil self than hurt others. Another theme from the classic categories of ethics is the theory of duty-based ethics. Duty based ethics is basically the notion that we have specific rights given to us because we are simply human, and since we live in an organized and civilized society, we are required to follow laws and duties even if they do not benefit us. Dr. Jekyll seems to understand that it is his duty to uphold moral and social law by acting a certain way unlike his counterpart, Mr. Hyde; who thinks that humanity does not possess rights and therefore commits acts unimaginable. He treats people with disdain, produces violence without a conscience, and acts as if there is no consequences for his actions because he does not react to the responsibility to uphold morality in the way that his counterpart does. Dr. Jekyll reflects on the acts that Mr. Hyde makes and passes judgment on them through the eyes of society. Dr. Jekyll notices his other self make choices without moral lenses because Mr. Hyde sees society not as a framework of moral ethics but as a space void of responsibility. Overall, I think Dr. Jekyll realizes the mistake he made by trying to live a double life. He finds that it immorality leads him to a complete loss of control even if the reason why he did this experiment in the first place was to experience the freedom of immorality without a conscience. I find this book an interesting topic of discussion because it brings forth the idea of moral decision making especially in a society that was notorious for hiding one’s evil acts in a facade of “righteousness”. 

Last Meeting November 12, 2013

Biblical Readings

Traci Marie

November 8, 2013

                                                               Biblical Readings

            In the verses in Exodus, the consequentialist theory is evident by the way that the Hebrew women refuse to kill all of the boy babies as the Pharaoh instructed. They decided to make their decision based on the outcome of what this act would mean. I agree with this theory in that different situations call for different decisions. People can have a certain moral code and then have a different opinion of an outcome based on the current decision that is being made at the time. In verses 16-17 it says, “When you are helping the Hebrew women during childbirth on the delivery stool, if you see that the baby is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live.” The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live. Exodus 1:8-22 is an example of weighing the consequence of the action and then determining the moral responsibility. Romans 7:14-25 is an example of the inner struggle of morality. Paul is confessing that he struggles with his inner desires. He struggles with knowing what the “right” decisions are. Just the confession itself is showing that he had a moral compass. He describes in verse 22 that “in his inner being he delights in God’s law.” Verse 23 goes on to say “but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me.” He depends on the Lord to deliver him from his thoughts.       

Readings in the Bible

In the different biblical readings assigned it was easy to see the different types of moral decisions to be made. In the case of Exodus 20:1-17, it is definitely duty-based ethics. God speaks and they follow. They follow Him simply because he is an authority. They assume what He says is right in all ways and intend to follow it. If someone asked them how they determined that the Ten Commandments were true and right morally, those who believed would have responded because God told me it was so. In this type of ethics it is as simple as that. The authority tells you what is right and wrong, and you listen. The next biblical passage to be discussed is Matthew 5:17-48. In this biblical reading it talks about Jesus reinterpreting the Ten Commandments. In this section, he takes the Commandments and tells them what they knew previously. Then he reinterprets it and tells them there is so much more than just the lines given. You have to dig deeper and make sure you don’t focus on just the words given. He wanted everyone to focus internally. He says you are just as guilty if you think it and never do it as the man who completes the action. According to the article provided, this passage is virtue ethics. It is considered this because we grew up with these basic teachings but we most interpret them for ourselves. We must go beyond those words and decide what is good. We have to know the differences from virtue and vices. If we simply followed the Ten Commandments word for word than I believe a lot of “evil” would slip through the cracks and be let off the hook. We have to know who we are and stick to the things we learned at a young age that have developed through the years. 

Finding Consequentialism in the Bible

I think that consequentialist ethics is an interesting topic to read about in the Bible. One particular passage in the Bible can be viewed in a consequentialist ethics point of view. It is in Exodus 1:8-22 when the midwives lie to Pharaoh about the Hebrew baby boys. They don’t tell Pharaoh the truth because they want to save the Hebrew babies. I find this passage interesting because we know there is not a grey area for lying in the Bible. In the Ten Commandments, it is written clearly to not lie. In fact, in Proverbs 12:22, it says that, “The Lord detests lying lips, but He delights in men who are truthful”. This is interesting because if we go back to Exodus 1:2-21, it says that, “God was kind to the midwives and the people increased and became even more numerous. And because the midwives feared God, He gave them families of their own.” God ended up blessing the midwives for their lie, and he blessed the whole population of Israel along with it. For a lot of people who first read this passage, it may be a little confusing. I know I was because it has been so engrained in me that it is wrong to tell any kind of lie. This is when the process of moral decision making involving consequentialism comes to play. The benefit of lying to the Pharaoh was that the midwives would save and not kill hundreds of God’s people. I think lying in this case, made it possible for these women not to commit even more sins by helping cause the deaths of thousands of innocent children. In fact, if we look at it in retrospect, if the Hebrew population died off due to the fact that there wasn’t enough males, then ultimately Jesus wouldn’t come as promised. I think there is a lot to do with the fact that we have to look at this passage with the context of its time. Yes, it’s bad to lie to Pharaoh, but I would choose to lie than to kill many, many children. I think God would have a rougher time dealing with midwives who killed His people off than to midwives who lied to a pagan king in attempt to save His people.

