Philoso-phize with us -- or even against us! but philoso-phize, friends.

Contact Dr. Harwood at 408-687-8199 & svharwood1@aol.com

image1
image2
ABOUT THE AWFUL

The awful of this website is Prof. Sterling Harwood.  He received his B.A. in Philosophy in 1980 from the University of Maryland in College Park, MD.  He received his J.D. from Cornell Law School in Ithaca, New York in 1983.  He received his M.A. in Philosophy in 1986 from Cornell University.  He earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy in 1992 from Cornell University.  He has been teaching courses in Philosophy since he began in 1982 at Cornell University and currently teaches at Evergreen Valley College in San Jose, CA. 


Explore a fun radio show that Dr. Harwood produced & hosted on KLIV 1590AM in San Jose, CA, debating philosopher James Fetzer (A.B. Princeton University; Ph.D. Indiana University) about whether Neil Armstrong really landed on the moon.   Keep the following 2 questions in mind during the show.  First, why is there no US postage stamp with either Neil Armstrong's name or face on it? Second, in an age of rapidly progressing technology, why has no one landed on the moon since Dec. of 1972, almost 47 years ago? Just click the url below and then click anywhere near the center of the screen to begin playing the theme song of the show by Katy Perry and the rest of the show automatically follows.  https://web.archive.org/web/20160304040041/http://kliv.gotdns.com/kliv/paid/2013_05_02_SpirtToSpirt.mp3

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION 1: HOW CAN WE BEST USE THIS SITE?

image3

This site is organized around 23 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) and at least 33 suggested keywords. Feel free to use any keywords of your own that best reflect your interests, regardless of whether they are in my list of 33 suggested keywords below. Use Control + F to find 'FAQ' & just keep hitting 'enter' to browse the 23 FAQs in order of their appearance on this site. Alternatively, use Control + F to find keywords corresponding to the questions or topics that most interest you. Suggested keywords include: 1) Guidelines A-Z; 2) Bermuda Triangle; 3) global warming; 4) abortion; 5) euthanasia; 6) gun control; 7) UFO; 8) capital punishment; 9) Loch Ness Monster; 10) Aristotle; 11) Plato; 12) Socrates; 13) Hume; 14) Kant; 15) John Stuart Mill; 16) ancient aliens; 17) affirmative action; 18) God; 19) flat earth; 20) Bigfoot; 21) New Jersey Devil; 22) Neil Armstrong; 23) moon; 24) drugs; 25) legalization; 26). execution; 27) death penalty; 28) death; 29) meaning of life; 30) mercy killing; 31) Confucius, 32) Descartes, and 33) human nature. Click 'enter' enough to reach where the answer is presented along with the FAQ or other info on the keyword (topic).


FAQ2: Have a sample paper on global warming ?


***WARNING: SAMPLE PAPERS ARE IMPERFECT PAPERS BY DR. HARWOOD'S STUDENTS.  DR. HARWOOD HAS TRIED TO TWEAK THEM.  LEARN FROM THE BEST IN THEM & DE-EMPHASIZE THE REST IN THEM.***


Is Global Warming A Hoax? Hardly!

by an Anonymous Student


1. Introduction: The Earth keeps getting warmer  


In this paper I will argue that global warming is real and argue how carbon dioxide contributes into making the Earth warmer by trapping the heat that lingers in the atmosphere. Human put carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by burning coal, fossil fuels, and oil, making us the main cause of global warming. If the Earth keeps getting warmer, ice caps and glaciers will melt faster causing floods and consume many coast lands. Sea levels are also rising due to the melted ice and snow. There is evidence from researchers that show that the sea levels have risen about 8 inches in the last decade due to global warming. “ NOAA (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Association) scientists conducted a review of the research on global sea level rise projections, and concluded that there is very high confidence (greater than 90% chance) that global mean sea level will rise at least 8 inches (0.2 meter)”- Rebecca Lindsey, https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level, May 23, 2018. They were able to determine the sea levels rising by using a satellite measuring system. 


In 2C I will argue that the Earth has been getting hotter for the past 20 years. In 3C I will argue that using less fuel will help slow down climate change, but it is not the only way. In 4C I will argue that global warming is not a hoax and how the statement uses faulty logic. In 5C I will argue that growing plants does help lessen greenhouse gases, but it is not the simplest way. In 6C I will argue that weather is never normal. In 7C I will argue that most of global warming is man made and it is based on sound science. RU Section 8 concludes my paper.


2. The Earth wishes it was cool


2A. "There's no scientific analysis either. I have 4,000 scientists that tell me global warming is a hoax. The Earth has cooled for 20 years."- Robert Murray, CNBC Squawk Box, CNBC, February 17, 2017. 


2B. I disagree with the statement. 


2C. I disagree with the quote because Murray did not release any names or sources to support his claim of thousands of scientists telling him global warming is fake. Also, there is evidence that the earth has not been cooling for the last 20 years. Many scientists have released analysis on how global warming affects our planet and what the cause of it is.


“TRUTH TIP 3. Reject a claim that conflicts with the claims of another credible source unless you have resolved the question of which source should be believed (that is, which source is more credible than the other).”- Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker Critical Thinking, 5th ed., Mayfield Publishing, 1998, p. 266.

For many decades scientists have presented evidence of global warming making Murray's claim follow truth tip 3 because his claim of no scientific analysis on global warming and the earth cooling goes against other claims presented by experts that believe the earth is getting hotter. 

"...there is 'very high confidence' that human activities since 1750 have played a significant role to overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide (CO2), hence retaining solar heat that would otherwise radiate away."- Global Warming, Times, 2007, pg. 15. Although the quote states "'very high confidence,'" the scientists are measuring CO2 changes from over two decades ago, which can make the date a few years off. This also shows that global warming has slowly been happening for centuries and the consequence for producing a vast amount of CO2 over the years is building up over time.


"The team observed a total rise in the ocean of 7 centimeters (2.8 inches) in 25 years of data, which aligns with the generally accepted current rate of sea level rise of about 3 millimeters (0.1 inches) per year."- Brandon Miller, https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/12/world/sea-level-rise-accelerating/index.html, April 3,2018. Besides the increase in CO2, Earth is getting warmer by the year and the rising sea levels can lead to catastrophic damage such as flash floods, hurricanes, and tsunamis.

FALLACY 3), THE FALLACY OF APPEALING TO AUTHORITY: This fallacy is invalid.

Model: X is an expert.

X believes Y

Therefore, Y is true

This fallacy is invalid because the conclusion can still be false even if all the premises are true.


"Ad verecundiam" is the Latin name for Appeal To Authority. 

This fallacy tries to convince the listener by appealing to the reputation of a famous or respected person. Oftentimes it is an authority in one field who is speaking out of his or her field of expertise.

“TRUTH TIP 4. Claims that are vague, ambiguous, or otherwise unclear require clarification before acceptance.”- Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker Critical Thinking, 5th ed., Mayfield Publishing, 1998, p. 266.


Since Murray believes the statements of scientists telling him that global warming does not exist falls into fallacy 3, the fallacy of appealing to authority because multiple scientists, who claim to be experts in their field (x), told him global warming is a hoax (y), leading him to believe that what the scientists claims are true. Murray beliefs also follow truth tip 4 because during the interview or even after, he never listed any name of scientists who stated the claims and never gave any sources as to why he does not believe in global warming. If thousands of scientists told him the same argument multiple times, he should be able to present a few names or at least one of the scientists would have come out and stated they told him global warming is a hoax, but none of that happened yet. Also, even if 4000 scientists have claimed that global warming is a hoax, there are thousands more that have peer-reviewed publication to prove otherwise.


3. There is more than one way to help the planet


3A. "The only way to slow climate change is to use less fuel."- Gregory Benford, Climate Control, Reason, November 1997, p.25.


3B. I only partially agree with the quote. 


3C. Using less fuel is not the only way to slow down climate change. New technology such as renewable energy has been created to help lessen to emission of greenhouse gases.


“TRUTH TIP 5. Claims with extreme words - watchwords - without any qualifying words (qualifiers) are more likely to be false. Watchwords include: 'never' (as in "Never say 'never'."), 'always', 'all', 'every', 'none', 'absolutely', 'exceptionless', 'impossible', 'total', 'totally', 'complete', 'completely', 'full', 'fully', 'only', 'lone', 'no', 'zero', 'perfect', 'best', 'unprecedented'. Qualifiers include: probably, possible, almost, nearly, quite, not (for example, "Not all red birds can fly well."), sometimes, somewhat, perhaps, maybe, possible, could, might, may, can.” - Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker Critical Thinking, 5th ed., Mayfield Publishing, 1998, p. 266.

I disagree with the use of the word "only" in his statement. It follows truth tip 5 because people have proved there are other ways to slow down climate change. Other methods of slowing down global warming are cutting down fuel emission, recycling, traveling less, etc.


"Every year, 33 million acres of forests are cut down. Timber harvesting in the tropics alone contributes 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere. That represents 20 percent of human-made greenhouse gas emissions and a source that could be avoided relatively easily." - David Biello, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/10-solutions-for-climate-change/, April 10, 2018. This shows another way to decrease climate change would be to cut down less trees. Trees can consume up to 48 pounds of CO2, but by cutting millions of trees a year will cause CO2 emission to go up because there are less trees to help decrease all the CO2 that's created.

I agree that using less fuel can slow down climate change. By using less fuel, there will be a less production of CO2, thus helping with global warming. 


"Emissions data has placed transport as the new king of climate-warming pollution..." - Oliver Milman, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jan/01/vehicles-climate-change-emissions-trump-administration, April 11, 2018. Since more people rely on fuel transportation to travel now, it has increased the rising temperature of global warming. However, if we use other methods of transportation that does not rely on gas or create more vehicles that dependent on other materials besides gas, such as electric car, then that can help slow down global warming because it would emit less greenhouse gases. 


4. Global warming is perfectly compatible with large amounts of snow


4A. "Snowing in Texas and Louisiana, record setting freezing temperatures throughout the country and beyond. Global warming is an expensive hoax!"- Donald J. Trump, https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/428414113463955457?lang=en, May 15, 2017. 


4B. I disagree with the statement 


4C. Trump is claiming that just because it snowed in states that usually have warmer temperatures, it means that the Earth is getting colder. However, there are evidence that point to his statement is incorrect and that global warming is does happen on Earth.


FALLACY 16), HASTY GENERALIZATION: Logicians usually consider this fallacy invalid (but below we will explore a different interpretation that would make this fallacy valid). This fallacy is committed when one fails to take enough time to collect a large enough sample or a randomized enough sample on which to extrapolate scientifically.


Model: A is a representative sample of Bs.

X is true of all Bs is sample A.

Therefore, X is true of all Bs.


I disagree with the statement because Trump shows fallacy 16 in his statement by commenting about a rare occurrence of snow in generally hot states. The snow (A) makes him believe that the Earth is only getting colder (B), which leads him to argue that global warming is not real (X). He doesn't look at the whole picture of the previous climates in the states, but only addresses the climate when it started to snow. It's true that the temperature dropped to one of the lowest in the nation, but the weather increased back to the average temperature (around 50°) of the states within a few days. Trump only focuses on how it was cold for a few days and does not look at the whole pictures of previous temperature that occurred  in the states. 

Also, I disagree with the statement of global warming being a hoax because there are evidence that disproves his statement, which follows truth tip 3. The most visible evidence of global warming is ice glaciers melting. 


"Researchers long ago predicted that the most visible impacts from a globally warmer world would occur first at high latitudes: rising air and sea temperatures, earlier snowmelt, later ice freeze-up, reductions in sea ice, thawing permafrost, more erosion, increases in storm intensity. Now all those impacts have been documented in Alaska."- Daniel Glick, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/, May 15, 2018, showing how scientists predicts rising sea levels from ice and snow melting. Global warming does exist because Alaska has been thawing over the year, meaning that if global warming was not real, Alaska would stay in its original state or be getting colder. He also shows truth tip 4 because he is being vague about why it is expensive. Trump claims that global warming is expensive but does not clarify who is paying for it. In another Tweet, he states “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” - Donald Trump, https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385?lang=en, May 23, 2018. His statement could mean that global warming are expensive for people who are other races, but he is being vague about his statements. 


5. Growing plants will reduce greenhouse gases

5A. "The simplest way to remove carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, is to grow plants-- preferably trees, since they tie up more of the gas in cellulose, meaning it will not return to the air within a season or two."- Gregory Benford, Climate Control, Reason, November 1997, p. 26. 


5B. I only partially agree with the quote.


5C. Plants consume tons of CO2 a year and they convert carbon dioxide to oxygen. “‘An approximate value for a 50-year-old oak forest would be 30,000 pounds of carbon dioxide sequestered per acre,’”- C. Claiborne Ray, https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/science/how-many-pounds-of-carbon-dioxide-does-our-forest-absorb.html, May 23, 2018. More plants will help reduce global warming because it will take the CO2 that causes heat to be trapped in the atmosphere. 

“TRUTH TIP 1. Accept a claim as true if it comes from a credible source (for example, an expert or authority) and fails to conflict with what you have observed, your background knowledge, or other credible claims.” - Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker Critical Thinking, 5th ed., Mayfield Publishing, 1998, p. 266.


I agree with the statement because  it shows truth tip 1 by having other claims support the evidence of planting plants is an efficient way to reduce carbon dioxide.

"Forests affect the climate in three different ways: by absorbing carbon dioxide (a major greenhouse gas) to help cool the planet; by evaporating water that forms clouds, also helping to keep the planet cooler; and by absorbing sunlight with their dark leaves, which warms the Earth."- Andrea Thompson, https://www.livescience.com/4410-tropical-trees-cool-earth-effectively.html, May 15, 2018. Plants are efficient to reduce global warming because they take the CO2 that is lingering and making the Earth warmer and converts it into oxygen. Plants also help the Earth cool down a lot by evaporating water to form clouds, which leads to the sunlight getting reflected back into space. 


The quote also follows truth tip 5 because they used the word "simplest" while making their statement. Benford believes that the easiest way to slow down global warming and lessen carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is to plant more plants. He compares all the other methods of decreasing carbon dioxide and thinks that the easiest way to decrease it is by having more plants. However, growing plants takes time and will take a lot of resources for it to grow before it can make an impact on carbon dioxide. People can help make an impact on global warming by recycling.

"Recycle. The EPA estimates that recycling glass, aluminum, plastic, and paper could save 582 pounds of CO2 per year, equivalent to more than 600 miles of driving."- Christina Nunez, http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/before-the-flood/articles/14-easy-ways-to-reduce-your-own-carbon-footprint/, May 15,2018. Recycling is also simple and is an everyday thing people can do. Although growing plants has a stronger impact on reducing greenhouse gases, recycling still helps reduce global warming. 


6. Weather is never normal


6A. "There is no such thing as normal weather." ~ Michael D. Lemonick, “Life in the Greenhouse,” Time, April 9, 2001, p. 18.


6B. I agree with this statement. 


6C. I agree with the quote because normal is a broad word that conforms to a standard and weather is far from normal. Lemonick follows truth tip 1 because there are credible sources that support his statement and believes weather is not normal.

"Within that bell-shaped curve, three common measures of “central tendency” are often used: the mode (most frequent value); the median (the value above and below which the same number of values exist); and the average, or arithmetic mean of all values. The latter is sometimes referred to as the “normal.” Therein lies the problem, because as a rule, when it comes to weather, the public regards “normal” as the weather to be expected." - Don Lipman, https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/is-our-current-weather-normal-or-not/2011/10/07/gIQA9WHGTL_blog.html?utm_term=.ca702daf082a, May 17,2018.


