Week 12
Civil Disobedience
Under what conditions is it morally justified to break the law?

In what sort of cases would you endorse civil disobedience? In your answer, think about 1) how you would define the idea of an unjust or immoral law. Would you agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all'? and 2) what cases (if any) would count in your view as legitimate uses of civil disobedience? For some examples, take a look at the Wikipedia article on civil disobedience.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas: an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted to eternal and natural law. Unjust law is a law that degrades human personality. It is Iike St. Augustine said “an unjust law is no law at all”.
In Martin Luther Kings quote “ In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustice exist; negotiation; self-purification; and a direct action.” What does he mean with that? Before anything it is need to establish that there is injustice, then you have to present your case in a logical manner (dialogue), furthermore you have to have self-confidence and know your human rights to rise above degraded circumstances and by last, you have to protest, boycott and bring the demonstration to public eye.
To counteract military attacks and massive destructions in the world, Gandhi had started a movement to use non-violence to oppose wars. I think Mohandas Gandhi was one of the most significant persons in the 20th century. He was the one who proved that it is possible to fight very successfully without violence. He fought his whole life with humanity, tolerance, and ideas and without violence. He showed the way to a better world. And still today there are many people who love him and who use his philosophy to change the world. All over the world, in different ways and in different fields, several developments are taking place that indicate a growing interest in a non-materialistic, nonviolent alternative to present modes of thinking. Whether or not those involved in these developments use or are even aware of Mahatma Gandhi's name and message, they are nevertheless promoting the values and principles he stood for.
Even in South Africa, the political leaders, particularly those of the A N C (African National Congress) used non-violent peaceful means against the Apartheid Regime, till they were forced to resort to violent protests, at times, after 1961. Their motto was 'by' non-violence if we can, by violence only if we must". Imperialism, greed, and racism led to increasing oppression of the black majority by the white minority. South Africa gained independence from Britain and continued to oppress the black majority. Apartheid became law in 1948. Among other things, apartheid meant separate neighborhoods, educational systems, restaurants, businesses, and transportation for whites and non-whites. When non-whites resisted these oppressive laws, the government jailed them, beat them, tortured them, or killed them. The major leaders, like Nelson Mandela, used non-violence to resist the oppression. People protested, wrote articles, published papers, talked to the press, talked to the government officials, formed organizations, had meetings, raised money, and performed acts of non-violent, civil disobedience. To deal with the protests, the government would declare a state of emergency. This led to further civil rights abuses and violence. Nevertheless, the people still responded with non-violence. Because of persistent non-violent action, progressives like President de Klerk abolished the apartheid laws. In 1994, South Africa had its first fair election. Because South Africa broke away from oppression with non-violence, it continues to believe in non-violence today.
The Chinese occupied Tibet in 1950. In 1959, the Dalai Lama, the legitimate leader of Tibet, was forced to flee Tibet and seek refuge in India despite his attempts to peacefully co-exist with the Chinese authorities. Since then the Tibetan people, both inside Tibet and in exile have continued to protest against the denial of their freedom and human rights. The Dalai Lama, a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989, has become a global symbol of peace, and respected by leaders the world over for his consistent non-violent struggle for Tibet.
I think that all the cases mentioned an act of civil disobedience was needed in order to get justice.

weel 11
Classical liberals like Mill usually argue that so long as you aren't being coerced or forced to do something by the state, then you are free. People sympathetic to Marx are likely to argue that freedom requires that we are protected from forms of coercion that stem from economic disparities, and that this perhaps requires some kind of active state intervention to make sure that we are free to make our own economic choices.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree with Mill or Marx? Or perhaps a little with both?


I would say that in order to have an equilibrium between the individual and the state we have to have some of the both sides. Even though I think Marx is a little extremist, I agree with him "that a society that's run by and for the people and that guarantees everyone a living wage, education, health care, and cultural enrichment is a society in which there is true freedom for the masses". On the other hand I have to agree more with Mills and his statement on liberalism where he defends the freedom of speech and the individual autonomy where he says " the state cannot intrude on the sphere of your personal life." We see that going on today with gay marriage.

Week 10
Anarchists argue that government is never justified in its exercise of authority. Locke argues that government is legitimate so long as it restricts itself to protecting our natural rights. Hobbes argues that government has a much broader authority to secure peace, and keep people's natural selfish instincts in check.

Which of the perspectives above do you agree with the most? Do you think your answer depends on what you think human nature is like (i..e. whether people are basically selfish or essentially good? Explain your answer on your blog.