Source Code

The Source Code was a very action packed movie. This movie is filled with explosions, gun shots, and chasing scenes. Most importantly, this movie is filled with moral decisions. There are three main characters, who make moral decisions, on this film. These characters are Captain Colter Stevens, Colleen Goodwin, and Dr.Rutledge. First, I want to talk about Dr.Rutledge. Dr.Rutledge was definitely not making moral decisions. He was only concerned for profit. Even when he saved millions of lives, he wasn’t excited about saving people. He was strictly excited that his program worked, not that it saved lives. He wanted to make money and gain all the glory. He is clearly not a moral man. The next person, who had to make moral decisions, was Colleen Goodwin. In the beginning, she was definitely justifying her morals by authority.  She did everything Dr. Rutledge told her to. Before she acted, she asked Dr.Rutledge. In the end, however, she makes a connection with Captain Colter Stevens. She realizes he is a person with feelings. She respects his wishes and terminates his life. She goes against authority and follows her heart. She decides respecting him and his wishes is the right thing to do, regardless of getting in trouble. Finally, we have Captain Colter Stevens. The only moral decision he had to make was to save the people or not. In the beginning, he was only considered about himself and his team. He didn’t want to complete the mission. He just wanted answers. However, in the end, he realized it was bigger than him and wanted to save the people. He made the moral decision that benefited him and others. He saved their lives and they would terminate his.This type of moral decision is called Utilitarianism. 

Source Code

Traci (Marie) Hollandsworth

November 1, 2013

                                                Source Code

            Source Code is a film about choices. Captain Colter Stevens was part of an experiment with the government. He had actually died in the war; but his brain was being used to travel back in time for answers to questions that no one else could get. Although he was very confused by the program he ended up being very cooperative and wanting to help save as many people as possible. Colleen Goodwin, the officer in charge of working with Stevens on this mission, became close to him. She admired him. The major decision that Captain Stevens was faced with was going on in this “alternate universe” to help others or dying completely. He ended up choosing the latter, but not before he ended up saving everyone in the past accident. Colleen Goodwin was faced with the decision of keeping Stevens alive to help with future incidents where he could possible save millions of lives or respecting his wishes of wanting to die. She struggled with this, but ended up respecting his decision. He had already come through for them in the recent project. Dr. Rutledge was the man in charge of the Source Code project. He promised Stevens that they would let him die after the mission was complete. He then changed his mind after he saw that the Source Code did in fact work. Dr. Rutledge was not concerned with the feelings of Captain Stevens. He was most concerned with the effect that the Source Code project would have on his reputation and the rest of society as a whole. There were many different ways to choose here. Some of the choices were only looking out for themselves and others were looking out for lots of people. Who is right? I believe it depends on each individual situation and each person’s unique beliefs when the situation unfolds.

A Film Analysis

After watching the film, Source Code, it has come to my attention the moral ethics involved with the film. To give a mini back story, a soldier who is half brain dead is kept alive by a defense program named “source code”. The half brain dead man, Colter Stephens, is used in another dimension of time so he can help figure out who a bomber is on a commuter train. The man figures out who the bomber is while also figuring out that he’s being kept alive for the sake of the program. One of the coordinators in charge of the program, Colleen Goodwin, is faced with an ethical and moral decision at the end of the movie. Colter asks to be terminated at the end of the mission even if it means that he won’t go on any more missions and save more people. Colleen Goodwin eventually decides to take Colter all the way off life support and terminate his life. This situation reminds me of the classic category having to do with moral decision making. What makes Goodwin decide to do this act? How does she weigh it on the scale of right and wrong? Is keeping Colter alive morally ethical because it saves peoples’ lives or is letting him choose to die because he will never fully awaken the morally ethical decision because that’s what he wants. There are many theories that can be discussed that either contradict or back up the reasoning of Goodwin’s act in terminating the soldier. To back up Goodwin, John Locke’s Right theory has been brought up to my attention. It basically says that all mankind has a duty to respect each others rights that are given to humanity just because they are human. Goodwin is respecting Colter’s right as a human  to do what he wants to his body. A theory that contradicts Goodwin’s reasoning is the utilitarianism version of the theory of Consequentialists. This theory basically says that an action is alright to do if it brings forth the most good for the largest amount of people involved. If Goodwin hadn’t had terminated Colter, he would have been able to save many more lives as well which would have been more beneficial to a larger group of people. Both theories make sense when looked at in their perspective, but I would have to agree with the theory that John Locke talks about. In my opinion, if a person commits a heroic act but was forced to commit it, then the act cannot be a moral act because he did not choose it himself. It won’t be an act of good service to humanity because it does not come with good intention from the person committing it. I believe that morality, even if forced, does not prove that it is “right”? I can force someone to be good to the poor and give all their money and clothes against their will, but does that essentially make it right? I think that if the heart is not right, then the deed isn’t right. If Colter doesn’t want to live in a half brain dead body, and doesn’t want to save peoples’ lives, the ethical and moral thing would be for him to let himself choose what he wants to do.

Reference:

Source Code. Dir. Duncan Jones. Perf. Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga. Summit Entertainment, 2011. HD-DVD.