People believe that normal weather correlates to the season. For example, Californians expect the weather to be hot in the summer and raining in the spring. However, the four-year drought that California had conflicts with the expectation of normal weather of rain that people had. Instead of calling it normal weather, it would be best to describe it as average weather because it fits into the consistency of the weather patterns. 


7. The Human contribution to global warming is significant


7A. "The claim that global warming is caused by man-made emissions is simply untrue and not based on sound science.", - Coral Davenport, https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/us/politics/climate-change-denialists-in-charge.html, May 17, 2018.


7B. I disagree with this quote. 


7C. I disagree with the statement because it follows truth tip 3 by conflicting other evidence that has been found. Global warming is man made because we are the ones that burn the most carbon dioxide through factories, transportation, and so much more. Even apart from greenhouse gases human create, humans cause all sorts of heat, including everything from nukes (For example, the U.S. exploded 65 nukes in the Marshall Islands alone and two in Japan) to heat caused from the friction of tires traveling at high speed down roads, etc. 


"Scientists calculated that human contribution to warming since 1950 is between 92 percent and 123 percent. It's more than 100 percent on one end, because some natural forces — such as volcanoes and orbital cycle — are working to cool Earth, but are being overwhelmed by the effects of greenhouse gases..."- Katharine Hayhoe, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-report-contradicts-trump-team-says-global-warming-mostly-n817486, May 17, 2018. Hayhoe states how there is research and proof of humans being the cause of global warming by adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. The research shows that people contribute to over 90% of the greenhouse gases, meaning that less than 10% is from the Earth's emission of greenhouse gases. Also, the quote also shows truth tip 4 because they state that global warming isn't based on sound science when there are thousands of scientist dedicating their time to researching and creating solutions to slow or stop global warming. He also doesn’t clarify what he believes is sound science. He use sound science as a subjective term to undermine the credibility of scientists who actually do the research on global warming. 


8. Conclusion:  Global warming does exist!


In this paper I did argue that global warming is real and how carbon dioxide contributes into making the Earth warmer by trapping the heat that lingers in the atmosphere. Human put carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by burning coal, fossil fuels, and oil, making us the main cause of global warming. If the Earth keeps getting warmer, ice caps and glaciers will melt faster causing floods and consume many coast lands. Sea levels are also rising due to the melted ice and snow. There is evidence from researchers that show that the sea levels have risen about 8 inches in the last decade due to global warming, “NOAA scientists conducted a review of the research on global sea level rise projections, and concluded that there is very high confidence (greater than 90% chance) that global mean sea level will rise at least 8 inches (0.2 meter)”- Rebecca Lindsey, https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level, May 23, 2018.  They were able to determine the sea levels rising by using a satellite measuring system.


In 2C I did argue that the Earth has not been cooling for 20 years, instead it's getting hotter. In 3C I did argue that using less fuel will help slow down climate change, but it isn't the only way. In 4C I did argue that global warming isn't a hoax and how the statement uses faulty logic. In 5C I did argue that growing plants does help lessen greenhouse gases, but it isn't the simplest way. In 6C I did argue that weather is never normal. In 7C I did argue that most of global warming is man-made and it is based on sound science.

FAQ3: What are hundreds of helpful quotes to ponder about Human Nature?

Here are the quotes with some of Dr. H's brainstorming about them. There are three main issues, at least, running through these quotes: 1) how good, evil or mixed human nature is; 2) how free or unfree human nature is; 3) and how fixed or flexible (changeable, malleable, or plastic) human nature is. So, as you read each quote, read it to see if the quote is relevant for at least one of those three issues.
 

1. "Out of the crooked timber of human nature nothing quite straight can be made." ~ Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), from "Idee zu einer allegemeinen Geschichte in weltburgerlicher Absicht" (1784), unpublished translation by R. G. Collingwood, quoted in Isaiah Berlin, The Crooked Timber of Humanity, ed. by Henry Hardy (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991), p. vii.


2. “Law is born from despair of human nature.” – Jose Ortega y Gasset, 1883-1955, quoted in W. H. Auden and Louis Kronenberger, The Viking Book of Aphorisms, 1962, quoted in the section entitled “Human Nature” in David S. Shrager and Elizabeth Frost, eds., The Quotable Lawyer (New York: Facts on File, 1986), p. 129.
 

Dr. Harwood's Brainstorm: This quote suggests that the commonsense of having laws shows that human nature is mainly evil, which is to despair over here. Considering thoughts from various cultures and times can only strengthen your thought through the diversity of positions you consider to enrich your discussion. The directness of the quote in linking directly two important things (law and human nature) make it useful. The brevity of the quote also makes it desirable.


3. “It’s human nature to be pleased with other people’s misfortune.” ~ Trevor Howard, actor, from the film 11 Harrowhouse (1974).


4. “Causal determinism: we are hard-wired to need answers. The cave man who heard a rustle in the bushes and checked out to see what it was lived longer than the guy who assumed it was just a breeze. The problem is when we don’t find a logical answer, we settle for a stupid one. Ritual is what happens when we run out of rational.” ~ Hugh Laurie, actor, House, “Small Sacrifices,” Season 7, Episode 8, Fox, first aired 11/22/2010. 


5. “Nothing would be left on the shelves of the grocery stores within three hours of an event. It’s not just the water and food that goes. It’s everything. … It doesn’t matter if you’re in New York City, in LA or if you’re in Iowa, human nature is human nature. People are going to fight over resources.” ~ Kevin Reeve, onPoint Tactical, interviewed in When Aliens Attack, documentary, National Geographic Channel, aired 5/4/2019.


6. “It was a hard day. Hardest we’ve had in a while. A man lost his arm. The project’s behind schedule. People were at each other’s throats. Thing is, though – bad as it was – when the day was done, they came together. Not all of them. But enough. They chose to be together. You see what I’m getting’ at? No matter what happens, it’s human nature to come together. That’s just what we do.” ~ Andrew Lincoln, actor playing Rick Grimes, “The Bridge,” The Walking Dead, Season 9, Episode 2, first aired Sunday 10/14/2018.  Note: see quote #5 below for a reply.


7. “That’s a real pretty picture you paint there, Rick. … You think that just ‘cause they had a little weenie roast you got this on lock. When it finally goes to shit – and it will – you make sure you come back and you tell me all about that day, too.” ~ Jeffrey Dean Stanton, actor playing Neegan, “The Bridge,” The Walking Dead, Season 9, Episode 2, first aired Sunday 10/14/2018. Note: see quote #4 above for what Neegan is replying to here.


8. “Conservativism has always had a kind of darker view of human nature, that human beings inherently can be evil, can do bad things. We need protections. We need order. We need stability. And the liberals tend to be more trusting, more idealistic … [and] can be caricatured as naïve.” ~ Fareed Zakaria, anchor, Fareed Zakaria GPS, CNN, first aired, Sunday 10/21/18.


9. “And just rest in being, existence without interpretation, just being, being, awareness, joy – this is our true nature.” Deepak Chopra, interviewed by Jimmy Fallon on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, Season 5, Episode 156, first aired 7/19/2018.


10. “What is it then which binds those who have more than enough and those with less than enough in the ties of obligation? For most people, obligations are a matter of custom, habit and historical inheritance as much as a matter of explicit moral commitment. But might there not be something more than custom, habit and inheritance? Whatever the customs of a country, it would seem ‘unnatural’ for a father to deny his duty towards the needs of his children, unnatural for a daughter to refuse to give shelter to her homeless father. Beneath all these, there is nature: the natural [end of p. 27] feeling which ought to exist between father and children and more mysteriously between human beings as such.” – Michael Ignatieff, The Needs of Strangers: An Essay on Privacy, Solidarity and the Politics of Being Human (New York: Penguin Books, 1984), pp. 27-28.
 

Dr. Harwood’s Note: Joseph Campbell’s citation of Schopenhauer’s metaphysical realization of oneness between even strangers applies here to help demystify this point. You might use this quote as a springboard to a discussion of moral realism rooted in human nature as opposed to the rival of moral realism rooted in mere custom, habit and inheritance.
 

11. “The language of human needs is a basic way of speaking about this idea of natural human identity. We want to know what we have in common with each other beneath the infinity of our differences. We want to know what it means to be human, and we want to know what that knowledge commits us to in terms of duty. What distinguishes the language of needs is its claim that human beings actually feel a common and shared identity in the basic fraternity of hunger, thirst, cold, exhaustion, loneliness or sexual passion. The possibility of human solidarity rests on the idea of natural human identity. A society in which strangers would feel common belonging and mutual responsibility to each other depends on trust, and trust reposes in turn on the idea that beneath difference there is identity.” – Michael Ignatieff, The Needs of Strangers: An Essay on Privacy, Solidarity and the Politics of Being Human (New York: Penguin Books, 1984), p. 28.
 

Dr. Harwood’s Note: This quote seems relevant to both cosmopolitanism and human nature. Again, relevant here is the Schopenhauer/Campbell point on the metaphysical realization of identity in even a stranger. Ignatieff has a way with words, as one would expect of a Penguin Book, since they target more of a mass audience than other imprints. I have in mind here the second and third sentences of the quote above, which are eloquent enough to serve as an epigram.
 

12. “Yet when one thinks about it, this is a puzzling idea. For who has ever met a pure and natural human being? We are always social beings, clothed in our skin, our class, income, our history, and as such, our obligations to each other are always based on difference. As me who I am responsible for, and I will tell you about my wife and child, my parents, my friends and relations, and my fellow citizens. My obligations are defined by what it means to be a citizen, a father, a husband, a son, in this culture, in this time and place. The role of pure human duty seems obscure. It is difference which seems to rule my duties, not identity. [He’s not eloquent in this last sentence, since I think he means to say: It is difference, not identity, which seems to rule my duties.]
 

Similarly, if you ask me what my needs are, I will tell you that I need the chance to understand and be understood, to love and be loved, to forgive and be forgiven, and the chance to create something which will outlast my life, and the chance to belong to a society whose purposes and commitments I share. But if you were to ask me what needs I have as a natural, as opposed to a social being, I would quickly find myself restricted to those of my body. I would abandon the rest as the work of my time and place, no less precious for all that, but not necessarily a universal [end of p. 28] human claim or entitlement. Yet even the natural identity of my body seems marked by social difference. The identity between such hunger as I have ever known and the hunger of the street people of Calcutta is a purely linguistic one. My common natural identity of need, therefore, is narrowed by the limits of my social experience here in this tiny zone of safety known as the developed world.” – Michael Ignatieff, The Needs of Strangers: An Essay on Privacy, Solidarity and the Politics of Being Human(New York: Penguin Books, 1984), pp. 28-29.
 

Dr. Harwood's Brainstorm: Ignatieff is generally eloquent (with only a lapse or two) again here. This quote, which you could and should whittle down easily enough, seems a perfect springboard for you to discuss a tension in views between 1) inclinations toward rewarding individual merit achieved or shown through social climbing and achieving social distinction and 2) inclinations toward a cosmopolitan set of human rights based on a moral realism rooted in our human nature. This tension you reflecting in telling me that you were finding it surprisingly hard to distance yourself in your cosmo paper from egalitarian language or ideas. One possible way to reconcile these two inclinations, which is what Ignatieff seems to be trying to do, is to make Aristotle’s point that we are by nature social beings; we are by nature party animals. Hume makes a similar point about us being by nature sympathetic to other humans at least. The quote seems relevant to cosmopolitanism.
 

13. “On the heath, human beings have the body in common, and nothing else. King and beggar no longer share reason: they babble together like birds. In physical suffering alone are they equal, and in this alone are they the same.
 

Again, the humanism of our day believes that human beings have much more in common than this. Our needs are greater [end of p. 43] than the needs of our bodies. We are creatures of reason and speech, and it as creatures who, alone of all the species, can create and exchange meaning that we all have intrinsic needs for respect, understanding, love and trust.
 

These seem to be more generous and humane assumptions to make about human nature than the view that Shakespeare presents in his vision of the heath [emphasis added]. Yet humane assumptions have unintended consequences. As soon as one enlarges the definition of the human, real human beings begin to be excluded: the Tom O’Bedlams of our time, the mad kings, the insane, the retarded, the deaf and dumb, the crippled and deranged. Those doctors and magistrates who have taken upon themselves the awesome business of deciding who is human – i.e. who is ration – have created a vast array of institutions designed to make Tom O’Bedlam and the mad king human again. The converse of the rational man has turned out to be man the disciplinarian, the man who takes upon himself the godly power of deciding who is in the sacred circle of reason and who is without. Enlarging the criterion of the human beyond the body has had the unexpected effect of legitimizing the despotism of reason over unreason.” – Michael Ignatieff, The Needs of Strangers: An Essay on Privacy, Solidarity and the Politics of Being Human(New York: Penguin Books, 1984), pp. 43-44.
 

Dr. Harwood's Brainstorm: Consider taking Shakespeare’s side in this debate with Ignatieff. You’d be in good company. This quote is also a splendid springboard for you to jump into a discussion of political correctness and egalitarian mainstreaming of the disabled or differently abled or physically challenged or follically challenged or vertically challenged or whatever pc term we settle on instead of often disfavored terms like ‘cripples,’ ‘gimps,’ etc. This quote also goes to the issue of how good or evil or mixed human nature is, since Ignatieff claims he is making a more humane assumption about human nature than is Shakespeare in King Lear, etc.
 

14. “This world is indeed in darkness, and how few can see the light! Just as few birds can escape from a net, few souls can fly into the freedom of heaven.” – The Buddha, aphorism #174 from The Dhammapada, translated by Juan Mascaro (New York: Penguin Books, 1973), p. 60. Do not quote the following in any A-section. Consider: The Buddha seems to side with those arguing that human nature is mostly evil rather than mostly good or mostly mixed.
 

15. “For as he himself [Hume] realized, the idea that men have no natural need of metaphysical consolation assumes that they find nothing problematic about human nature [emphasis added]. Yet both his Natural History of Religion and Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion argue that the need for religious consolation arises in human history precisely because we are unreconciled to what we are, and seek through religion to explain the pain of our own natures [emphasis added].
 

Those who see the hand of Providence in the economy of human nature would have to explain [emphasis added], he wrote, why the human species ‘is of all others the most necessitous and the most deficient in bodily advantages; without Cloaths, without Arms, without [end of p. 95] Food and Lodging, without any Convenience of Life, except what they owe to their own skill and industry’. In other species, need is in equilibrium with habitat. The lion’s strength, the lamb’s meekness, are finely adjusted to their respective appetites and habitat, while man’s reach fatally exceeds his grasp.” – Michael Ignatieff, The Needs of Strangers: An Essay on Privacy, Solidarity and the Politics of Being Human (New York: Penguin Books, 1984), pp. 95-96, quoting David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and the Natural History of Religion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), p. 237.
 

This is the last entry in Ignatieff’s book under the heading of ‘human nature.’ Hume is probably my favorite philosopher. This quote is a splendid springboard to discussing Freud’s view of religion, which seems similar to Hume’s view of religion described above. Human nature seems to have created God in its own image, out of need to explain the pain.
 

16. “Bosch’s reflection centered on a problem intrinsic to all Christian metaphysics: whether spiritual need forms part of the natural yearnings of unredeemed human nature [emphasis added]. There had always been two polar positions on this issue – the Pelagian and the Augustinian. The heresy of Pelagius, a late-fourth-century Roman Briton, maintains that human nature was created with a capacity to redeem itself [emphasis added], to merit salvation and Grace by acts of its own will, and that human evil is an encrustation of habit and history which devout men could cleanse away by ascetic practice.” – Michael Ignatieff, The Needs of Strangers: An Essay on Privacy, Solidarity and the Politics of Being Human(New York: Penguin Books, 1984), p. 72.
 