I most agree with Locke's theory that "government is legitimate so long that as it restricts itself to protecting our natural rights." I like when he says that prior or after we form a government, we possess God-given inherent rights.
The way that I see this subject is that sometimes the government forget about the citizens itself and worries about the State interest only, loosing a little bit of humanity of what means to govern. Hobbes argues that "the government has provided us with education, with roads, with protection by the law and the police" and he mentions all of this as "benefits". "Benefits" that we have to pay for. However my problem with the system is not the fact that we are paying but the fact that not everyone is receiving the benefits and that's what I thought the government was supposed to be doing, take care of its citizens.

Week 9
According to Buddhism, the main source of our suffering is our preoccupation with our own desires. Suffering is said to be caused by selfish cravings and desires. The way to enlightenment, for Buddhism, therefore involves detaching from our narrow concern with ourselves, escaping the prison of our own desires and illusions.
Do you think it is possible to live according to this teaching in the contemporary United States? Is there a conflict between what Buddhism teaches, and how we are encouraged to think and act in our society? What are your thoughts on this?

I think it is possible to live according to Buddhism in the U.S. but there is a conflict between both of them. In our society we are raised to be a competitor, you have to be “strong” in order to get a successful career and a lot of times you set a side some values that Buddhism consider essential. The passage in the text that I think that shows what I am trying to say is “ we are like a child who has reached into a jar of candy and gotten his hand stuck. He doesn’t realize that the cause of his distress is that his hand is clenched into a fist around the candy, making it too large to slip out of the opening. If he would just let go, his hand would be freed…from our desires come frustration, resentment, greed, selfishness… that cause suffering.” I am not saying that we should give up our dreams, but I think we should know how to balance the material and spiritual life in order to accommodate both in our lives. And that’s not easy, because most of the times we let one side talk louder then other. And in our society usually, the material side is the stronger side.

Week 8
This week, we are focusing on the Cosmological argument and the Design argument. These arguments represent how one can think about religion from a philosophical perspective.
In your blog, I would like you to reflect more generally on what, if anything, you think philosophy might contribute to the understanding of religion. Think about i) whether you think these arguments might change someone's relgious convictions, and ii) whether there is anything about religious experience that is left out of these arguments (for example, some people might say that faith is important for religious conviction, yet of course faith has no role in philosophical argument).

I think that religion it in a very complex topic. I grew up in a catholic family going to catholic school and I was thought to never doubt the existence of God. I still don’t doubt and I think that’s my faith is bigger than the doubt, but as one grows up we are exposure to different experiences and different kinds of believes, and because of that we start to wonder what religion is all about. I think that we need to believe in something to be able to accept our existence on earth, and for me this “something” is God. I agree with some physicists and gastronomists that “A series of breakthroughs in physics and observational astronomy led to development of the Big Bang and the discovery that the Universe is highly structured, with precisely defined parameters such as age, mass, entropy…” But I believe that something much bigger than that made this whole process happened.

Week 6
Some philosophers, including John Searle, say that computers are not really intelligent. Rather, they just simulate intelligence. However, it could be argued that, just as computers are programmed to respond in different ways to different commands, so human beings are 'programmed' by society, and education, to perform certain tasks. For example, we are programmed to do complicated things like speak a language, as well as more simply things like brush our teeth.
What are your thoughts on this comparison? Is there any difference between the programming of computers, and the 'programming' of humans by society?

When I first read about this comparison I thought that it was a little extreme. How can you compare a computer to a human being? Plus a human being has the freedom to choose if they want to fallow the rules of society or not. But thinking about now I noticed that we are not that free. We have some choices in our lives that makes us think that we have the freedom to choose anything we want to do, but we can’t forget that we have some choices that are given to us giving us an illusion that we have the freedom that we actually don’t have because we have limits and bounds( I was reading a little about Spinoza). And I have to agree that God is the only “one” that can be free. Once that my approach to this comparison was freedom, based on this I think that I have to agree that we are just like the computers, more or less.

Dualism and Physicalism
Should we, as human beings, think of ourselves as made out of two different substances, like Decartes argued? Or are you persuaded by the arguments of physicalism that we are purely physical beings?
If you agree with Descartes, how would you explain the fact that our mental life seems to be very closely connected to a physical organ, namely the brain. If you agree with physicalism, how do you explain the fact that our mental life seems to be like nothing else in the physical world (think of how unique something like consciousness is, for example).
Write your thoughts on these issues

I agree with Descartes argument by saying that we should think of ourselves as made out of two different substances. Even though the physical part takes a big in this discussion I think that there is something else besides the “physical or material components” that make us humans. If was just genetics how would we explain identical twins where one is schizophrenic and the other one is normal? How about homosexuals? It is such a delicate subject but how can we argue that as being just physicalist? We just can’t. I believe the there is an essence in every human being that make us who we are.