Group Meeting October 30, 2013

Question #2

When I began thinking about the type of classic category I tended to use for making ethical choices, I was stuck. To me it is one of those things that seem situational; you do what you do when it happens. If I had to absolutely choose I would say I most likely fall under the consequentialism. In the category of consequentialism there are three main sub-categories. These sub-categories are Ethical Egoism, Ethical Altruism, and Utilitarianism. I believe that I have used one of these categories at least once when making major ethical decisions. For example, when it came to picking out the college I wanted to attend, I had a lot of factors I had to think about. I had to think about my parents. I had to think about their money and how close my college was to them. I had to think about my boyfriend, who I had been dating for only three years at time and how it would affect our relationship. However, in this situation, I used Ethical Egoism. I made the decision with my best interest in mind. I had to do this major life decision for me. I, of course, held these thoughts in my head about my parents and boyfriend and remained understanding. Ultimately, it was my choice no matter how it affected others. I have used Ethical Altruism a few times in my life. This tends occur in more minor ethical choices. I always want to please others, so if I can afford the loss I will let it be in favor of everyone else but me. Most importantly, I use Utilitarianism more frequently than the other two sub-categories. I use this, because I believe it is crucial in finding a balance for what is important for you and others. I am a human, as others are, and all of our feelings matter. I am not a fan of self-harm to make others happy. As well as, I am not a fan of selfishness. Balance to me is essential to live a healthy life. 

Ethical Choices

October 23, 2013

            I base most of my decision making on Ethics of Virtue; based on wisdom, temperance, courage and justice. I feel that I have good morals are based on character. In making decisions I and in creating relationships I look for the best character traits in every situation. Issues can arise that are “just life” or situational but true character shines through even in the rough times. I believe in treating others the way that I would like to be treated. Behavior is a true reflection of my inner moral character. I have not always made the best decisions in life. I have made decisions based on what I wanted to do instead of what was the right thing to do. During these decisions that I now look back and regret, I knew the right answer and chose differently. I can also relate to duty-based ethics in that I believe in the authority of God and the bible and I also believe that rules are in place to keep us safe. There are instances that rules could be broken based on the situation at hand and what is the best decision at the time. I am a believer in assessing each situation and looking at the consequences on those actions, especially after making mistakes in decision making in the past. In this regard, I would be a believer in the Consequentialist ethics theory. I believe in looking for a solution that is best for everyone involved, treating each person as a human being. In summary, I can relate to each of these theories; so which one is right? My best answer at this time for my own personal life is that each situation is assessed on an individual basis. Each decision is made to the best of my ability at the time that I am making it.

Virtue Ethics

If I were to choose a classic category that describes how I make ethical choices, I would have to say that I would go with the theory of virtue ethics. I believe that I’ve made “the right” decisions because of the virtues of life that I have grown up with and cultivated since I was younger. One thing that I think makes me someone who follows the theory of virtue ethics is that I think that it has to do a lot with upbringing including where I was specifically placed in life and how my parents reacted to the good and bad things that I did. Whenever I would reflect in my behavior a good habit of character, I would get positive feedback and encouragement. This positivity and encouragement helped me develop the virtues in hopes that one day I would habitually act on throughout my life. For instance, my family put an emphasis on the virtue of honesty and stressed its importance to me throughout my childhood. An example of this would be if I had not cleaned my room and my mother had passed by room and had already known that I had not cleaned it and asked me about it. I would be given a choice to choose honesty. If I had chosen to live in honesty, and told her the real state of my messy room, then I would continue developing a positive ethical virtue. Since this virtue of honesty became a pattern in my life, I see myself as an “honest person”. I see myself as an honest person not because honesty was forced on me, but because I chose to do the moral thing over and over again until it became who I am. A lot of people try to separate character, morality, and immoral things, but I think it is the intertwining of all of these things that makes up a person’s true character and essentially influences his or her ethical and moral decisions in life. Earlier when I talked about my upbringing, I wasn’t just talking about my parents on earth. I also think that God has a way of teaching His children how to behave because He gives us the Holy Ghost. He gives us a guide through life, situations, and the strength for us to develop and grow as a person of moral virtue.

Final Post on Question 1

When it comes to the question “Who is writing the script of my life?” I believe everyone will have their own answer.  Most people would fall under the categories of free will, determinism, or compatibilism. I personally believe in compatibilism. The interesting thing is, I think we have to treat everyone’s ideas equally. Nobody knows what the answer really is to the question. Therefore, nobody can be we wrong.  Everyone has their theory and most even have supporting facts to go with their theory. In the end, we don’t know. There is no way anyone can know. It is simply a belief or theory. As a Christian, I do believe that God has a plan for me. I believe he knows where he wants me to go, but I don’t believe he has completely taken away my freedom. I always tell people that I can’t wait to get to heaven, so I can finally asked God all my questions. I literally want to sit in front of him and get all the answers I have been wondering about for years. God has the answers. God knows if it is free will, determinism or compatibilism. Overall, I don’t believe it matters what people think. Everyone will have their beliefs and thoughts on this subject but I don’t believe it will affect society as a whole. I also don’t believe it will cause much harm within in a society. Since it is impossible to know the answer for sure we simply have to conclude that everyone has their ideas. We may disagree with their ideas, but I believe everyone should respect them. 