Dr. Harwood's Brainstorm: this is a splendid springboard for you to discuss your ideas of merit and the major issue of whether human nature is fundamentally good, evil or mixed.
 

17. “The disobedience of the flesh, Augustine wrote, is God’s punishment for man’s disobedience in the Garden. It is not the corruptible flesh that makes the soul sinful; it is the sinful soul that makes the flesh corruptible. Because we desired to know good and evil, we are fated ever after to know our bodies only as evil: to be ashamed of our nakedness, to seek covering, and to understand the good as the unremitting struggle of will against natural desire.
 


 

When Jesus was fasting in the desert for forty days and forty nights, the tempter came to him and taunted him: ‘If thou be the son of God, command that these stones be made bread.’ Jesus replied with words which became the foundation of the Christian anthropology of human nature [emphasis added]: ‘It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God’ (Matthew 4.4).” – Michael Ignatieff, The Needs of Strangers: An Essay on Privacy, Solidarity and the Politics of Being Human (New York: Penguin Books, 1984), p. 61.
 

Brainstorm: Here’s another splendid springboard that might help you improve your thinking on Christianity.
 

18. “Philosophers have called man the political animal, the language maker, the tool maker, the rational animal, even the laughing animal. To define man in this way is to define what it means to be human in terms of the best in us. And the worst? On the heath, where men have only their flesh in common, some men treat the flesh of their brothers as so much meat.
 


 

“A language of human needs understands human beings as being naturally insufficient, incomplete, at the mercy of nature and of each other. It is an account that begins with what is absent.
 

This sense of what it is to be human has its origins in the religious idea of sin. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, human nature was treated not as a fact or as a bundle of potentialities, but as a problem. How, Jews and Christians have asked, is man’s fate as a creature of need to be reconciled with the ideal of the goodness of God? Why is man condemned to scarcity, toil, suffering and death? Why is he a creature of need and not of plenitude, of lack, rather than fullness, of homelessness rather than belonging?
 

Genesis 3.9-19, the story of Adam’s punishment, identifies man’s fall in his desire to have more than he needs, in the hubris that would not be content with the fullness of Paradise. Every account of human beings as needing creatures since has had to return to Paradise, to the state of nature, to account for this tragic loss of plenitude. If human nature had been content with plenitude, it would have had no history, only the bliss of a permanent present [emphasis added]. Instead, we ate from the tree of knowledge [end of p. 57] and were expelled from the garden. Our nature was forced, by our sin, to have a history, and the history of our needs has been tragic: the toil and suffering of Adam’s curse.
 


 

Augustine devoted his attention to one question above all: the nature of sexuality in Paradise. How did Adam and Eve manage to obey the divine commandment to increase and multiply, without themselves committing the sin of lust? The Manichean sect, whose doctrines troubled Augustine in his outh, maintained that evil was incarnated in human desire [compare the four noble truths of Buddhism]; the Platonists likewise believed that the good was present only in the spirit. To reflect upon sex in Paradise [emphasis added], therefore, was to define what attitude a Christian ought to take towards the desires of the body.” – Michael Ignatieff, The Needs of Strangers: An Essay on Privacy, Solidarity and the Politics of Being Human (New York: Penguin Books, 1984), pp. 57-58.
 

Note that Ignatieff blurs the distinction between human nature and human condition here by stressing the lack or impoverishment we experience.
 

19. “The most formidable enemy of an enlightened humanism is not science or technology, for as we have seen in the foregoing chapters, they are its spiritual allies. The real antithesis to humanism is much more insidious: it is the current of anti-intellectualism whose force runs as directly counter to humanism as it does to science. An adequate defense against anti-intellectualism in the name of both human ism and science must rest on the understanding of the respective roles of intellect and emotion in the humanistic ideal of personal and social life. Our logical starting point, therefore, is an analysis of these two factors in human personality.
 

It is customary to divide human nature into two parts [emphasis added], the cognitive part and the motor-affective part. … [end p. 70] The broad difference between these two groups of mental acts lies in the fact that the one is neutral, whereas the other is partisan. The one is symbolized by the ‘head,’ the other by the ‘heart.’ … For the sake of verbal simplicity the one will be referred to as ‘intellect,’ and the other as ‘emotion.’
 

The question of anti-intellectualism might be dismissed briefly by claiming that the very statement of the question begs the question. For what faculty is to weight the counterclaims of the intellect and anti-intellect if not the intellect itself? … This ‘cerebro-centric’ predicament does not, however, settle the question.” Ralph Barton Perry, The Humanity of Man (George Braziller, Inc., 1956), pp. 70-71.
 

You might contrast this bifurcation of human nature with the tripartite division of human nature in Plato and Freud. The old but nice phrasing of the contrast between head and heart should find its way into your thinking somewhere if you haven’t used it already. It’s useful for students first to try to wrap their minds around the distinction with more familiar or simpler language than one finds in Plato or Freud, which one can best consider later.
 

20: “’… The so-called science of human nature or of the human mind resolves itself into history … But there is one sense in which I should agree that the resolution of a science of mind into history means renouncing part of what a science of mind commonly claims, and I think falsely. The mental scientist, believing in a universal and therefore unalterable truth of his conclusions, thinks that the account he gives of mind holds good of all future stages in mind’s history: he thinks that his science shows what mind will always be, not only what it has been in the past and is now.’ [quoting Collingwood, Idea of History (1946), page unspecified in Nott]
 

That may or may not be a fair description of a typical psychologist’s attitude to mental process. But it is a valid statement of what the problems are for a philosopher, whether he recognizes them or not. Idealism nowadays, with ‘metaphysics’, is largely ‘out’ and both philosophers and psychologists are chary of treating ‘mind’ and ‘human nature’ as entities. That distrust originated historically, for ourselves, in the Cartesian split between Thought and Extension, Mind and Body or Matter, which resulted in bestowing a preferential ‘reality’ on Matter or Body. Body is what can be dealt with by the methods of physics and mathematics – which have been so much more successful than other studies or speculations in producing and repeating their results.
 

It is no wonder then that many philosophers should incline towards a behaviouristic psychology – or at least to leaving such concepts as ‘human nature’ and ‘mind’ out of account. But it may be that they resist these concepts because they unconsciously assume that the mechanical and quantifiable provides an absolute standard of ‘reality’; and the ‘body’ – in Cartesian language, Extension – becomes the standard to which what Russell calls ‘mindlike events’ ought to conform or to approximate. And psychology then, as Collingwood among others has proposed, becomes respectable only in so far as it approximates to physical science. [end of p. 39]
 

Collingwood, while expressly denying that they [‘human nature’ and ‘mind’] are fixed unalterable entities, shows at least that it is possible, indeed necessary, to treat psychological conceptions as human functions. As functions, or activities, mind and human nature must also be seen as in indissoluble, if changing relation with their environment: and also as their own subjective history. It is true, of course, that most psychological schools make some attempt to study their cases historically – we have become what we are. And the philosopher who is historically-minded will reflect on his own mental or subjective history, as well as on the history of his study – his own and other men’s minds. That kind of philosopher will be less inclined to think of philosophy as approximating to a science and more to look on it as a self-reflexive art. Moreover, from that type of philosophical mind an ethical interest seems inseparable.” – Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), pp. 39-40.
 

This is the last of the index entries under ‘human nature’ in Nott’s book. The last paragraph or so of this quote bears on the major issue of whether human nature is fixed or flexible. I should have noted this for the quote I emailed earlier about Nowell-Smith’s point about how changeable ethics and human nature are. You can argue that her analysis is dated here, since postulating entities such as human nature and mind are no longer ‘out’ or ‘unfashionable’ and philosophers and even scientists no longer seem to be so chary or chary at all in postulating the existence of such entities. This might be one result of the mapping of the Human Genome, which makes understanding human nature as a distinct entity pretty straightforward and scientific.
 

21: “We all use the expression [‘human nature’] in both of these ways [described in a quote by Nott elsewhere on this website]. But it matters that we should be clear, in whatever the context may be, which one we mean. Ordinary people in casual discourse when they use the [end of p. 53] expression ‘human nature’ are often vague. Novelist perhaps use it less often but can also be vague when they do. … Mostly these users of the expression, whether casual or specialized, are quick to recognize too what does not come in the category, either because it is extra-human or anti-human.
 


 

Their language when it is informative or revealing on however small a scale usually begins with particular people and particular situations: ‘I reckon old Tom Jones shouldn’t have slung his hook like he did. But what with that wife of his he was about at the end of his tether. It’s only human nature.’
 

Colloquially ‘human nature’, when it means anything, is used as a concrete-universal. …
 

Like a great many of our concepts and ideas it belongs to practice and use; it is understood without definition in particular situations of communal exchange.
 


 

Nowell-Smith allows for ‘psychology’ as part of the matrix of ethics. He also remarks that our psychological understanding is always developing, and then [end of p. 54] deduces that both ‘human nature’ and ethics must change and adapt their meaning. Unfortunately, philosophers, like other specialists and like laymen, are comparatively careless, or at least too easily influenced, about which psychology is the correct one to adopt. That might mean assuming that a really human science is finally attainable. But in practice, as we said, there seem to be too many ‘human sciences’ competing for the right to the human definition.” – Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), pp. 53-55.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 23: “ There is another way in which Nowell-Smith admits or appears to admit that ethical philosophy cannot be exclusive and abstract:
‘… moral theories which attempt to exclude all consideration of human nature as it is do not even begin to be moral theories.’
 

But ‘human nature’ itself demands semantic analysis of the sort that Nowell-Smith has been giving to words in usage; and historical and practical analysis too. For it has been meant in the past very differently from the ways in which it is now often meant. Moreover, for a long eriod it was defined within fairly narrow limits in a particular way which was also broadly accepted over the known world. Finally, in our own times it is used in at least two ways which are sharply contrasted; the one you adopt will markedly and essentially influence your choice of an ethical philosophy.
 

When you used the expression ‘human nature’, do you refer to the individual human being, solitary, in his greater or lesser self-awareness, or in his immediate relations, familial or casual? If so, do you imagine this being as recognizable in his appearance and behaviour; unique, yet like other people with whom you are acquainted or familiar? Has he at least the particular reality of a well-known character in a novel?
 

On the other hand, when you refer to ‘human nature’ do you refer to something both collective and abstract, a kind of Highest Common Factor which isnot descriptive of any particular human being as that one being did, does or might exist in fact or fiction; but which can be identified rather as what has been said or written in the most general way about the typical and common behaviour of Homo Sapiens – ‘Man’?” – Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), p. 53.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 24: “Moreover, since there is no essential human nature, we are what we are, not according to a plan or a pattern, but as turning up in a situation or a series of situations. Nevertheless, even in a series of situations there is often a pattern to be discovered. There are inexorable laws of behaviour which can even be predicted, by Sartre, if by no one else. So we might reasonably call this human nature [emphasis added] too, except that we wear it, crustaceanwise, outside.
 

The social answer to the moral and humanly prognostic problem posed by this Hobbesian view [emphasis added] must be either an authoritarian or a collectivistic one (these may turn out to be hardly distinguishable). The individual has to be protected in civil society from his natural and reciprocated enmity for his kind. Sartre became a neo-Marxian and goes for the collectivistic solution. In adopting the Marxian view and interpretation of history, although in a much more abstract form, and without the Marxian attention to past and contemporary detail, Sartre produces an odd sort of anthropology, which does not seem more genuinely historical than Freud’s primal patricide, with which doctrine it has some analogy, at least as a structural psychology. Freud diagnosed an Oedipus complex as the nucleus of human sexual guilt and malaise, and speculated that it had a historical cause, an actual aetiology, in murder, by the strong young men, of the old man of the tribe who up till then had monopolized the women [this should get the attention of students = sex and violence]. But that assumes the racial unconscious, and if that is a premises we cannot accept, we need not even begin to accept anything that follows. Sartre does not accept any unconscious process, a fortiori not a racial one, but he feels the same need as Freud to deal in origins, to give an account of the fact that we are social beings, and as far back as anyone can tell have construceted a social life – a fact which, on Sartre’s psycho-ontology of mutual antagonism, is at least odd. The Group arose, according to Sartre, as a defence against [end of p. 124] external terror [emphasis added] from other and presumably still more alien groups. The Group was held together by the oath, which seems to have been not much more than a recognition that I, the individual member, will be worse off outside the Group than in it. That is produced merely as an example of Sartre’s ahistorical attitude. It is important because the arguments which some evolutionists, zoologists and some schools of psychology produce today favour some sort of spontaneous cooperation as natural to living organisms, and particularly to human beings.” – Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), pp. 124-125.
 

Brainstorm: There are a lot of useful ideas here. There is a link between Hobbes and Sartre, two of your subjects, with which you can agree or disagree with Nott or just introduce for the reader’s consideration. There is a more extensive comparison and contrast between Sartre and Freud that I found very helpful. Further, she ends by suggesting there is scientific evidence in evolutionary theory, zoology and psychology for the natural spontaneous cooperation in humans that Campbell/Schopenhauer noted as a spontaneous metaphysical realization by a human who identifies even with a stranger. Further, her points about terror and the Group seem very relevant and helpful for use in your cosmopolitanism paper/book. The issue of who is better grounded in history and science, Freud or Sartre, seems a good issue for you to discuss more and one Nott raises above.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 25: “One of the important explanations is a dogmatic anti-abstractionism which refuses to allow that some general concepts, for example human nature, have a real descriptive and functional force, and can be and often are used in the common usage of common people in a way that shows that they know what they mean and are speaking within a matrix of diurnal experience. But human nature is a concept with which Sartre will have nothing to do. It is a bourgeois idealist abstraction, like love, etc. [emphasis added] But if human nature describes nothing but an idealist abstraction, where then are we to look for the continuity which constitutes, as most of us are sure, our human being? It may be that the self is learned; it may be a form of habit; but it can be a habit criticised by memory comparing its past with its present, and always trying to extricate itself from falling asleep in unconscious automatisms. If that is not a possibility, where is our choice, our responsibility and our freedom?” – Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), p. 119.
 

This obviously helps thinking on Sartre. Nott puts her point more boldly than others making the point of Sartre’s rejection of human nature. She puts a key concept in the same category as love, which should connect with students. Nott says more about Sartre elsewhere as I recall. She introduces a new ism. But “a matrix of diurnal experience” from the quote is not likely to connect with many students either. ‘bourgeois’ of course introduces Marxist jargon, but some of that seems unavoidable if one is to explain Sartre’s views.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 26: “To take an extreme example, both Plato and Aristotle started from concrete conceptions of human interest, need and behavior. Moreover, Plato used a form of argument, the maieutic dialogue, which was not only valuable for clarifying misconceptions, contradictions and mis-statements on the spot, but which drew into the discussion of a probable situation, characters of a probable and representative kind.
 


 

When I said that Collingwood’s historical idea of philosophy also implied some concept of a human nature and mind, I did not deny that this was in a strictly philosophical and impersonal sense. One thing which is characteristically human about human mind is that it can look before and after – must do so, indeed.” -- Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), p. 43.
 

Brainstorm: This would be useful in a student paper on Aristotle, who searches for what is distinctively or characteristically human. It also fits well into a student paper on women on human nature.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 27: “The behaviorist allows no room for ‘human nature’ even as a functional concept while he treats human behaviour as an adaptable engineering product. Clearly the behavioristic psychology has no useful bearing on the immediate subject of discussion, the nature and validity of moral judgment considered as essentially dependent on individual freedom and responsibility. If you cannot locate the [end of p. 57] human person, it is impossible to give any idea how he could be responsibly free.” -- Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), pp. 57-58.
 

