22 Aralık 2010 Çarşamba

Paradox of Choice

Today I'm going to discuss Barry Schwartz' "Paradox of Cahoice: Why More Is Less?"

As everybody knows we have many options to chosse today. This came with Capitalism. And Capitalism is growing day by day. So our options, choices are increasing. But are we Happy?

Barry Schwartz says no. The more we can means the less happiness. For example if we want to buy a necklace, we go to jewellery shop. But what's that?! There are a lot of neclace types. White necklace, blue necklace, purple necklace, gold necklace, heart necklace, cross necklace, silver necklace, pink necklace, gothic necklace... We can't choose it easily and we want them all sometimes. Assume that we got one, but after that we are going to think that we shoul better if we bought the other one. And that brings us down.

This is paradox of choice of course.

12 Ekim 2010 Salı

My Commentaries About Structural Economic Change

     As F. Stilwell said, there are six elements of structural economic change, which are: (1)                           application of new Technologies, (2) mergers and takeovers, (3) the globalisation of
production, (4) the reorganization of employment conditions, (5) changes in the economic
role of government, (6) changes in prevailing economic ideologies.

      Firstly, I want to discuss the impact of changing Technology on production. Beyond
all question, when technological innovations pervade, the unemployment shows an
increase. And Stilwell says there are two overlapping waves. The first wave impacts
agriculture. Changing technology on agriculture impacts farmers. Farmers migrate cities
to find jobs in manufacturing industries. But changing technology on manufacturing
sector displace these workers, too. We can call the second wave as “McDonald’s Law”.
Like I just said, changing technology impacts manufacturing and it impacts
unemployment. But after all of these, “the changing technology” created a new sector
calls services sector. But the problem is what’s going to happen when information
Technologies and computerisation will begin to impact service sector, too? I think
unemployment will increase again and again, until “changing technology” will create a
new sector to exploit.

      Secondly, I want to discuss globalization of production. Globalization expands
economic oppurtunities but it has side effects of course. As negative effects of
globalization, developed nations have outsourced manufacturing and white collar jobs.
That means less jobs for their people. This has happened because manufacturing work is
outsourced to developing nations like China where the cost of manufacturing goods and
wages are lower. Programmers, editors, scientists and accountants have lost their jobs due
to outsourcing to cheaper locations like India. So, we have to think twice before saying
“Globalization makes everything better”.

      Lastly, I want to discuss changes in the economic role of government. According to
neo-liberalism, the role of government is nothing. The free market capitalism. For a long
time there are deregulation, privatisation and liberalisation of trade for more capital
movements. But the last crisis showed off deregulation and invisible hand not always
work. So maybe it’s time to make some changes on current economic systems. So that’s
the reason why we have to consider Political Economy.

10 Ekim 2010 Pazar

Judith Jarvis Thomson

She is an American moral philosopher and metaphysician. She was born in 1929. She taught at MIT for a long time. She has six writings which are; Goodness and Advise(2003), Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity(1996), The Realm of Rights(1990), Rights, Restitution and Risk(1986), Acts and Other Events(1977), Killing, Letting Die and the Trolley Problem(1976), The Right to Privacy (1975), Preferencial Hiring(1973). Her work in metaphysics has ontology of events, and the identity across time of people and other physical objects. And she is well-known for thought experiments.


Philippa Foot
He is a British philosopher. He was born in 3rd October 1920 and he died in 3rd October 2010. He argued for virtual ethics. And he is also well-known for thought experiments, he created the famous moral thought as Trolley Problem.


Joshua Greene
He is a Professor of Psychology at Harvard University. He studied moral judgment and decision-making using behavioral experiments, the ethical dilemmas. The well-known ethical dilemma, Trolley problem, was originally posed by the philosophers Philippa Foot and Judith Jarvis Thomson.  


Marc Hauser

He was born in October 25, 1959. He is a famous evolutionary biologist and researcher of animal cognition. He was a Professor at Harvard University also, but  he has been found guilty of misconduct over his research.

 

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7972604/Marc-Hauser-monkeying-with-the-truth.html)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Hauser)

 

Frances Kamm

 

She is Littauer Professor of Philosophy and Public Policy. She is the author of Creation and Abortion; Morality, Mortality, Vol. 1: Death and Whom to Save From It; Morality, Mortality, Vol. 2: Rights, Duties, and Status; and Intricate Ethics. Kamm also has published many articles on normative ethical theory and practical ethics.

 

(http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~phildept/kamm.html)

 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Kamm)

 

Jeff McMahan

 

He is an American Philosopher and a Professor at Rutgers University. He is author of two boks about ethics which are; The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life(Oxford University Press 2002) and The Ethics of Killing: Self-Defense, War, and Punishment. He has published papers about the ethics and the distinction between killing and letting die.

 

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_McMahan_(philosopher))

 (http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/people/data/jeff_mcmahan.html)

 (http://philosophy.rutgers.edu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=114&Itemid=210)

6 Ekim 2010 Çarşamba

Ethical Dilemmas

Today, I'm gonna talk about dilemmas, the ethical dilemmas. Like scientists, philosophers use experiments too. But they use experiments for test their theories. Unlike scientists, their experiments do not require laboratories, technicians etc. They occur in the mind, and start with 'What if...'.

Here are the well-known 2 examples:

1- Thomson's Violinist

"One day, you wake up in hospital. In the nearby bed lies a world famous violinist who is 
connected to you with various tubes and machines. To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist. If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected?"  

In 'violinist' scenario, someone else's circulatory system is plugged into yours against your will so that your kidneys can filter both blood streams. Disconnection means death to the violinist, the someone plugged into you. The curing operation may be nine months.

2- The Cave Explorers

"An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Fortunately, you spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let "Big Jack" out first. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out. The high tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave. will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a stick of dynamite. It will not move the rock, but  will certainly blast Big Jack out of the hole. Big Jack, anticipating your thoughts, pleads for his life. He does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions. Should you blast Big Jack out?
If the roles were reversed, what would you advise your trapped companions to do?"

In 'the cave explorers' scenario, you and your companies are be at bay in a cave. And the only way out to survive is blast Big Jack with the dynamites which are you found in your bag. If you don't blast Big Jack out of the hole, you and your companies will die. You have to decide to kill or let die.

3 Ekim 2010 Pazar

Civilian Casulties as Collateral Damage

Collateral damage is the damage that  comprised accidental.  Collateral damage is a military term for the mass murder of civilians through the use of weapons which are known in advance to be imprecise or to cause damage across a large area.


Basicly, the concept of collateral damage is the “Doctrine of Double Effect” (DDE). It developed by Catholic casuits during the Middle Ages. The DDE morally differentiates the intended effects of an act from those that are unintended. Plus, by focusing on the moral importance of intention and its relevance to moral agency and responsibility, the DDE morally distinguishes killing as an unintended, secondary effect  -collateral damage- from murder. So, collateral damage is an euphemism and firstly, used as a military term during the Vietnam War, because of killing civil society and destroying their private properties. However, collateral damage has many meanings also.

Representing collateral damage, needs very sensitiveness, because it’s a fault eventually. Killing people accidentally and discussing and deciding the minimal damage are not cheerful things. So it is important to representing collateral damage in the right ethical position. In my opinion, the way it’s representing is not disturbing. Media knows how to report it as news, refraining from disturbing. That’s the point, representing collateral damage objectively, shortly and refraining from disturbing is the best for representing it in the right
ethical position.

            
In a conclusion, issues of morality and desicion making in minimizing collateral damage  are sensitive subjects. But the bad scenerio is, the quicker we go extinct, the less collateral damage we cause the rest of the universe.


Eyşan Aydoğdu