LIFE

 

October 10, 2013

                                                                             Life

            I do believe that determinism has played a role and will continue to play a role in my life. Certain things have already been pre-determined by God to take place in my life. I believe that certain things have been placed strategically in a specific place and they may be there for reasons that I will never understand while I am on this Earth. I believe that relationships have been sent my way for seasons of time and some for a lifetime. I believe that Free Will does exist also. I believe that Jesus gives us free will and part of that is choosing to trust in him through faith. I believe that he gives us free will so that we can choose for ourselves to make the best decisions possible. Free will also gives us the chance to mess up; and in turn learn from it. With all of this being said, I agree most with the Compatibilism theory. I do still wonder, why? When things happen in life that are so difficult to understand, I wonder what could this possibly be teaching me. At the same time, I have learned that there is indeed something to be learned and that will be revealed at the appropriate time. I make a special effort to embrace every situation with a grateful and happy heart. Trials make us stronger. Waiting builds character. My specific job is not exactly my passion, but I am there for a specific time and a specific reason. I would love to do more with helping build others up, that is my passion. But, maybe I can do that where I am and I don’t even realize it.

My Path

When I reflect on the impact of discovering the meaning of free will and determinism in my own life, I find myself feeling incredibly blessed because as of right now, I have a clear direction of where I’m going in life. I feel blessed by this because I’m the kind of person who likes to have a plan. I am the person who uses a written planner instead of my iphone. I even color coordinate my day so I know the importance of assignments to get accomplished. Therefore, I have security in knowing ever since 10th grade of high school, that I want to go after a profession in nursing. Nursing has been on my heart and mind for a long time, and the passion to get through the hard classes has kept me going even through difficult times. I truly believe the reason why I have kept up with this major is because God has put it on my heart. He’s graciously given me the strength as well as the resources to go to an amazing college such as Belmont with a stellar nursing program. God has placed me strategically in a family that supports my idea of becoming a nurse as well as placed me in a financially stable home that can help send me to college. I think that these events that I had no control over has to do a lot with the topic of determinism. On the other hand, I was given a choice to choose nursing as a major when I initially came to college. I wasn’t forced by God or anyone to choose the path I’m on. I was just given the opportunity, and I took it. The path was only made possible and probable by the circumstances that God helped orchestrate. For instance, if I was born half way around the world in a rural area that only allowed young girls to farm instead of go to college, then my chances of becoming a nurse would have been dimmed to say the least. The reflection of my life and where I have been placed on this earth as well as the circumstances that give me the choice to choose my path, have really given me a sense of incredible awe and thankfulness. It’s crazy how the passage of life takes a person, and I’m so excited that it’s only just the beginning for me. 

The Tenth Man: An example of Compatibilism

The tenth man was definitely a confusing tale. In the beginning, you felt for these men stuck in the German prison. They were going insane only trying to find a way to get through the hard time. The guards came in and that’s when they told them, they would have to choose three men to die. When Chavel pulled the “x” from the shoe, it was devastating. As a reader, we didn’t want him to die. We didn’t want anyone to die. However what came next was shocking, he began pleading for his life. He ended up selling everything he owned, in order for another man to die in his place. This man, Janvier, gave everything to his sister and mother. Through many many events, Chavel fell in love with Janvier’s sister. When there was a conflict, Chavel jumped in front of her to save her life and ended up dying. The interesting thing about this story is I have hard time deciding if it is a tale of determinism or a tale of compatilbilism. I can definitely see the argument for both sides. However, to me, the story is a great example of compatibilism. In the story, God’s ultimate destiny or end for Chavel was to die, more specifically even to die by gun shot. This was his path. He made choices, however, to delay this plan. It caused him agony and guilt. This very well could have been God telling him he made the wrong choice, telling him it was morally wrong to do what he did. However, God knew Chavel’s end. Chavel was destined to die, destined to be shot. This is exactly what happened. He made his choices and chose a different direction or path. However, the bigger picture is simple. His plan was set. God put him back on his path. In the end, Chavel was shot and died. 

The Tenth Man

 

October 3, 2013

                                                            The Tenth Man

             The Tenth Man is a novel about a diverse group of men that are held as prisoners during World War II. The prison guards decide that three of them will die; it is up to the men to decide who that will be among them. They decide the use a draw system by which each man will pull a piece of paper from the pool. A man named Chavel pulls the losing lot and immediately goes into a defense mode. He is overcome with the reality of his destiny. At this moment he seems to have the free will to make the decision to trade this lot for his worldly riches. He offers all of his money to another man; in exchange for a paper that will keep him alive. This decision may be one that he feels as though he has control over but in the end it is a matter of determinism because he dies anyway. After he is saved from the death in the prison camp, he goes back to his “old house” that he doesn’t own anymore. He disguises himself so that no one in the town will recognize him. The sister of the deceased man is looking for Chavel and hates him; so therefore he doesn’t feel like he can reveal his true identity. Maybe the deterministic factor is that he was supposed to meet the sister…. Could it be that falling in love with her was his actual destiny? The story is a combination of free will and determinism; making the theme run through the compatibilism theory. Or maybe I see it that way because I have agreed with that particular theory the entire time.