Brainstorm: you might take behaviorism’s side here against Nott or use Nott as an ally against behaviorism. I find behaviorism hard to believe and -- ironically -- even harder to use to ground my behavior.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 28: “Obviously it is going to be more difficult in the description of human ‘nature’ or ‘behaviour’ to leave out personal bias, or the more deceptive bias of ‘schools’, let alone to decide among phenomena, what is what. The psychologies in short have not gone through their taxonomical state – they have not arrived at an agreed system of definition so that we know exactly what the terms they use are supposed to refer to. Hence for the most part they badly need a shave with Occam’s razor – they proliferate entities.” – Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), p. 59.
 

Brainstorm: this might fit into a discussion of science in your chapter on Darwin or in a section/chapter on women on human nature.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 29: “I understand the only basic law of human nature: love walks, money talks.” – from White Hot: The Mysterious Murder of Thelma Todd (1991), starring Loni Anderson, Lawrence Pressman, and Scott Paulin.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 30: "We would surely be something important about our own nature if we refused to face up to the fact that hallucinations are part of being human. However, none of this makes hallucinations part of an external rather than an internal reality. Five to ten percent of us are extremely suggestible, able to move at a command into a deep hypnotic trance. Roughly ten percent of Americans report having seen one or more ghosts. This is more than the number who allegedly remember being abducted by aliens, about the same as the number who've reported seeing one or more UFOs, and less than the number who in the last week of Richard Nixon's Presidency -- before he resigned to avoid impeachement -- thought he was doing a good-to-excellent job as President. At least 1 percent of all of us is schizophrenic. This amounts to over 50 million schizophrenics on the planet, more than the population of, say, England” -- Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (New York: Random House, 1996), p. 107.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 31: “We would surely be something important about our own nature if we refused to face up to the fact that hallucinations are part of being human. However, none of this makes hallucinations part of an external rather than an internal reality. Five to ten percent of us are extremely suggestible, able to move at a command into a deep hypnotic trance. Roughly ten percent of Americans report having seen one or more ghosts. This is more than the number who allegedly remember being abducted by aliens, about the same as the number who've reported seeing one or more UFOs, and less than the number who in the last week of Richard Nixon's Presidency -- before he resigned to avoid impeachement -- thought he was doing a good-to-excellent job as President. At least 1 percent of all of us is schizophrenic. This amounts to over 50 million schizophrenics on the planet, more than the population of, say, England” -- Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (New York: Random House, 1996), p. 107.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 32: "[Alison]Jagger identifies abstract individualism as the theory of human nature which underlies liberal political philosophy. I think we can assume that this theory provides a foundation for ethical theory as well. Abstract individualism is the view that essential human characteristics are properties of individuals and are given independently of the social context. This theory, as Jaggar describes it, is committed to the following claims.
1. Rationality is a mental capacity of individuals rather than groups and is possessed in approximately equal measure by all humans, though this capacity can be more or less developed.
2. Rationality is our most valuable capacity.
3. Each individual is intrinsically valuable because of this ability to reason.
4. Each human's desires can in principle be fulfilled separately from the desires of other humans.
5. People typicallly seek to maximize their individual self-interest.
6. Resources for fulfilling desires are limited.
7. Because of the value of rationality and the existence of scarcity and desires to possess certain goods, autonomy is protected by the good society.
One can argue about whether Jaggar has accurately described liberal political and moral philosophy here, but even if we grant that the picture is overdrawn, a version of it undergirds Kantian and utilitarian moral theories. We can see how this conception supports Kantian ethics with its emphasis on duty. If one is unconnected to others, and basically self-interested, no other motivation to be moral could exist." ~ Rita Catherine Manning, Speaking from the Heart (Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1992), p. 66. Harwood's Helpful Hint: Does Manning's assumption in her second sentence of this quote violate Hume's doctrine concerning the is/ought gap?
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 33: “The revival of barbarism in two world wars has made us bitterly conscious of man’s inhumanity to man. With the memory of its variously motivated horrors, from Hiroshima to Buchenwald, fresh in our minds, it may seem a cynical complacency to speak of the moral nature of man. Some have seen in this dark history evidence that his alleged moral nature is an illusion. Man, they say, is only an intelligent beast. His motivations are little more than hunger, lust, and far. His civilization is merely a cunning way of satisfying his animal wants and pleasantly stimulating his mind. And when it fails him he goes back to the ways of the beast and the barbarian, rendered only more terrible by the knowledge and skill he has acquired. Others, holding a conviction that the Author of man and nature is supremely powerful and good, see in man’s sinfulness a depravity worse than the blind passion of the beast. To them it is a lapse from perfection that his in it something demonic. It betrays a canker in man’s soul that must ultimately defeat his every effort at genuine improvement of the social order. Sensitively sharing in the sense of collective guilt involved in the sins of all, they abase themselves and mankind before the Creator, feeling, paradoxically (for their minds rejoice in paradox), that they honor God by emphasizing the baseness of the creature He has made in His image. Heroically but hopelessly they turn from their [end of p. 3] devotions to the duties of the daily task, to overcome evil and better the lot of their fellows, saddened and hampered, if not dispirited, by the conviction that, since Paradise was lost, man is condemned to the labors of Sisyphus, to roll the stone of progress up the hill, knowing that it will surely roll down again – or roll down another valley, requiring to be rolled up an equally difficult hill.


It is the thesis of this book that both these philosophies of human nature are untrue. … It is the contention of this book that the moral nature of man, if adequately understood, gives grounds not for incautious optimism or for pessimistic despair, but for rational faith and hope.” – A. Campbell Garnett, The Moral Nature of Man: A Critical Evaluation of Ethical Principles (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1952), pp. 3-4.
 

Dr. Harwood's Brainstorm: Garnett’s book is remarkably well-written and remarkably free of the minimizing or dismissing of morality found so often in the 1950s due to the influence of the verificationists, emotivists and many who overemphasized linguistic philosophy. His following of Aristotle's Golden Mean in moderating between the two extremes noted above seems roughly right on whether man is by nature mostly good, mostly bad or mostly mixed. Garnett seems to be somewhere between mostly mixed and mostly good.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 34: “On Westwood Boulevard in Los Angeles, just off the University of California campus, the street is jammed at lunchtime. The tones of all humanity flow past, faces from Santa Monica, Singapore, and Senegal, a stroboscopic stream of light and dar. Notwithstanding such contrasts in appearance, comparisons of our DNA show that human populations are continuous, one blending into the next, like the spectrum of our [end p. 53] skin coloring. We all carry the same genes for skin color, but our genes responded differently to changes in solar intensity as bands of Homo sapiens migrated away from the unrelenting sun of the equator.
Still, it seems to be human nature to assign types to our fellow humans and then make judgments based on those types.” – Jeff Wheelwright, “Finland’s Fascinating Genes,” 26 Discover #4, April 2005, pp. 53-54, emphasis in bold underlining added; italics in original.
 

My brainstorm here is that the first bit undermines the claim that the IQ difference between black-skinned people and white-skinned people is a genetic difference. The phenotype of skin color involves “the same genes.” So genes for skin color are unable to make the difference, since they are the same. Further, we are unable to correlate genes for black skin with lower IQ scores, since “We all carry the same genes for skin color …” So there is no genetic difference for skin color to allow for different correlations at the genetic level. The correlation is at the level of phenotype rather than genotype.
 

My further brainstorm is that the last sentence about human nature seems true. Thomas S. Kuhn’s point about how it is our nature to pick out types, which he makes in his books The Essential Tension and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, support the last sentence of the quote above.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 35: “It’s human nature to want to believe.” – Gary Mangiacopra, Cryptozoologist, interviewed on the show “History’s Mysteries: Monsters of the Sea,” hosted by former NBC newsman Arthur Kent, History Channel (2001).
 

My brainstorm here is that gullibility does seem to be a surprisingly large part of human nature.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 36: “[Hume] asked exactly Atran’s question’concerning the origin of religion in human nature’, and explained the prevalence of religion in terms of how the minds works. On the first page he says you cannot explain it directly by an ‘original instinct or primary impression of nature’ (read innate module, if you will). Instead, his account uses the anthropology of his day – ‘if travelers and historians may be credited’, as he sagely puts it, also on the first page. He deploys his own ideas about the various mental faculties characteristic of the human mind, and also addresses a topic Atran skirst: why polytheism appears to precede theism [sic, monotheism] in history.
 

I am not foolishly saying that we have made no advance on the Edinburgh Enlightenment, or the deluge of natural histories of man and his habits written around 1750. But Hume was definitely not ‘mindblind’. Atran’s landscape of the mind should be regarded as speculative natural history like that of Buffon and Hume. Present it in terms of modules and evolutionary conjectures if you will, but it remains a descriptive geography of human nature, and not what we have come in the sciences to call an explanatory theory.” – Ian Hacking, “Mindblind,” 26 London Review of Books #20, October 21, 2004, pp. 15-16, p. 16. Hacking concludes his review with the quote above. He’s reviewing Scott Atran, In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion (Oxford UP, 2002); emphasis added in bold.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 37: “Were we totally certain of our survival after death, or of our extinction at death, religion would be functionless [according to Schopenhauer]. Moreover, it is not only in our anxiety to continue existing that we exhibit ourselves as manifestations of Will. We also do so in the way that we devote ourselves to continuing the species; sexual passion overrides all our impulses to avoid suffering and responsibility. Yet the pleasures of passionate love are momentary and vanishing compared with the troubles it brings upon us. We may rationalize our pursuit of various ends and claim to find good in achieving them; the truth is, we are what we are constituted by the blind strivings of Will, and our thinking cannot alter anything about us.
 

So seriously does Schopenhauer take this that he treats our entire personality as given from the outset. What we are essentially is Will, and unalterable Will. No experience, no reflection, no learning, can alter what we are. Our character is fixed, our motives are determined. It follows that traditional morality and traditional moral philosophy are founded on a mistake, the mistake of supposing that moral lprecepts can alter conduct, whether our own or that of others. What, then, can moral philosophy do? It can explain the moral valuations which we do in fact make by an analysis of human nature.
 

If we carry through such an analysis, we discover three basic motives in human nature. The first is our old friend self-interest. On this Schopenhauer has little original to say. The second, however, is the fruit of acute observation. It is malice. Schopenhauer observed, as perhaps no previous philosopher or psychologist had done, the gratuitous character of malice. We do not harm others only when and in order that we may benefit ourselves. And when [end of p. 221] others undergo misfortunes our pleasure in their misfortunes is unconnected with any thought of our own self-interest. Ut is pure pleasure: ‘For man is th eonly animal which causes pain to others without any further purpose than just to cause it. Other animals never do it except to satisfy their hunger, or in the rage of combat.’ The appalling record of human life, of the suffering and infliction of pain, is releaved only when the third motive, sympathy or compassion, appears. …
 

In the moment of compassion we extinguish self-will. We cease to strive for our own existence; we are relieved from the burden of individuality and we cease to be the plaything of Will. …
 

A first reaction to Schopenhauer must always be perhaps to note the contrast between the brilliance of his observations of human nature (which go far beyond anything I have suggested) and the arbitrary system-building in which those observations are embedded. He stands out among philosophers by his insistence upon the all-pervasive character of pain and suffering in human life to date. But this general pessimism is as unilluminating as it is striking. Because for him these evils arise from existence as such, he is unable to give any accurate account of them in their historical context; all epochs and states of affairs, all societies, and all projects are equally infected by evil. But he provides an important corrective to the easy liberal optimism of so much of nineteenth-century life; and those who reacted against that optimism find Schopenhauer a seminal influence. Certainly he was this upon Nietzsche.” – Alasdair MacIntyre, A Short History of Ethics (New York: Macmillan, 1966), pp. 221-222, emphasis added.
 

Note: Schopenhauer stakes out interesting positions on the key issues of whether human nature is more good than evil, whether human nature is more rational than emotional/passionate, and whether human nature is more fixed than flexible.

 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 38: “The simple, central, powerful concept in Rousseau is that of a human nature which is overlaid and distorted by existing social and political institutions, but whose authentic wants and needs [end of p. 183] provide us with a basis for morals and a measure of the corruption of social institutions. His concept of human nature is far more sophisticated than that of other writers who have appealed to an original human nature; for Rousseau does not deny that human nature has a history, that it can be and is often transformed, so that new desires and motives appear. … [N]atural man is moved by self-love, but self-love is not inconsistent with feelings of sympathy and compassion. … Rousseau is well aware of what Hobbes seems not to know, that human desires are elicited by being presented with objects of desire; and natural man is presented with few desirable objects. ‘The only goods he acknowledges in the world are food, a woman, and sleep; the only ills he fears are pain and hunger.’ … Natural man, following his impulses of need and occasional sympathy, is good and not evil. The Christian doctrine of original sin is as false as the Hobbesian doctrine of nature.” – Alasdair MacIntyre, A Short History of Ethics (New York: Macmillan, 1966), pp. 183-184, emphasis added.
 

The above is well-written and explores the key issues of whether human nature is more fixed or more flexible and whether human nature is more good than evil or vice versa.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 39: “But how do we decide between them [the moral theories of Hobbes, the Greeks and Christianity and various combinations of them]? Clearly to lay down some logical form as the form of the moral judgment and to rule out others as illegitimate would itself be an arbitrary and illegitimate procedure. But what we can do is to note the theory of human nature and of the physical universe presupposed by each different view; and if we do so the superiority of the Greek view – at least in its Aristotelian form – to either of its rivals appears plain – on at least two counts in respect of Christianity, and on at least one as regards the ‘actions whose consequences will be most desirable’ view.” – Alasdair MacIntyre, A Short History of Ethics (New York: Macmillan, 1966), p. 148, emphasis in original except for the bold on ‘human nature’.
 

I tend to agree that Aristotle’s moral theory beats the moral theories of Hobbes and traditional Christianity. I also agree with we can reduce the arbitrariness of deciding between moral theories if we focus more on more factual or psychological issues such as theories of human nature.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 40: "Those who speak blandly of moral rules as designed to maximize pleasure and minimize pain have apparently never reflected on such questions as whether the pleasure afforded to medieval Christians or modern Germans by persecuting Jews did not perhaps outweigh the pain caused to Jews and therefore justify the persecution. That they did not weigh the merits of this argument is perhaps to their credit morally, but intellectually it means that they have ignored both the possibility of transforming human nature and the means available for criticizing it in the ideals which are implicit not only in the private heroic dreams of individuals, but in the very way actions may be envisaged in a given society." – Alasdair MacIntyre, A Short History of Ethics (New York: Macmillan, 1966), p. 149.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 41: “The behaviorist allows no room for ‘human nature’ even as a functional concept while he treats human behaviour as an adaptable engineering product. Clearly the behavioristic psychology has no useful bearing on the immediate subject of discussion, the nature and validity of moral judgment considered as essentially dependent on individual freedom and responsibility. If you cannot locate the [end of p. 57] human person, it is impossible to give any idea how he could be responsibly free.” -- Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), pp. 57-58.
 

Brainstorm: you might take behaviorism’s side here against Nott or use Nott as an ally against behaviorism. I find behaviorism hard to believe and -- ironically -- even harder to use to ground my behavior.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 42: “Obviously it is going to be more difficult in the description of human ‘nature’ or ‘behaviour’ to leave out personal bias, or the more deceptive bias of ‘schools’, let alone to decide among phenomena, what is what. The psychologies in short have not gone through their taxonomical state – they have not arrived at an agreed system of definition so that we know exactly what the terms they use are supposed to refer to. Hence for the most part they badly need a shave with Occam’s razor – they proliferate entities.” – Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), p. 59.
 

Brainstorm: this might fit into a discussion of science in your chapter on Darwin or in a section/chapter on women on human nature.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 43: “One of the important explanations is a dogmatic anti-abstractionism which refuses to allow that some general concepts, for example human nature, have a real descriptive and functional force, and can be and often are used in the common usage of common people in a way that shows that they know what they mean and are speaking within a matrix of diurnal experience. But human nature is a concept with which Sartre will have nothing to do. It is a bourgeois idealist abstraction, like love, etc. [emphasis added] But if human nature describes nothing but an idealist abstraction, where then are we to look for the continuity which constitutes, as most of us are sure, our human being? It may be that the self is learned; it may be a form of habit; but it can be a habit criticised by memory comparing its past with its present, and always trying to extricate itself from falling asleep in unconscious automatisms. If that is not a possibility, where is our choice, our responsibility and our freedom?” – Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), p. 119.
 

Brainstorm: this obviously fits with your chapter on Sartre and Nott puts her point more boldly than I remember you putting the point of Sartre’s rejection of human nature (see the bold bit above for her bold statement). She puts it in the same category as love, which should connect with students. Nott says more about Sartre elsewhere as I recall, so I may return to this if I can find it. She introduces a new ism for your glossary, though I think you said one reviewer wanted less jargon to make matters less turgid and more accessible to students. “a matrix of diurnal experience” from the quote is not likely to connect with many students either. ‘bourgeois’ of course introduces Marxist jargon, but some of that seems unavoidable if one is to explain Sartre’s views.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 44: “Moreover, since there is no essential human nature, we are what we are, not according to a plan or a pattern, but as turning up in a situation or a series of situations. Nevertheless, even in a series of situations there is often a pattern to be discovered. There are inexorable laws of behaviour which can even be predicted, by Sartre, if by no one else. So we might reasonably call this human nature [emphasis added] too, except that we wear it, crustaceanwise, outside.
 

The social answer to the moral and humanly prognostic problem posed by this Hobbesian view [emphasis added] must be either an authoritarian or a collectivistic one (these may turn out to be hardly distinguishable). The individual has to be protected in civil society from his natural and reciprocated enmity for his kind. Sartre became a neo-Marxian and goes for the collectivistic solution. In adopting the Marxian view and interpretation of history, although in a much more abstract form, and without the Marxian attention to past and contemporary detail, Sartre produces an odd sort of anthropology, which does not seem more genuinely historical than Freud’s primal patricide, with which doctrine it has some analogy, at least as a structural psychology. Freud diagnosed an Oedipus complex as the nucleus of human sexual guilt and malaise, and speculated that it had a historical cause, an actual aetiology, in murder, by the strong young men, of the old man of the tribe who up till then had monopolized the women [this should get the attention of students = sex and violence]. But that assumes the racial unconscious, and if that is a premises we cannot accept, we need not even begin to accept anything that follows. Sartre does not accept any unconscious process, a fortiori not a racial one, but he feels the same need as Freud to deal in origins, to give an account of the fact that we are social beings, and as far back as anyone can tell have construceted a social life – a fact which, on Sartre’s psycho-ontology of mutual antagonism, is at least odd. The Group arose, according to Sartre, as a defence against [end of p. 124] external terror [emphasis added] from other and presumably still more alien groups. The Group was held together by the oath, which seems to have been not much more than a recognition that I, the individual member, will be worse off outside the Group than in it. That is produced merely as an example of Sartre’s ahistorical attitude. It is important because the arguments which some evolutionists, zoologists and some schools of psychology produce today favour some sort of spontaneous cooperation as natural to living organisms, and particularly to human beings.” – Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), pp. 124-125.
 

Brainstorm: There are a lot of useful ideas here. There is a link between Hobbes and Sartre, two of your subjects, with which you can agree or disagree with Nott or just introduce for the reader’s consideration. There is a more extensive comparison and contrast between Sartre and Freud that I found very helpful. Further, she ends by suggesting there is scientific evidence in evolutionary theory, zoology and psychology for the natural spontaneous cooperation in humans that Campbell/Schopenhauer noted as a spontaneous metaphysical realization by a human who identifies even with a stranger. Further, her points about terror and the Group seem very relevant and helpful for use in your cosmopolitanism paper/book. The issue of who is better grounded in history and science, Freud or Sartre, seems a good issue for you to discuss more and one Nott raises above.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 45: “There is another way in which Nowell-Smith admits or appears to admit that ethical philosophy cannot be exclusive and abstract:
‘… moral theories which attempt to exclude all consideration of human nature as it is do not even begin to be moral theories.’
 

But ‘human nature’ itself demands semantic analysis of the sort that Nowell-Smith has been giving to words in usage; and historical and practical analysis too. For it has been meant in the past very differently from the ways in which it is now often meant. Moreover, for a long eriod it was defined within fairly narrow limits in a particular way which was also broadly accepted over the known world. Finally, in our own times it is used in at least two ways which are sharply contrasted; the one you adopt will markedly and essentially influence your choice of an ethical philosophy.
 

When you used the expression ‘human nature’, do you refer to the individual human being, solitary, in his greater or lesser self-awareness, or in his immediate relations, familial or casual? If so, do you imagine this being as recognizable in his appearance and behaviour; unique, yet like other people with whom you are acquainted or familiar? Has he at least the particular reality of a well-known character in a novel?
 

On the other hand, when you refer to ‘human nature’ do you refer to something both collective and abstract, a kind of Highest Common Factor which isnot descriptive of any particular human being as that one being did, does or might exist in fact or fiction; but which can be identified rather as what has been said or written in the most general way about the typical and common behaviour of Homo Sapiens – ‘Man’?” – Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), p. 53.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 46: “We all use the expression [‘human nature’] in both of these ways [described in the quote in Brainstorm 45]. But it matters that we should be clear, in whatever the context may be, which one we mean. Ordinary people in casual discourse when they use the [end of p. 53] expression ‘human nature’ are often vague. Novelist perhaps use it less often but can also be vague when they do. … Mostly these users of the expression, whether casual or specialized, are quick to recognize too what does not come in the category, either because it is extra-human or anti-human.
 


 

Their language when it is informative or revealing on however small a scale usually begins with particular people and particular situations: ‘I reckon old Tom Jones shouldn’t have slung his hook like he did. But what with that wife of his he was about at the end of his tether. It’s only human nature.’
 

Colloquially ‘human nature’, when it means anything, is used as a concrete-universal. …
 

Like a great many of our concepts and ideas it belongs to practice and use; it is understood without definition in particular situations of communal exchange.
 


 

Nowell-Smith allows for ‘psychology’ as part of the matrix of ethics. He also remarks that our psychological understanding is always developing, and then [end of p. 54] deduces that both ‘human nature’ and ethics must change and adapt their meaning. Unfortunately, philosophers, like other specialists and like laymen, are comparatively careless, or at least too easily influenced, about which psychology is the correct one to adopt. That might mean assuming that a really human science is finally attainable. But in practice, as we said, there seem to be too many ‘human sciences’ competing for the right to the human definition.” – Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), pp. 53-55.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 47: “’… The so-called science of human nature or of the human mind resolves itself into history … But there is one sense in which I should agree that the resolution of a science of mind into history means renouncing part of what a science of mind commonly claims, and I think falsely. The mental scientist, believing in a universal and therefore unalterable truth of his conclusions, thinks that the account he gives of mind holds good of all future stages in mind’s history: he thinks that his science shows what mind will always be, not only what it has been in the past and is now.’ [quoting Collingwood, Idea of History (1946), page unspecified in Nott]
 

That may or may not be a fair description of a typical psychologist’s attitude to mental process. But it is a valid statement of what the problems are for a philosopher, whether he recognizes them or not. Idealism nowadays, with ‘metaphysics’, is largely ‘out’ and both philosophers and psychologists are chary of treating ‘mind’ and ‘human nature’ as entities. That distrust originated historically, for ourselves, in the Cartesian split between Thought and Extension, Mind and Body or Matter, which resulted in bestowing a preferential ‘reality’ on Matter or Body. Body is what can be dealt with by the methods of physics and mathematics – which have been so much more successful than other studies or speculations in producing and repeating their results.
 

It is no wonder then that many philosophers should incline towards a behaviouristic psychology – or at least to leaving such concepts as ‘human nature’ and ‘mind’ out of account. But it may be that they resist these concepts because they unconsciously assume that the mechanical and quantifiable provides an absolute standard of ‘reality’; and the ‘body’ – in Cartesian language, Extension – becomes the standard to which what Russell calls ‘mindlike events’ ought to conform or to approximate. And psychology then, as Collingwood among others has proposed, becomes respectable only in so far as it approximates to physical science. [end of p. 39]
 

Collingwood, while expressly denying that they [‘human nature’ and ‘mind’] are fixed unalterable entities, shows at least that it is possible, indeed necessary, to treat psychological conceptions as human functions. As functions, or activities, mind and human nature must also be seen as in indissoluble, if changing relation with their environment: and also as their own subjective history. It is true, of course, that most psychological schools make some attempt to study their cases historically – we have become what we are. And the philosopher who is historically-minded will reflect on his own mental or subjective history, as well as on the history of his study – his own and other men’s minds. That kind of philosopher will be less inclined to think of philosophy as approximating to a science and more to look on it as a self-reflexive art. Moreover, from that type of philosophical mind an ethical interest seems inseparable.” – Kathleen Nott, Philosophy and Human Nature (New York: New York University Press, 1971), pp. 39-40.
 

This is the last of the index entries under ‘human nature’ in Nott’s book Philosophy and Human Nature. Brainstorm: the last paragraph or so of this quote bears on the major issue of whether human nature is fixed or flexible. I should have noted this for the quote I emailed earlier about Nowell-Smith’s point about how changeable ethics and human nature are. You can argue that her analysis is dated here, since postulating entities such as human nature and mind are no longer ‘out’ or ‘unfashionable’ and philosophers and even scientists no longer seem to be so chary or chary at all in postulating the existence of such entities. This might be one result of the mapping of the Human Genome, which makes understanding human nature as a distinct entity pretty straightforward and scientific.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 48: “The Light of Human Nature
 

We want to live in a community of reasonable order and general decency. What does this desire imply? Scholars have not always been as helpful as they might in answering that question. Sociologists and anthropologists have stressed that order is the product of cultural anthropologists have stressed that order is the product of cultural learning, without pausing to ask what it is we are naturally disposed to learn. Economists have rejoiced by saying that we are disposed to learn whatever advances our interests without pausing to ask what constitutes our interests. And despite their differences in approach, they have both supported an environmental determinism and cultural relativism that has certain dangers.
 

If man is infinitely malleable, he is much at risk from the various despotism of this world as he would be if he were entirely [end of p. 250] shaped by some biochemical process. The anthropologist Robin Fox has put the matter well: ‘If, indeed, everything is learned, then surely men can be taught to live in any kind of society. Man is at the mercy of all the tyrants … who think they know what is best for him. And how can he plead that they are bing inhuman if he doesn’t know what being human is in the first place?’ Despots are quite prepared to use whatever technology will enable them to dominate mankind; if science tells them that biology is nothing and environment everything, then they will put aside their eugenic surgery and selective breeding programs and take up instead the weapons of propaganda, mass advertising, and educational indoctrination. The Nazis left nothing to chance; they used all methods.
 

Recent Russian history should have put to rest the view that everything is learned and that man is infinitely malleable. During seventy-five years of cruel tyranny when every effort was made to destroy civil society, the Russian people kept civil society alive if not well. The elemental building blocks of that society were not isolated individuals easily trained to embrace any doctrine or adopt any habits; they were families, friends, and intimate groupings in which sentiments of sympathy, reciprocity, and fairness survived and struggled to shape behavior.
 

Mankind’s moral sense is not a strong beacon light, radiating outward to illuminate in sharp outline all that it touches. It is, rather, a small candle flame, casting vague and multiple shadows, flickering and sputtering in the strong winds of power and passion, greed and ideology. But brought close to the heart and cupped in one’s hands, it dispels the darkness and warms the soul.” – James Q. Wilson, The Moral Sense (The Free Press, 1993), pp. 250-251.
 

Note to students: My brainstorm here is that you should answer the question that Wilson says scholars have given so little help in answering. See the first three sentences after the heading above. Further, I think you should take a stand on whether human nature includes a moral sense and, if so, how robust or helpful a moral sense human nature provides. Is all of morality learned? Is most morality learned? Do we inherit a moral sense with our human nature?
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 49: “The most formidable enemy of an enlightened humanism is not science or technology, for as we have seen in the foregoing chapters, they are its spiritual allies. The real antithesis to humanism is much more insidious: it is the current of anti-intellectualism whose force runs as directly counter to humanism as it does to science. An adequate defense against anti-intellectualism in the name of both human ism and science must rest on the understanding of the respective roles of intellect and emotion in the humanistic ideal of personal and social life. Our logical starting oint, therefore, is an analysis of these two factors in human personality.
 

It is customary to divide human nature into two parts [emphasis added], the cognitive part and the motor-affective part. … [end p. 70] The broad difference between these two groups of mental acts lies in the fact that the one is neutral, whereas the other is partisan. The one is symbolized by the ‘head,’ the other by the ‘heart.’ … For the sake of verbal simplicity the one will be referred to as ‘intellect,’ and the other as ‘emotion.’
 

The question of anti-intellectualism might be dismissed briefly by claiming that the very statement of the question begs the question. For what faculty is to weight the counterclaims of the intellect and anti-intellect if not the intellect itself? … This ‘cerebro-centric’ predicament does not, however, settle the question.” Ralph Barton Perry, The Humanity of Man (George Braziller, Inc., 1956), pp. 70-71.
 

Note to students: You might contrast this bifurcation of human nature with the tripartite division of human nature in Plato and Freud. The old but nice phrasing of the contrast between head and heart should find its way into your term paper somewhere if you haven’t used it already. It’s useful for students to wrap their minds around the distinction with more familiar or simpler language than one finds in Plato or Freud.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 50: “The word ‘reason’ has in its history been used to mark that element in human thought which is common to all thinking individuals. Theorems in mathematics, and their supporting proofs, and arithmetical calculations, are immediately accessible to everyone everywhere, whatever language they speak, sometimes with a relatively trivial call for translation. It has been generally recognized that to learn mathematics is to learn the clearest methods of reasoning.
There is another and easily distinguishable kind of learning, which begins in early childhood, and to which human beings seem pre-adapted by mechanisms that are so far not understood: this is learning to understand and to speak one’s own language. The stress here is on the possessive ‘one’s own’. Learning one’s own language is precisely and conspicuously to acquire a power that separates one’s own people from the great mass of manking with whom one cannot immediately and easily communicate, unless it be at the chess-board or in some mathematical notation.” – Stuart Hampshire, Innocence and Experience (Harvard University Press, 1989), p. 42
 

My brainstorm here is that you should say more in your term paper about the skill set of human nature and the skills that healthy humans tend to have that distinguishes them most remarkably from healthy animals of other species. Another brainstorm I have is that you should update the issue of pre-adapted learning by mechanism that Hamphire admitted were so far not understood as of 1989. Do we know any more about them know? Does our learning have any interesting implications?
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 51: “The Great Contemporary Debate on Human Nature
 

At this point we might ask why, if psychology and democratic theory have in our time so beautifully been able to complement each other, something that had been hoped for since the beginning of the Enlightenment – why has this merger not been hailed and called to everyone’s attention? The reason is already obvious from many of the things we have discussed in this book, things which are bound to make many people very uncomfortable, even angry – as Freud, Laing, and Fromm make them angry. As we saw, one of the most mature findings of modern psychology accuses the parents and society of being the ‘perverters’ of the child – unwitting, well-intentioned, even loving perverters, which is all the more awful to admit. People don’t want to admit that one large source of evil lies in what society has taught them, how they learned to go about their lives, the basic ways they have of approaching the world. It is a fearful burden to admit this, especially if you can’t do anything about it even if you do admit it. Much easier is to seek the source of evil, disharmony, tension, failure, in persons; especially to seek it in the heredity of persons, even in the species. And so we have the great popularity in our time of those who see evil as inborn in man in the form of vicious aggressiveness and the other baboon traits that we discussed …” – Pulitzer Prizewinner Ernest Becker, The Birth and Death of Meaning: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on the Problem of Man, 2nd edition (New York: The Free Press, 1971), p. 164.
 