Determinsm and Free Will: The Tenth Man

When I think about determinism and free will, I see two conflicting theories in which people have a hard time figuring out which one should dominate over the other. Can one choice in life affect the path that was predetermined for me? Or can I get away from that choice? Basically the question is are my choices going along with a predetermined route that I will end up on eventually no matter what?

As I think about these things, I am reminded of a book I recently read called The Tenth Man. It is a book about a man named Louis Chavel who was imprisoned in a Nazi-run establishment. Chavel cheats death by offering all he owns to a man who takes his place and is shot instead. The man’s name was Janvier. The rest of the book involves the journey of Chavel as he ends up at his old home that he originally sold off to the man who died for him. Chavel works for the family that belonged to the man that died for him. Ironically, Chavel ends up being shot. He died by gunshot just the way he would have died if he hadn’t have bought a way out of death back in prison. Chavel’s life looked as if his fate was to die without reaching old age except the road he took to death did stall him some time. During this “stall”, Chavel had a change of heart; he finally feels pity for the man who died for him. As Chavel is bleeding to death, he thinks to himself, “Poor Janvier, he thought - the cinder track. He began to sign his name, but before he had quite finished he felt the water of his wound flowing immeasurably: a river, a torrent, a tide of peace...he never knew that his signature read only Jean-Louis Ch... which stood of course as plainly for Charlot as for Cheval. A crowning justice saw to it that he was not troubled. Even a lawyer’s meticulous conscience was allowed to rest in peace.” (Graham, 149) I think the peace that this author is talking about is the peace that comes from forgiveness of sins. God grants Cheval this peace that he wouldn’t have found if he had died in prison. So, even though Cheval made the choice to cheat his way out of death once, he also was given the opportunity to experience peace before death that he wouldn’t have gotten if he had been shot to death in prison. 

Life is full of twists and turns that are due to the choices that we make as well as the things that happen to us against our will. Call it fate or not, life is given for us to live out whether it be short or long. Our actions do indeed influence our outcome just as Chavel’s actions influenced the experiences he had in his life. These experiences eventually influenced his attitude in the outcome of his life. 

Reference: Greene, Graham. The Tenth Man. New York: Washington Square

Press, 1985. Print.

Group Meeting October 3, 2013

Free Will, Determinism & Compatibilism In the Bible

 

Traci

September 27, 2013

                                                Biblical Readings

             There are verses throughout the bible that support determinism, free will and compatibilism. Psalm 139 specifically says in the verses that “all of the days of my life are prepared before I would ever even have lived one day.” This supports the determinism theory that everything is determined in our lives even before we are born into this world. The Psalm shows us that our plan is set before us long before and after we are here. In Mark 10, free will is demonstrated by the choice that Jesus gives the rich man in the story. In comparison, if determinism was a factor here, then Jesus would have already made the plan for the man to lose his riches, but instead he gave him the free choice to decide for himself. His specific question is “What will you do with your riches?” This is a question not a pre-determined answer. However, it could be that Jesus already knew what his answer would be and knew the decision that he would make. In the story of Jonah, this is an example of compatibilism. There is a portion of the story that includes Jonah making specific choices on his own, yet there are other portions that show where God was most definitely part of the plan and came to the rescue of Jonah in his time of need. All three of these different theories are present throughout the bible. So, who is right? It may be that each person can perceive the stories in a different way; or choose to believe in a portion of all of them.

Compatibilism in the Bible

It is fascinating to read the different ways free will, determinism, and Compatibilism is presented in the Bible. It is interesting to me that out of all the biblical readings: Psalms 139:1-18, Jonah 1:1-2:10, Mark 10:17-22, I definitely feel the strongest connection to the story of Jonah. The story of Jonah is about a man who was called by God to go to the city of Nineveh. However, Jonah refused and ran from the Lord. He decided he would travel, by boat, to Tarshish. While on the boat, a huge storm faces the passengers. Through many different discussions and decisions, Jonah is thrown overboard by the other passengers. In the end, Jonah is swallowed whole by a large fish sent by the Lord. Jonah then realizes he is wrong and decides the Lord is right. The Lord commands the fish and Jonah is puked up by the fish. This story lines up with exactly what I have been saying for weeks in my other blogs. I believe that God has an overall plan for all of us. He knows what He wants us to do. As well as, He has every ability to keep us on the path He has chosen for us. He gives us the opportunity to choose the path we want. He gives us the opportunity of free will. He wants us to make the right choice. However if we chose a path that takes us away from is ultimate plan, He will do what He needs to do to get us back to where we need to be. In the case of Jonah he was choosing to disobey God, so God put him back on the path He wanted. He caused the storm and the fish to put Jonah on the path He had chosen for him. Overall, I believe God knows what is best for me. Therefore if I’m choosing the wrong options, He will help me travel back to the right path. 

Determinism and Free Will in the Bible

As I look further into the meaning of determinism and free will, I think it would be beneficial to see what the Bible has to say about it. Therefore, it would only make sense for me to go to the Holy Book for insight, which was written so we may have a glimpse of God in people’s life and essentially in my own life as well. 