My brainstorm: Wow, what a heavy, interesting and useful quote! This quote is useful for the major issue of whether human nature is basically good, evil or mixed. It’s also useful for your chapter on Freud. It’s also useful for the nature/nurture debate. Finally, it’s useful for all discussions you have about the Enlightenment and to all discussions you have about democracy (including the extent to which democracy is a form of politics well-suited to human nature). I would combine the above quote with a discussion of the rapist priests that have been exposed in recent years and with a discussion of the continuing high-level of child abuse, especially child sexual abuse.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 52: “To continue to believe in spite of all evidence to the contrary must meet on all sides with condemnation as a method. For it is a frank glorification of the irrational element in human nature, elevating the influence of emotion above that of candor and intelligence. It is a commonplace – though one always worthy of repetition – that whatever progress has taken place in the development of man, particularly in science and art, has been fostered by the attitude of open-mindedness, the tolerance of new ideas and new forms. [end of p. 49] not to be for the extension of inquiry is to be against it, and to avoid evidence is to stifle it.” – John Herman Randall, Jr. and Justus Buchler, Philosophy: An Introduction (New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc., 1942, reprinted 1956).
 

My brainstorm: Is there an “irrational element in human nature,” as the quote above assumes? Or is irrationality a corruption of human nature or a deviation away from our nature as rational agents? This goes to the issue of whether human nature is basically good, evil or mixed, since we might associate irrationality with evil. Further, the quote seems to pose a false dilemma in saying that “Not to be for the extension of inquiry is to be against it …” For one could be neutral on the issue. It reminds me of W’s proclamation that those who would not be with us in our fight against terrorism would therefore be against us. Is it really impossible for the Swiss remain neutral, as they often do and did even in WWII? In case some think the first sentence of the quote attacks a straw man, you can note Tertullian’s proclamation that he believed [Christianity] because it was absurd.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 53: “No sooner do we attempt to reason about that which is extra-empirical, i.e., about reality, than we find that we can manufacture arguments for either of two contradictory views with equal plausibility – a fact which proves that all such attempts at knowledge are futile.
 

The Kantian Contrast of Knowledge and Faith.
 

But Kant did not let the matter rest there. While he denied the possibility of knowledge about what transcends experience, he held that we could have faith. What is the meaning and justification of faith in this sense? Man, according to Kant’s reasoning, is not merely an animal that knows but one that acts and feels. He has not only scientific but religious and moral capacities. One of his impulses is to seek the truth about experience; but he has other and equally important functions to fulfill – those of duty and conscience and a search for the beautiful. These nonscientific types of experience are the basis of religion, ethics, and aesthetics. How can we understand their occurrence? Only by having faith that God exists, that a moral law governs the universe, and that man is immortal. Where we cannot say anything one way or another on rational grounds, we are justified in interpreting our moral and religious experiences as requiring something more; in fact, we must do so, for our nature demands it. We cannot know the [end of p. 95] higher realities, but we must have faith that there are such, in order to make intelligible what we find in human nature.” – John Herman Randall, Jr. and Justus Buchler, Philosophy: An Introduction (New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc., 1942, reprinted 1956), emphasis added.
 

My brainstorm: Is human nature essentially religious or inclined toward religion? Atheists Hume and Freud suggest that it is through wish-fulfilment. Kant evidently suggests it is as well, but from the different perspective of theism.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 54: “History And Human Nature
 


 

[J. B.] Black views Hume’s attempt to introduce the experimental method of reasoning into moral subjects as an antihistorical project: attempt to isolate the timeless [end of p. 214] laws of human nature, that is, the laws governing the mind and passions. When Hume came to write history, he was conceptually forced by this timeless model of human nature to overlook the uniqueness of historical events and so failed to understand the sort of unity required to account for them. Black quotes, with approval, Leslie Stephen’s judgment that ‘History … was to Hume an undecipherable hieroglyphic.” In this case, he was typical of his age: ‘Hume did not grasp the elements of the problem, because he was dominated, as indeed were all the eighteenth century philosophes, by the belief that human nature was uniformly the same at all times and places. Why trouble to differentiate if there were no differences worth considering?’” – Donald W. Livingston, Hume’s Philosophy of Common Life (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), pp. 214-215.
 

My brainstorm: Livingston goes on to argue against the interpretation of Hume that appears in the quotes above. This quote or a discussion of its points should help you round out or finish off any discussions of the view of human nature held by the philosophes or the Enlightenment. It also helps get a bit more of Hume into the mix, which we discussed.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 55: “Human Nature as an Ideal
 

And so we draw the second large circle on our discussion: there is no inherent evil in man that would subvert the ideal of democracy. The phenomenon of aggression in man is not a phylogenetic mystery that has to be approached by studying baboons in their natural habitat; it is as transparent as the problem of neurosis that we discussed in its several aspects. And when you take these aspects one by one, or together, you can see that neurosis for man is unavoidable. Usually the child’s action has been too much blocked, and he is forced to give up large parts of himself to the control of others, their images, their commands. … Or, at the other pole, the child’s action has been made too easy for him, he was not frustrated enough.” – Ernest Becker, The Birth and Death of Meaning: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on the Problem of Man, second edition (New York: The Free Press, 1971, originally 1962), p. 174.
 

My brainstorm here is that Becker seems to pose a false dilemma. Why can’t the child be frustrated just enough to avoid neurosis. Neurosis does not seem inevitable and Becker seems to oversimplify the cause of neurosis by reducing it to a single scale of childhood frustration. The quotation takes a stand on the major issue of whether or not human nature is inherently evil and raises the issue of the relationship of human nature to democracy, an issue we find in Plato and Hobbes at least. We may find it in Sartre, too. It crops up in Freud in Democracy and its Discontents and Freud also seems to overestimate the inevitability of neurosis.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 56: “The question of the possibility is raised by asking whether there are limits or constraints set by ‘human nature’ on the sorts of social arrangements which can be seen as feasible. … It is this sort of question which commonly underpins commonsense or colloquial remarks about human nature … often used to express a conviction that some feature of human life is inevitable or at least very deep-rooted.” – Jean Crimshaw, Philosophy and Feminist Thinking (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986), p. 104.
 

My brainstorm here is that appeals to human nature seem to fall into the is/ought gap but may bridge the gap by presupposing “’ought’ implies ‘can’.” If an alleged moral duty requires us to do the impossible in going against human nature too much, then we can conclude that the morality in question ought not to require us to do that impossible feat (that the alleged duty is not a a true duty).
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 57: “No theory of human nature claims, so far as I am aware, that any aspect of human behaviour is totally unalterable. It is important to grasp this, since the debate about ‘human nature’ is not usually one in which a belief in the complete fixity of human behaviour is starkly opposed to a belief in its plasticity or flexibility. It is usually, rather, a debate about what underlies human behaviour.” – Jean Crimshaw, Philosophy and Feminist Thinking (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986), p. 105.
 

My brainstorm here is that you might take this quote as a cue to do the unusual and present the debate over the flexibility v. fixity of human nature in starker terms. Further, the emphasis she puts on what underlies human nature may be a considerable cue to discuss the nature v. nurture debate.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 58: “Beliefs about the ‘nature’ of women, for example, have been used to justify the view that they should be dominated by and dependent on men. Beliefs about ‘human nature’ have been used to justify racism and racial inequality and oppression. But it is important to note that beliefs in a fundamental or essential ‘human nature’ have not only been used in these sorts of ways; they have sometimes been used, too, in the context of trying to spell out some ideal of human liberation, and of specifying ways in which human potentialities have been stunted or thwarted by certain social arrangements.
 

In the history of philosophy, the notion of ‘human nature’ has often been a normative one; being fully or truly ‘human’ is seen as a goal to be achieved. Notions of ‘human-ness’ have often been linked to a conception of characteristics that are seen as distinctively or typically human, which differentiate human beings from other species. The enterprise of trying to identify what is truly or distinctively human, and of using this as a way of conceptualizing unrealized human potential and evaluating social arrangements is one that has constantly recurred in [end of p. 106] philosophical and social thought. Commonly, this enterprise has been associated with either or both of two beliefs: first, the belief that distinctively ‘human’ nature can be seen to reside only in those human activities and characteristics for which there is no analogy in other species, and second, that characteristics which are universal and can be understood as the same across all cultures.” – Jean Crimshaw, Philosophy and Feminist Thinking (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986), pp. 106-107.
 

My brainstorm here is that the quote above raises ideas that let you present the key concept of the is/ought gap to the students reading your term paper. If human nature -- which seems to be an empirical issue of psychology and biology -- is also a normative standard, then the is/ought gap has been bridged successfully. The idea of being human as a goal has spread to popular culture. For example, the character Data in the science fiction TV and film series Star Trek is an android who tries to achieve human status by trying to improve himself. For a good statement of this, see the Paramount film from 2002 called Star Trek: Nemesis, starring Brent Spiner as Data. The film also explores the nature/nurture debate.
 

Further, you can explore further the issues of racism and sexism raised by the quote above.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 59: “’Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. Such is the first principle of existentialism. It is also what is called subjectivity … if existence really does precede essence, man is responsible for what he is.’ [quoting Jean Paul Sartre, Existentialism (New York: Philosophical Library, 1947), pp. 18-19)]
 

For Sartre, each individual is what he conceives himself to be. He creates his own essence. There are no values external to man and no fixed human nature which he is obligated to fulfill. Each person both chooses his values and creates an image of himself and humanity. Man’s subjectivity only reemphasizes the dilemma of his aloneness. Each individual is a distinct being, conscious of his own existential plight. It is the present moment which defines life, not any laws of history. Man is free – to be a different person if he wishes. ‘Man … is condemned every moment to invent man.’ [quoting Ibid., p. 28, emphasis in original]” – Paul Kurtz, Philosophical Essays in Pragmatic Naturalism (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1990), p. 145.
 

My brainstorm is just that the phrasings from Sartre and Kurtz are nice here (including an original source for the classic ‘existence … precede[s] essence’ line in Sartre). It’s relevant for your chapter on Sartre and on the major issue of whether human nature is fixed or flexible (or nonexistent, perhaps conceivable as the far end of the flexible pole on the fixed/flexible spectrum).
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 60: “We are not united in consensus around a particular theory of human nature or man’s ultimate telos, and so our disagreements about certain moral issues have proved especially difficult to resolve, but our disagreement about what human beings are like and what is good for us does not go all the way down. In fact, it ia hrd to see how it could. As I argue in Part 1, if you puch disagreement about some matters down too far, it tends to disappear by becoming merely verbal. Complete disagreement about something leaves us unable to identify a common matter to disagree over. It therefore makes sense to speak of disagreement in morals as much as elsewhere, only if we are prepared to recognize a background of agreement. It would be a mistake, then, to think that our disagreement on the good is total or that the areas of apparently intractable moral disagreement to which MacIntyre calls attention could be the whole story.
 

This line of reasoning suggests a picture of our society both more complicated and less dismal than MacIntyre’s. Even though we no longer share a single theory of human nature (when did we exactly?) and despite the fact that Aristotelian teleology has long since passed out of philosophical fashion, most of us do agree on the essentials of what might be called the provisional telos of our society.” – Jeffrey Stout, Ethics After Babel: The Languages of Morals and Their Discontents (Boston: Beacon Press, 1988), p. 212, emphasis added to “human nature” but italics in original on ‘telos.’
 

My brainstorm here is that parts of the above quote would serve well as an epigram for a paper on Aristotle or as a springboard to discussion of Aristotle. Note that Stout’s book was the winner of the 1989 American Academy of Religion Award for Excellence.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 61: “Rorty’s recent writings defend liberal society in a nonstandard, pragmatic way. Rorty does not begin by trying to establish a philosophical foundation, like an individualist theory of human nature or a Kantian critique of practical reason, and then construct upon it an apparatus for resolving disputes by cranking out liberal conclusions. He [Rorty] is apt to be as suspicious of such attempts as any communitarian. But he does not see liberal society as dependent on foundations. Rorty defends liberal society in part by deflecting the demand for foundations and in part by pointing out contingent features of liberal society that make it the best available set of arrangements we can get under the circumstances, at least by our lights.” – Jeffrey Stout, Ethics After Babel: The Languages of Morals and Their Discontents (Boston: Beacon Press, 1988), p. 227, emphasis added.
 

My brainstorm here is to help understand and classify Rorty, MacIntryre, Sandel and Kant as communitarians generally or liberals generally.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 62: “Furthermore, ‘Hegel’s standpoint,’ according to Marx, ‘is that of modern political economy. He conceives of labour as the essence, the self-confirming essence of man’
 

‘The outstanding achievement of Hegel’s Phenomenology is, first, that Hegel grasps the self-creation of man as a process, objectification as a transcendence of this alienation, and that he, therefore, grasps the nature of labour, and conceives objective man (true, because real man) as a result of his own labour.
 

In short, Hegel conceives labour as man’s act of self-creation (though in abstract terms).’
 

On Marx’s adaptation of the Hegelian problematic, human beings objectify their natural powers and faculties by creating an objective world of material and cultural objects, and in this historical development of material and intellectual production, beings create themselves, create their own historical human natures. While there is a certain basic or essential human nature or, rather, set of natural powers and faculties common to all (normal) persons throughout history, human personality and identity are created by and through the production of systems of physical and cultural objects in each specific historical period and culture.
 

This creation of historical human nature, of human identity and personality, is, however, dependent upon the creation of cultural objects as much as upon the creation of physical objects.” – R. G. Peffer, Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990), p. 49, italics in original, emphasis added to “human nature” and “human natures.”
 

My brainstorm here is to try to help you in understanding Marx and Hegel or views related to theirs. You might include some of the above quote or some discussion of its points in any discussion of Aristotle on human powers and capacities or in places where Marx crops up.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 63: “The destiny of man lies in his soul.” – Herodotus, quoted in Alfred Adler, Understanding Human Nature: A Key To Self-Knowledge (Greenwich, CT: Fawcett Publications, Inc., 1927), translated by W. Beran Wolfe, p. 15.
 

My brainstorm here is that you might follow Adler’s lead by using this quote as an epigram, as Adler does in his Introduction to his book on human nature.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 64: “The science of human nature may not be approached with too much presumption and pride. On the contrary, its understanding stamps those who practice it with a certain modesty. The problem of human nature is one which presents an enormous task, whose solution has been the goal of our culture since time immemorial. It is a science that can not be pursued with the sole purpose of developing occasional experts. Only the understanding of human nature by every human being can be its proper goal. …
 

Owing to our isolated life none of us knows very much about human nature. In former times it was impossible for human beings to live such isolated lives as they live today. We have from the earliest days of our childhood few connections with humanity. The family isolates us. Our whole way of living inhibits that necessary intimate contact with our fellow men, which is essential for the development of the science and art of knowing human nature. Since we do not find sufficient contact with our fellow men, we become their enemies. Our behavior towards them is often mistaken and our judgments frequently false, simply because we do not adequately understand human nature. It is an oft-repeated truism that human beings walk past, and talk past, ach other, fail to make contacts, because they approach each other as strangers, not only in society, but also in the very narrow circle of the family. There is no more frequent complaint than the complaint of parents that they cannot understand their children, and that of children that they are misunderstood by their parents. Our whole attitude toward our fellow man is dependent upon our understanding of him; an implicit necessity for understanding [end of p.15] him therefore is a fundamental of the social relationship. Human beings would live together more easily if their knowledge of human nature were more satisfactory.” – Alfred Adler, Understanding Human Nature: A Key To Self-Knowledge (Greenwich, CT: Fawcett Publications, Inc., 1927), translated by W. Beran Wolfe, pp. 15-16.
 

My brainstorm here is that Adler makes an insightful point about how isolation leads to ignorance about human nature. Indeed, the point may be more applicable today than to the time of the writing, 1927. Of course, radio, TV and films developed to make us less isolated in one sense but more isolated in another. Each of us can sit in silence and in the dark at the cinema and that is a form of isolation amidst a crowd. Cell phones and emails and air travel since 1927 make us less isolated, though.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 65: “As Jeffrey Gray, a British pro- [end of p. 42] fessor of psychology, has written, the evidence for genetic control of IQ suggests that to pay people differently for ‘upper-class’ and ‘lower-class’ jobs is ‘a wasteful use of resources in the guise of “incentives” that either tempt people to do what is beyond their powers or reward them more for what they would do anyway.’
 


 

So do we have to abolish private enterprise if we are to eliminate undeserved wealth? That suggestion raises issues too large to be discussed here; but it can be said that private enterprise has a habit of reasserting itself under the most inhospitable conditions. As the Russians and East Europeans soon found, communist societies still had their black markets, and if you wanted your plumbing fixed swiftly it was advisable to pay a bit extra on the side. Only a radical change in human nature – a decline in acquisitive and self-centered desires – could overcome the tendency for people to find a way around any system [end of p. 43] that suppresses private enterprise. Since no such change in human nature is in sight, we shall probably continue to pay most to those with inherited abilities, rather than those who have the greatest needs. To hope for something entirely different is unrealistic. To work for wider recognition of the principle of payment according to needs and effort rather than inherited ability is both realistic and, I believe, right.” – Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, second edition (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 42-44.
 

My brainstorm here is that you should agree with the Singer/Gray premise here of genetic control of IQ and thus should tend to agree with Singer on the anti-utilitarian and anti-egalitarian implications of capitalism. This is obviously an important point for your chapter/section on Marx. It may make for a nice focus at the end of your term paper, too.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 66: “We can also remind ourselves at this point of the contribution of natural law theory (Chapter VII): only principles the implementation of which do not obviously violate the facts of the human condition will be acceptable as moral guides.” – Bernard Mayo, The Philosophy of Right and Wrong (New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986), p. 124.
 

My brainstorm here is that this fits in with the earlier brainstorms about the is/ought gap and the major issue of whether human nature can serve as an ‘is’ to bridge that gap. Mayo used “human condition” here rather than “human nature” in the quote but the index lists this page under “human nature and condition” and human nature is obviously a key part of the human condition we find ourselves in – we find ourselves with a nature, if we do indeed have a nature – and I think we do have a nature.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 67: “It is not pretended that a moral theory based upon realities of human nature and a study of the specific connections of those realities with those of physical science would do away with moral struggle and defeat. . . . It would not assure us against failure, but it would render failure a source of instruction. . . . Until the integrity of morals with human nature and of both with the environment is recognized, we shall be deprived of the aid of past experience to cope with the most acute and deep problems of life. Accurate and extensive knowledge will continue to operate only in dealing with purely technical problems. The intelligent acknowledgment of the continuity of nature, man and society will alone secure a growth of morals which will be serious without being fanatical, aspiring withoug sentimentality, adapted to reality without conventionality, sensible without taking the form of calculation of profits, idealistic without being romantic.” – John Dewey, Human Nature and Conduct (New York: Henry Holt, 1922), pp. 11-13.
 

My brainstorm here is that the end of the quote uses nice phrasing and the point of the quote raises the issue of the is/ought gap again – especially with the idea of a “moral theory based upon the realities of human nature …” Dewey also raises here the issue of the relationship between science and morals.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 68: “Talk about humility gives occasion for pride to the proud and humility to the humble. Similarly, skeptical arguments allow the positive to be positive. Few speak humbly of humility, chastely of chastity, dubiously of skepticism. We are nothing but lies, duplicity, contradiction, and we hide and disguise ourselves from ourselves.” – Blaise Pascal, Pensees (New York: Penguin Classics, 1966), p. 240, saying 655.
 

My brainstorm here is that this quote confirms that Pascal is clearly in the camp saying that human nature is mainly evil. Pascal shows some style and humor here.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 69: “The question cannot even legitimately arise of whether what a man wills corresponds with what is rationally good. Reason, by itself, can make no distinction whatever between what is good and what is not. Reason can only, and within limits, see what is so, and can never declare whether it ought to be so. There is, therefore, a fundamental absurdity in the idea of reason governing the will, and the fact that this idea [end of p. 14] is very old and laden with great tradition makes it no less absurd. What is significant about a man is that he wills certain ends. From one sunrise to the next, this is what gives his life meaning; indeed, it is the very expression of life itself. Human reason is employed almost exclusively in discerning the means whereby those ends, which are the product of the will, can be achieved. It is because of this that human reason and intelligence are rightly thought to confer upon men an advantage over the rest of nature. What Plato and Kant thought of as the moral corruption of human nature is, therefore, human nature itself. Far from this conception of man being the enemy of morals, a kind of human nature that we are somehow called on to transcend, it is precisely because this is what men basically are that any problems of morals arise to begin with. Good and evil are not exactly the products of the will, but they are the reflection of it, for they would not even exist to a mind that was purely and exclusively rational.
 


 

To grasp this whole point of view is going to require a considerable readjustment of our philosopohical thinking about morals. The justification of it will consist, in part, of the light it will throw on the errors of our predecessors, many of them great and illustrious, and the opening up of the blind alleys that they have created. The remainder of its justification will consist in the abolishment of mysteries, for many things will be found to make sense, to fall into place, when looked at in this light. This is probably the best kind of intellectual justification that can be given for any point of view, for a complete philosophy somewhat resembles a jigsaw puzzle. When everything fits, we know we have the thing right, and no further question of ‘proof’ can be asked. When, on the other hand, something not only does not fit, but creates numberless new [end of p. 15] problems with every attempt to get it into the picture we may suspect that it does not belong in the scheme at all. And this is surely what is true of many philosophical theories of morals. They more or less answer some immediate question that has been asked; but, as with many of the theories of Plato and Kant, they throw everything else out of kilter, giving birth to numberless new paradoxes that no imagination or wit can resolve, so that the general scheme becomes more disjointed than ever.” – Richard Taylor, from Ch.1 entitled “Ethics and Human Nature,” in Good and Evil: A New Direction (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1970), pp. 14-16, italics in original but bold emphasis on “human nature” added.
 

My brainstorm here is that Taylor’s book, especially Ch.1, is relevant to your discussions of Plato and Kant. Taylor’s writing style is clear and forceful, which is especially good for students. Adding his book and the other sources in the brainstorm emails will strengthen your bibliography at least and your substantive discussion if you can work them in a bit still. Further, the issue of the relation of reason to will raises issues such as weakness of will and psychological egoism that you should make sure you discuss enough in your term paper, probably in the sections on the ancient Greeks.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 70: “A few years ago, there was a popular song to the effect that we ought to keep on doing ‘what comes naturally.’ This point of view has evidently been prevalent as long as man has existed on our planet. In its most permissive version, it amounts to no more than William Blake’s maxim: ‘Damn braces. Bless relaxes.” …
 

[T]here are principles of moral conduct that apply to all men.
 

These universal principles have a realistic basis. Man’s basic nature and environment provide the ultimate standard of right conduct, whether of individuals or states. Human beings have fundamental needs and tendencies; their fulfillment is good; their frustration is evil. To fulfill these requirements of a good life and to harmonize with the basic forces of the universe is the realistic goal of human ideals.
 

This conception of ethics has certain implications. It implies that nature determines the characteristic tendencies of a species, and that these tendencies require fulfillment if good is to be achieved. A bear, a rabbit, or a human being possesses a certain nature which it shares with others of its kind. The good for a human being is both like and unlike the good for a rabbit or a bear. It is like insofar as man shares in a common animal nature; it is unlike insofar as man is distinguished by human nature.” – Melvin Rader, Ethics and the Human Community (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964), p. 15, italics in original but bold emphasis on “human nature” added.
 

Note: Is this an example of using human nature to try to bridge the is/ought gap and to establish moral realism? This seems to be an early example (from 1964) of using ‘realism’ or ‘realistic' in the context of moral realism (ethical realism).
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 71: “The final objection to the argument for an obligation to assist is that it sets a standard so high that none but a saint could attain it. This objection comes in at least three versions. The first maintains that, human nature [emphasis added] being what it is, we cannot achieve so high a standard, and since it is absurd to say that we ought to do what we cannot do, we must reject the claim that we ought to give so much.
 

… [end of p. 242]
 

Those who put forward the first version of the objection are often influenced by the fact that we have evolved from a natural process in which those with a high degree of concern for their own interests, or the interests of their offspring and kin, can be expected to leave more descendants in future generations, and eventually to completely replace any who are entirely altruistic. Thus the biologist Garrett Hardin has argued, in support of his ‘lifeboat ethics’, that altruism can only exist ‘on a small scale, over the short term, and within small, intimate groups’; while Richard Dawkins has written, in his provocative book The Selfish Gene: ‘Much as we might wish to believe otherwise, universal love and the welfare of the species as a whole are concepts which simply do not make evolutionary sense.’ I have already noted, in discussing the objection that we should first take care of our own, the very strong tendency for partiality in human beings. We naturally have a stronger desire to further our own interests, and those of our close kin, than we have to further the interests of strangers. What this means is that we would be foolish to expect widespread conformity to a standard that demands impartial concern, and for that reason it would scarcely be appropriate or feasible to condemn all those who fail to reach such a standard. Yet to act impartially, though it might be very difficult, is not impossible. The commonly quoted assertion that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ is a reason for rejecting such moral judgments as ‘You ought to have saved all the people from the sinking ship’, when in fact if you had taken one more person into the lifeboat, it would have sunk and you would not have saved any. In that situation, it is absurd to say that you ought to have done what you could not possibly do. When we have money to spend on luxuries and others are starving, however, it is clear that we can all give much more than we do give, and we can therefore all come closer to the impartial standard proposed in this chapter. Nor is there, as we approach closer to this standard, any barrier beyond which we cannot go. For that reason there is no basis for saying that the impartial standard [end of p. 243] is mistaken because ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ and we cannot be impartial.” – Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, second edition (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 242-244.
 

My brainstorm here is that “’ought’ implies ‘can’” seems to bridge the is/ought gap here. Further, given your interests, you should be interested to discuss Dawkins and Hardin more, if you have discussed them enough already. Note that the impartial standard is a form of egalitarianism that, as such, you would seem to oppose. Finally, I think the idea that we universally have it in our nature to mind our own interests and those of our kin is a major overgeneralization – a bunch of BS really. Look at all the self-destructive, short-term acts of drug abuse, overeating, underexercising, laziness, procrastination, neurosis, psychosis, weakness of will, smoking, anger, revenge, unsafe sex risking AIDS, lust risking divorce, etc. all done at the expense of one’s own long-term interests. Further, look at the fact that even though strangers outnumber our close kin by billions of people, we are far more likely to be murdered by some of our close kin than by any stranger. I hope reading these quotes and/or brainstorms makes you spontaneously react to them in ways that can help you put the finishing touches on your term paper. I’ve tried to get a variety of sources, so that it is more likely that some of them will provoke such thoughts that might warrant inclusion, time permitting.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 72: “[A] justification of ethics in terms of self-interest might work, without defeating its own aim. We can now ask if such a justification exists. There is a daunting list of those who, following Plato’s lead, have offered one: Aristotle, Aquinas, Spinoza, Butler, Hegel, even – for all his strictures about prostituting virtue – Bradley. Like Plato, these philosophers made broad claims about human nature and the conditions under which human beings can be happy. Some were also able to fall back on a belief that virtue will be rewarded and wickedness punished in a life after our bodily death. Philosophers cannot use this argument if they want to carry conviction nowadays; nor can they adopt sweeping psychological theories on the basis of their own general experience of their fellows, as philosophers used to do when psychology was a branch of philosophy.” – Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, second edition (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 326.
 

My brainstorm here is that you might want to say more about Aquinas, Spinoza, Butler, Hegel, and Bradley. Further, you might react to Singer ruling out of hand any appeals to heavenly rewards, especially given how effective such appeals seem to work with so many suicide bombers and terrorists found among Islamic fanatics. Finally, Adler’s point in earlier Brainstorm 64 reinforces Singer’s point above that philosophers cannot credibly “adopt sweeping psychological theories on the basis of their own general experience of their fellows.”
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 73: “What facts about human nature could show that ethics and self-interest coincide? One theory is that we all have benevolent or sympathetic inclinations that make us concerned about the welfare of others. …
 

To meet this objection those who would link ethics and happiness must assert that we cannot be happy if these elements of our nature are suppressed. Benevolence and sympathy, they might argue, are tied up with the capacity to take part in friendly or loving relations with others, and there can be no real happiness without such relationships. For the same reason it is necessary to take at least some ethical standards seriously, and to be open and honest n living by them – for a life of deception and dishonesty is a furtive life, in which the possibility of discovery always clouds the horizon. …
 

These claims about the connection between our character and our prospects of happiness are no more than hypotheses. Attempts to confirm them by detailed research are sparse and inadequate. A.H. Maslow, an American psychologist, asserted that human beings have a need for self-actualisation that involves growing toward courage, kindness, knowledge, love [end of p. 327] honesty, and unselfishness. When we fulfill this need, we feel serene, joyful, filled with zest, sometimes euphoric, and generally heappy. When we act contrary to our need for self-actualisation, we experience anxiety, despair, boredom, shame, emptiness and are generally unable to enjoy ourselves. It would be nice if Maslow should turn out to be right; unfortunately, the data Maslow produced in support of his theory consisted of limited studies of selected people and cannot be considered anything more than suggestive.
 

Human nature is so diverse that one may doubt if any generalization about the kind of character that leads to happiness could hold for all human beings. What, for instance, of those we call ‘psychopaths’? … At least on the surface, they do not suffer from their condition, and it is not obvioius that it is in their interest to be ‘cured.’” – Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, second edition (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 327-328, italics in original but bold emphasis on “human nature” is added.
 

My brainstorm here is that Singer makes a good point against many thinkers you consider when Singer suggests that human nature is too diverse to allow the kinds of generalizations a theorist would need to make about human nature in order to use a particular conception of human nature to do the tasks philosophers usually attempt traditionally. You discuss Maslow, so you might wish to use Singer’s overall view of Maslow in order to put Maslow in context or present a view limiting or criticizing Maslow’s view.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 74: “Bourgeois society is ‘inhuman’ or a form of ‘inhumanity’ because it does not allow for the majority of its members to be treated as human beings should be treated. It does not allow people to realize the positive aspects of their human nature: sociability and free, conscious creative activity. Marx argues in The Holy Family that humanity is ‘abstracted’ from the proletariat and that ‘man has lost himself in the proletariat’ precisely because the proletarian’s ‘species-being’ is not allowed to flourish. The resulting poverty, misery, and abasement of the proletariat ‘arouse man’s indignation.’” – R. G. Peffer, Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990), p. 57, italics in original.
 