Specifically I want to analyze the passage in the book of Jonah. The passage is in Jonah 1-2. For those that do not know about this story, basically God calls a man named Jonah to go to an evil city called Nineveh to preach against its immorality and the doom that is lurking towards its future. Apparently this plan did not sit well with Jonah, so he runs away from God, but God manipulates events to the point where Jonah is desperate for God. It takes Jonah being in the belly of a large fish to break down and decide that he needs God more than God needs him. Some might think automatically that since God is manipulating these events, he is in charge and therefore, determinism is the theory one must believe in. This may make sense because in Jonah 1:4 it says that, “Then the Lord sent a great wind on the sea, and such a violent storm arose that the ship threatened to break up..”. In Jonah 1:17 it says that, “But the Lord provided a great fish to swallow Jonah..”. Lastly, in Jonah 2:17, it says that, “...the Lord commanded the fish, and it vomited Jonah onto dry land.” I italicized the verbs in those verses because I want you to notice the direct connection between God and these verbs. I find it interesting that these verbs, “sent”, “provided”, and “commanded” are all things that God did with Jonah as well as with the natural environment. God wanted to send him on a journey, He provided a fish to save his life from the waves, and He also commanded that Jonah go to the city of Nineveh. All these actions were because God did them. He created these events to put Jonah where He wanted him. This seems a lot like determinism is at play in this passage. 

At the same time, I find it interesting that even though God has the power to do it, God did not specifically force Jonah to do what he wanted. Instead he used natural things, such as a storm and a big fish, to get his attention. Jonah, a mere human against an all powerful God, couldn’t be forced to do something because he had something that argues against the laws of determinism; that is free will. Hence, that’s why Jonah ran away in the first place. He had the choice to run away from God’s will. The interesting thing to me is that the reason why we have free will in the first place is because God gave it to us. So, if God has given us a freedom of choice, does that mean that since He created it, He should have a say with what we do with it?

Adjustment Bureau

Traci Marie Hollandsworth

September 20, 2013

                                                The Adjustment Bureau

            The Adjustment Bureau was a movie starring Matt Damon and Emily Blunt. David (played by Matt Damon) is a political figure running for Senator at the beginning of the movie. Elise (played by Emily Blunt) is a dancer. They meet by chance in a men’s restroom. They are instantly attracted to each other. According the “Adjustment Bureau” there is a certain time for everything in everyone’s life. Everyone has a plan; and it is important to stay on track with the plan. David comes into contact with the “Adjustment Bureau” men by mistake. When he sees them they are actually in the act of changing the pattern of someone’s thoughts. The “Adjustment Bureau” represents determinism. They determine the plan and track that each person is to take. David represents free will. He is focused on making his own decisions and will not let anyone get in the way. There is a slip up with the “Adjustment Bureau” and the plan that allows David to see Elise again on the city bus. However, the Bureau takes David to a private location and tells him that Elise is not part of his plan. They burn her contact information to prevent him from contacting her. Three years later, after riding the same city bus every day, they meet again. David is determined to make his own choices and through his persistence it pays off. David has a personal bureau guy named Harry. Harry is sympathetic to David’s heart from the beginning. The “Chairman” is the ultimate decision maker and decides that because of David’s persistence the plan has been re-written to include Elise. The entire movie is full of both determinism and free will. It still seems as though the Chairman is the final decision maker and that in certain circumstances he may change his original plan.

The Adjustment Bureau

The movie The Adjustment Bureau, starring Matt Damon and Emily Blunt, is a very interesting tale of having free will, or better yet not having free will. The movie is all about a man trying to fight against the plan the chairman wrote. In this case, I believe it is safe to assume that the chairman is God. Ultimately, the chairman writes the plan for every person. These plans sometimes fall off the correct path. This is where the Adjustment Bureau come in. These men “nudge” people to make sure they stay on there designed path. For example, in the movie David, the lead character, was supposed to spill coffee on his shirt. This act would have prevented him from seeing Elise, as well as make him late for work. The idea here is that everyone is supposed to see these small little actions as accidents but in reality it is the adjustment bureau. Another aspect the adjustment bureau cant control is chance. The movie states that chance can still occur. When chance occurs in the world, the adjustment bureau steps in. In the end, however, David fights so hard against his plan, he changes it. I find that this is interesting concept. In previous blogs, I stated that I believed that God had an ultimate plan for us. He intervened when necessary but overall we made the tiny decision. I saw this as free will. Basically that there is not one set path but options. Each path, however, would lead me to my ultimate plan. That is exactly what the movie shows. Every day people go on and live their lives normally. They do not realize they are even on a plan. If they deviate from the plan, something will intervene. Once put back on the right path, they continue to make decisions just like before.  

September 17, 2013

Who's Script is it?

I honestly was a little skeptical when it came to watching The Adjustment Bureau because I had seen so many Matt Damon movies that involved everyone out to get him. I didn’t want to watch the same type of story especially when I had other things I needed to get done. Even though my attitude was unbecoming in the beginning, I found that I enjoyed the movie a lot. Since this movie was so enthralling and mind provoking, I’ve already encouraged a few people to watch it! The Adjustment Bureau brings this question to the floor that all humanity seems to have wrestled with over the centuries; Who is writing the script of my life? Is it a divine power that dictates every person’s choice in life, or is it up to man to choose his own destiny apart from God?

I find that The Adjustment Bureau does a good job at showing the difference, and at the same time, an over-lapping connection between freewill and determinism. In the movie, Harry Mitchell, one of the people working in the Adjustment Bureau, says this to David Norris, the protagonist of the story, “Most people live life on the path we set for them, too afraid to explore any other. But once in a while people like you come along who knock down all the obstacles we put in your way. People who realize freewill is a gift that you'll never know how to use until you fight for it. I think that's the chairman's real plan. That maybe one day, we won't write the plan, you will.” I believe that Harry is right when he says that freewill is a gift, but at the same time, I believe that the plan for a person’s life that the chairman, or God, writes down is the most satisfying and perfect plan for a person’s life. How can a perfect God write an imperfect plan for a person’s life?  Wouldn’t you want to follow God’s plan if you knew that it would be the one that gave you the ultimate life experience while on earth? The true beauty of God’s plan is that he also gives a person the right to choose it or not, and that is the choice of freewill. If a human chooses to make choices that deviates from that plan, it does alter “His”, or God’s, plan if you will. Even if it “alters” God’s plan, God can use that choice made by man for some other plan that God creates as well.

Although to some people, it may seem like God is a cruel dictator who only wants man to do what He writes down in the "plan book", but the way I see it is that God created man to choose his own destiny and at the same time God also created man to have the choice to follow what God wants for him. I see this as a balanced effect of freewill and determinism because like I said in my last blog post, “I believe that life works out to where there is a combination of both determinism and free will. I think we need both of these categories to be considered fully human. Without one category, there is an imbalance that reflects a lack of either free will or a divine power to interact in our lives.”

Reference: The Adjustment Bureau. Dir. George Nolfi. Perf. Matt Damon Emily Blunt. Universal Studios Home Entertainment, 2011. DVD.

Compatibilism

As stated in my previous blog when I addressed the question who is writing the script of my life, I definitely believe it is a collaborative effort between my own free-will and God. Doing more research and more readings, I have discovered I am not the only one who thinks the way that I do. The category I would fall in, along with others, is Compatibilism. Compatibilist believe that some of the details in your life are already determined but you also have the ability to make your own choices. So in my life, I believe that all the overall and big moments in my life are pre-determined. To me, this would mean things like my college, my degree, the man I marry, huge events in my future, and the people in my life. The free-will, my free-will, comes in when I make decisions to get to the big moments or the path that I take. So for example, my roommate has had a huge impact on my life. It took me choosing to be in a sorority, choosing to be in Greek Sing, choosing to get closer with other women in my sorority, choosing to then live with these women along with a woman I didn't know. This woman I didn't know turns out to be my roommate. If I wouldn't have done that I might not have met her, but to me I believe she belongs in my life. If I didn't meet her that way, I would have met her some other way. God wants her in my life, so He would have got her there. This is what I mean by my big moments are pre-determined, but the path I take is through my own free-will. 

Classic Categories #1

                                               

Traci (Marie) Hollandsworth

September 11, 2013

                                                Classic Categories #1

            I most identify with the idea of Compatibilism. I believe in determinism and free will as a joint effort in life. Free will is offered to everyone but some things in life are already set in motion by determinism. The example given on p.7 is exactly the way I feel about life; we are dealt a certain hand of cards and how we play it is up to us. After experiencing life for a certain number of years we can look back and play the hands a little differently. I personally believe that we can overcome any difficulties that come our way. Just because we inherit certain genetic qualities that are beyond our control doesn’t mean that we cannot choose a different path and become the exception.

            Theological determinism makes perfect sense to me through my faith. I believe that God does write the script for my life; and he lets me have a hand in it by giving him my trust and putting my faith in him. When I do that…things work out for the better good. When I have tried to make my own plans it never works. In the bible the Lord says that he knows the plans he has for us. I have said thanks for many unanswered prayers. There are so many things that I prayed for at the time that I am so very thankful never came to pass. I can see now exactly why those things did not work and why the greater plan is much better than any I could have. I believe that we are each given opportunities to make the best choices possible, but sometimes we don’t. Grace and Mercy are extended to each of us.

 

What Position Would I Choose Regarding Free Will and Determinism? 

Christen Ferris

September 10, 2013

As our country goes into yet anther anniversary of September 11th, it has influenced me on how I reflect on the theories involving free will and determinism. The theory of determinism can be described in the article “Who is Writing the Script of My Life?”, “All of our choices to some degree are already determined before we make them as I can easily take either each view as sensible so it is hard for me to choose between them.” Free will consists of. “the power to make our own choices in spite of all influences”.

When I think of determinism I think of the people who went to work 12 years ago on September 11th, and something happened to where they weren’t in the building when the airplanes crashed into it. It makes me see the beautiful art of divine intervention. Maybe the person who was stuck in traffic on the subway or whatnot, looks to these circumstances as a predetermined set of events that were put there in order to save their life. This circumstance brings me to ask one question; How and why does the divine coordinator, God, go about choosing who to save? A passage in the bible helps me understand that God too much of a mystery to understand. Job 11:7-9 says that, "Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty? They are higher than the heavens--what can you do? They are deeper than the depths of the grave--what can you know? Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea.”

On the other hand, maybe the person who was lucky to not be caught in one of the towers on September 11th may have a different view and think that it was free will that saved their lives. They might see that it was THEIR choice to take that specific subway route that morning which essentially delayed their arrival. Maybe they see themselves as their own savior. They consider their life as saved because of their individual choice without anyone’s, including God’s, influence on it. I believe that God does give man a sense of free will because he wants to give humanity a chance to CHOOSE to love and follow Him.

It is hard for me to choose between these two theories, so I like to take the compatability view in this case. Compatibilism is the view that “some of our choices are already determined but some are not and thus we are free to make some of our own choices” I believe that life works out to where there is a combination of both determinism and free will. I think we need both of these categories to be considered fully human. Without one category, there is an imbalance that reflects a lack of either free will or a divine power to interact in our lives. I believe there is always a purpose for everything in our lives. At the same time, we are GIVEN A CHOICE on how to live out the circumstances we are placed in. A wise person once told me that life is 90 percent of what happens to us, and the last 10 percent is how we react to the other 90 percent.

Refernces

Simpler “Who is Writing the Script of My Life” Classic Categories #1 p. 2

Answers to the Two Questions

I am going to address two questions. Questions which I feel are frequently asked by many. These questions are, “Who is writing the script of my life?” and “Who’s to say what’s right?”  For the first question, I approach it like a book company. I am the author and God is the editor. I write the story. I make all my decisions. I strongly believe, I have free-will to choose whatever path I wish to take. Therefore, I write my story. All of the details, the action packed chapters, and the ultimate ending are completely up to me, based on my decisions. God comes in as the editor throughout the entire story. Just like an editor would edit and change the story as he reads each chapter, God will help me along in each chapter of my life. He will place things in my life to guide me in the right direction. He will interfere when He believes I am off course, allowing me the option to take a different path. Nevertheless, I chose between my options. I remain the author and I ultimately decide the final story I wish to live. The second question to be addressed is “Who’s to say what’s right?” I believe that as a society we decide what is right. We are generally raised in the same ideals as our neighbor, our friends, our family, and the community in which we live. For example, as a whole, society believes that stealing is wrong, rape is wrong, murder is wrong, and lying is wrong. These are not usually debated. Society has decided, unanimously throughout many years, that these actions are morally wrong and we all know it. We as a community, society, and government say what is right. We do this together. 

Assumptions

“Who is writing the script of my life?” My starting place on this question is that God has a plan; although I do believe that we make our choices and we have free will. I have been taught from a very young age to believe in the Lord with all of my heart. With age I have learned to appreciate the peaceful comfort that comes along with giving all situations to God. When I start with that I can deal with whatever comes my way. In my past experiences, when I have deterred from my beliefs and done things my own way, it doesn’t end up well for me. When I pray and ask for guidance, I then go with my instincts on what feels like the best decision at the time. “Who’s to say what is right?” My starting place on this question is that everyone has a different definition of “right.” Who’s to say that everyone isn’t right? The way I see it is that every one of us is on our own personal journey; going in directions that others may not ever be able to comprehend or understand. I have felt a tremendous amount of peace in my life by simply coming to the realization that I am not ever going to understand everything. I am fine with that. I have decided to embrace life’s mysteries rather than be afraid of them. Maybe everyone is right in some way or another. Maybe everyone has a piece of the puzzle that would make it whole. Maybe everyone is right. I only know my own heart; but cannot fault anyone for having a different "right" than I do.

Group Meeting Aug 28, 2013

Here are some main assumptions and thoughts that I have processed about the two main questions given in my Junior Cornerstone course; “Who is writing the script of my life?” and 
“Who’s to say what’s right?”. Ever since junior year of high school, I have been asked the question in which I saw a particular emphasis on the personal pronouns, “What are YOU going to to do with YOUR life?” or “What are YOUR next steps in YOUR future?”. Over the years, I have found that a lot of what I want to do with MY life depends on a lot of choices that I make. The popular phrase “You make your own luck” has been somewhat engrained in my head. Yet, I have a contradictory belief because after living a little more on this earth, I have also found that it isn’t all about what I decide. The question, “Who is writing the script of my life?”, makes me think that there is something bigger other than myself that’s orchestrating events and creating situations that help guide me toward the place I need to end up. That something that I make mention of is my Creator. So, I would say that whenever I hear the question, “Who is writing the script of my life?”, my starting point to answering this question would be that God is writing the script of my life because His plans most certainly work out better than mine. The sticky question that creates heavy debate in our world today, “Who’s to say what’s right?” makes me automatically think to return to any biblical truths that I have learned throughout my life. I think a good place to start would be the Ten Commandments and then go from there. The Ten Commandments can be looked at as “rules” or “life guidelines”. One way to look at it is that they are a good moral compass to go by throughout life. In Matt. 22:37-39, Jesus talks about what the greatest commandment in the bible is. He says, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you think about it, these are the Ten Commandments in a nutshell. It takes true love for God to really follow him and listen to what he says about what is “right” and what is “wrong”.