My brainstorm here is that this is another instance where a major philosopher uses the facts of human nature to try to bridge the is/ought gap, though nothing is said here about how we determine which aspects of human nature are positive. So that is really doing the work to avoid the is/ought gap by having an ought+is/ought move instead. This passage identifies the positive aspects of human nature according to Peffer’s understanding of Marx at least. Other quotes from Peffer suggest Marx has an at least partly normative sense of human nature, but here Peffer refers to the positive aspects of human nature, as if human nature has negative aspects as well and as if human nature is being used as a merely descriptive, non-normative concept (and thus allowing both positive and negative aspects).
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 75: “While the concept of alienation is rarely seen in most of his later works, it is utilized extensively in the Grundrisse. As in the Paris Manuscripts, Marx’s theory of alienation of humanity-in-capitalist-society can be divided here into the categories of alienation of the product of production, alienation of the activity of production, alienation of the individual from other individuals, and alienation of the individual from his or her own self and/or his or her own (human) nature. …
 

Similarly, ‘The universal nature of production creates an alienation of the individual from himself and others,’ and thus contravenes the value of human community. The condition of alienation in capitalism also works against the self-realization of individuals. Capitalism prevents people from developing and realizing their individual talents and capacities spontaneously and cooperatively and becoming all-around, well-developed person because [end of p. 66]
 

Universal prostitution appears as a necessary phase of the development of the social character of personal talents, abilities, capacities, and activities. This could be more delicately expressed as the general condition of serviceability and usefulness. It is the bringing to a common level of different things, which is the significance that already Shakespeare gave to money. [quoting Karl Marx, The Grundrisse (David McClellan, ed.) New York: Harper & Row, 1971, p. 66.]" -- R. G. Peffer, Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990), pp. 66-67, italics in original, bold emphasis added.
 

My brainstorm is that you might discuss this reductionism of capitalism, how it tries to reduce so many different things to a least common denominator of money and crass commercialism, something W tried to distance himself from in a recent speech clarifying what he means by the liberty he wants for the Islamic world we are battling in now. You should take every opportunity you can to discuss Shakespeare, who is among the most insightful on the topic of human nature.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 76: “We have all met such a lot of people that we feel sure that we [end of p. 34] know something about human nature, even if the people we have met in Senior Common Rooms have had rather little of it.” – F. E. Sparshott, An Enquiry into Goodness (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1958), pp. 34-35, italics in original.
 

My brainstorm here is that you should add Sparshott’s book to your bibliography on human nature, since it has index entries with 7 pages indexed to “human nature.” Further, Sparshott’s point here echoes Rene Descartes’ familiar quotation stating that nothing seems as fairly and equally distributed as good sense since everyone, even those hardest to please in other ways, is satisfied that he or she has enough good sense.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 77: “As long as men have speculated about the nature of politics, it has been common to relate it to the nature of man. Most of the speculators have had no doubt that man had a ‘nature’ and therefore believed certain generalizations could be made about the way men tended to behave under certain conditions. Some to be sure focused upon the differences among kinds of human nature whether of gold, of silver, or of bronze; but even Plato and Nietzsche (if the juxtaposition may be forgiven) assumed a common substratum.” – J. Roland Pennock, from ‘Introduction,’ in J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds., Human Nature in Politics (New York: New York University Press, 1977), p. 1.
 

My brainstorm here is that you should add this book to the bibliography of your term paper, if you have not done so already. You can use part of the quote above to show how Sartre is in the minority on the issue of whether human nature exists.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 78: “In particular, he [Edward O. Wilson] defends the hypothesis that human beings, as a result of natural selection, are genetically determined to be altruistic in the sense of being disposed to help other people even when they do not think it is to their long-run advantage. … What is wrong with the ‘innate/acquired’ dichotomy is that nothing is wholly innate or ‘from nature’ and nothing is wholly acquired or ‘from nurture’: Behavior as well as bodily structures are always jointly affected by both genes and environment. This means that similar g


enes may have different behavioral effects in different cultures, just as in similar environments different genes may produce different effects.” – Andrew Oldenquist, Moral Philosophy: Text and Readings, 2nd edition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1978), p. 76. This page is indexed under the heading “human nature.”
 

My brainstorm here is that Wilson seems to have an explanation for altruism that differs sharply with the explanation offered by Schopenhauer and Joseph Campbell. Wilson thinks the explanation is genetic (and thus presumably operating on the level of the species rather than at the level of the individual) whereas Schopenhauer and Campbell think the altruism is part of a metaphysical realization (which presumably is not genetic) that takes place at the individual level. So you might discuss Wilson after the spot where you discuss the example Campell gives to illustrate Schopenhauer’s point about the metaphysical realization leading to altruism (the example of the cop helping someone going over the rail in Hawaii, if my memory serves). Further, if this process of metaphysical realism is rational, then it may serve as a rational bridge of the is/ought gap: the altruistic person makes the metaphysical realization (is) and then rationally decides that he/she ought to act altruistically (ought).
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 79: “At any rate, I would call attention to the fact that the decision theorists’ definition [of ‘rational’] is hardly a mere account of the accepted English usage, which is far too vague to fit their definition. Professor Patrick Suppes, in a paper in The Journal of Philosophy in 1961 (p. 607), remarked that the disagreements in decision theory show that [end of p. 267] we ‘do not yet understand what we mean by rationality,’ or, as he put it in the very next sentence, ‘it turns out to be extremely difficult to characterize what we intuitively would want to mean by a rational choice among alternative courses of action.’ I find these statements puzzling …” – Richard Brandt, “The Concept of Rationality in Ethical and Political Theory,” in J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds., Human Nature in Politics (New York: New York University Press, 1977), pp. 267-268.
 

My brainstorm here is that Suppes’s admissions seem scandalous. It’s a scandal that our state of knowledge about such a basic term as late as 1961 was so poor. You might put Suppes’s admission in your discussion of rationality in your section on Aristotle.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 80: “Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal.” – Aristotle, Politics I,2 (1253a), quoted in Lisa H. Newton, “The Political Animal,” in J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds., Human Nature in Politics (New York: New York University Press, 1977), p. 142.
 

My brainstorm here is that you should be sure not to reduce your coverage of this famous quote of Aristotle’s in making the reductions that I think you said were requested for the chapter on Aristotle. Further, you might link any alleged political nature of human nature with the idea in E. O. Wilson that human nature is altruistic. The altruistic sympathy, compassion or sociability of humans may be what gives rise to the state. Are we by nature built to be governed and to act in groups? If so, that might explain why human individuals are generally not especially large, fast, strong or acute in senses compared with many other animals.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 81: “What I am maintaining is that cutting off your legs, blinding yourself, or killing yourself in the most painful way possible simply because you desire to do so, is to act irrationally. If taken as basic, that is, not as the result of considerations of other consequences, such desires are irrational. What Brandt has realized [in the article I cited in Brainstorm 79] is the standard philosophical account of rationality provides no sure way of labeling such desires as irrational. By the standard account of rationality, the only way one can label such a desire as irrational is to show that it conflicts with other more important desires. That is, the standard account does not deal with the rationality of a desire on its own: only its relationship to other desires can make it irrational.” – Bernard Gert, “Irrational Desires,” in J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds., Human Nature in Politics (New York: New York University Press, 1977), 287.
 

My brainstorm here is that this issue of intrinsic versus merely instrumental rationality can lead you into a discussion of the rationality of ends in Kant or a deeper discussion of rationality in Aristotle.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 82: “My point is that even idealists must be realists about what human nature might achieve in the conditions of organismic life on this planet; but my conclusion is that we can’t rest content with this. We are after all striving organisms who must follow out the directives of our aspirations. And one of our central, historical and human aspirations is to help bring to birth a better world by pursuing the ideal of democracy; the empirical data of a mature psychology tell us that this pursuit is logical.” – Ernest Becker, The Birth and Death of Meaning: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on the Problem of Man, 2nd edition (New York: The Free Press, 1971), p. 179.
 

My brainstorm here is to disagree with Becker. He’s wrong to use ‘must’ in the second sentence above, since we have a choice to avoid following the directives of our aspirations. Indeed, this may be the most distinctive feature of human nature, our conscience with its ability to subject our instincts, drives, and strivings to critical scrutiny and to then follow only the ones that survive our critical thinking about them. Becker has a way with words, though.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 83: “And we can understand why the theory of democracy has not yet found a graceful merger with the best of modern psychology: there are too many people today who will not admit the fruit of this psychology. This has given rise to a great debate between two approaches to man: on the one hand, those who see evil in society, and who call the other side cynics, opportunist, and antihumanists; and the other, those who see the evil in man, in evolution, and who call the other side romantics, wishful dreamers. Imagine, they say, claiming that the child is born neutral and potentially good, when all around us we see the most horrendous forms of evil: murder, rape of women and children, delight in blood, pleasure in another’s suffering, in piles of corpses of children of the ‘enemy,’ and on and on. … And the ‘romantics’ tell us that man has no innate aggression: this is an argument with fools or with those who find comfort in self-delusion. So, with apparent good reason, say the empirical realists.
 

The curious thing about this bitter argument in the contemporary theory of human nature, is that it never need have taken place. The ‘romantics’ – at least those whose work is worth reading – never claimed that aggression was not a fact of human life. They didn’t look at reality wishfully or self-deludingly: they saw aggression everywhere anyone else saw it. In fact, they saw it even where others did not. … [C]learing up this problem is one of the urgent tasks for a rounded view of man.” – Ernest Becker, The Birth and Death of Meaning: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on the Problem of Man, 2nd edition (New York: The Free Press, 1971), p. 165.
 

My brainstorm here is that you might expand your discussion of the nature versus nurture debate, which Becker puts in terms of romantics and realists. This quote also bears on the issue of whether human nature is mainly good, mainly evil or mainly mixed. Further, this quote bears on the issue of whether human nature is fixed or flexible, since our genes seem harder to alter, with current technology at least, than our social conditions. [Note to revise later: Compare this to old quote 53.]
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 84: “Yet, the problem remains of how to explain the real aggression that we see [end of p. 165] all around us? On the most elemental level we get a picture like this: a human organism in its skin that has to get along in the world, and that does this by taking what it needs from the environment. It uses energetic initiative, manipulates, incorporates, destroys or banishes objects, and expresses anger in response to frustrations; these are all part of an organism’s way of surviving whether it has an innate destructive drive or not. It has to reject and blot out invading microorganisms or larger dangerous objects; it has to incorporate food – animals and plants – digesting an assimilating them; male animals have to penetrate forcefully the female, among humans rupturing the hymen, and so on. Aggression is a condition of life, each life aggresses on nature, tears what it needs out of the world. This aggression in the service of the sustenance of life is rarely a matter of argument; some might prefer not to call it aggression but rather organismic self-affirmation or some such neutral idea, but whatever we call it, it shows itself as a powerful force, and it damages the world around one. Some quiet peoples who seek minimum interference by the organism with the world around it avoid eating meat, or killing insects – the Jains of India even wearing a veil so as not to accidentally inhale an insect, and sweeping the street in front of them as they walk, so as not to inadvertently crush any. But even Jains crunch leaves and mash fragile plant stalks – which are surely alive and (who knows?) might even feel pain, as we mused in Chapter Four; when I once baited a vegetarian with these thoughts he answered: ‘Well, at least plants don’t make any noise when you kill them.’” – Ernest Becker, The Birth and Death of Meaning: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on the Problem of Man, 2nd edition (New York: The Free Press, 1971), pp. 165-166.
 

My brainstorm here is that you might discuss the more neutral issue of whether human nature is aggressive, or how aggressive it is compared to how altruistic some think it is. This might be a good substitute or supplement for some discussion of whether human nature is mainly good, mainly evil or mainly mixed. Becker seems to think that human nature is biologically and genetically aggressive but not in any evil way, and that evil seems to come mainly from nurture, the human condition, the environment rather than human nature. Becker gets support on some issues from Joseph Campbell who says in his book and video series The Power of Myth that life feeds on death, which is one point Becker makes in the quote above. Campbell also discusses the Jains. I find the idea that plants feels pain implausible in the extreme, despite books like The Secret Life of Plants, since there seems no evolutionary reason for immobile plants to feel pain; for the plants in pain cannot fight or flee fast enough in response to pain. Further, there seem to be no structures resembling a brain or nervous system in plants, only xylem and phloem, which makes plants out to be glorified pumps with photosynthesis as an additional source of food. It would make more sense for faster moving plants (beyond slow geotropism and heliotropism) like Venus Fly Traps to feel pain in order to get stimulus response movements fast enough to catch a fly, which is fast. I like the joke at the expense of the vegetarian. I suggest that you find a way to include it, since you should include humor at every reasonable opportunity, especially with such a serious if not somber topic as human nature.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 85: “Not only should one be cautious in applying the findings of so difficult a science [psychology] to the complexities of everyday life, to which the indefinite adjustments of practical reason may be thought a safter guide than the specialized clarities of scientific research, but there is a constant danger that a psychologist working in a single society will mistake what he finds universal there for what is inseparable from human nature, whereas it may be a socially determined peculiarity of that society. It is easier to recognize this danger than to obviate it. The psychologist may then have great difficulty in making what would be his great contribution to ethics by isolating what is unalterable in human nature.” – F. E. Sparshott, An Enquiry into Goodness (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1958), p. 45.
 

My brainstorm here is that this is applicable to Freud and the other psychologists in my brainstorms and your term paper. Sparshott’s caution seems a good one here, suggesting that there is an edge to the nurture side of the nurture v. nature debate that psychologists often overlook.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 86: “If no lawgiver [such as God] is supposed, but instead the prescriptions of the ‘natural law’ are derived from a study of ‘human nature,’ being considered either inborn behaviour patterns which cannot be violated without distress or necessary conditions of human happiness, then the authority of the ‘law’ derives not from its legal status but from the manifest unreasonableness and unnaturalness (hence disadvantageiousness) of acting otherwise. It is then no true law, but merely lawlike: a general counsel of prudence. However, if we follow A. L. Goodhart in regarding as a law any rule recognized (whether by those who enforce it or by those who obey it) as obligatory, we may describe as a ‘natural law’ any rule which all [end of p. 189] men recognize as obligatory, no matter what authority or reason, if any, for obedience may be suggested. Its legal status would then depend upon the fact of its recognition, its naturalness upon its connection with ‘human nature’ in the way already suggested. It seems doubtful whether the necessary c onsensus exists or is obtainable.” – F. E. Sparshott, An Enquiry into Goodness (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1958), pp. 189-190.
 

My brainstorm here is that you might spend more space discussing human nature and natural law. Further, you can clarify more what each major author means, and what you mean, by human nature by saying if you consider human nature inborn behavior patterns which cannot be violated without distress or necessary conditions of human happiness or something else again. You might explore the extent to which human nature is one given to the rule of law. The classic The Island of Dr. Moreau explores the difference between human nature and merely animal nature by postulating conscious obedience to law as the key difference. You might explore this literary example.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 87: “One must suppose that there is some invariant element in human nature, since human babies usually grow up to be human adults but chimpanzees never do; but whether man as such has any inescapable needs other than those for a certain amount of food and drink and warmth is an open question. Although one may suspect, for example, that all men need some symbolic and ritual apparatus for ordering experience, and some sexual gratification or substitute therefore, such suspicions are virtually impossible to confirm: cultures already known to be viable show such diversity that it is hard to say what limits there may be to what is workable. The universal needs of mankind, then, though theoretically capable of providing a criterion whose satisfactoriness could not be doubted, are not in practice a useful basis for judgement. …
 

The need for health and for whatever is necessary to sustain strength must be supposed common to all men, and hence part of ‘human nature’; and failure to satisfy this need must to some extent condemn a society. [end of p. 267]
 


 

A more positive interpretation of the ‘demands of human nature’ is that in terms of ‘self-fulfilment,’ ‘scope for the development of the personality,’ ‘realization of all man’s potentialities’ or some such phrase. This usually turns out to be the praise of institutional complexity, and is usually thought of as being unfavourable to preliterate societies, which seem to the literate to be simple and primitive. One does feel that life would be poorer without all those symphony concerts and cocktail lounges; but the appeal of such a comparison is primarily emotional; while one pictures vividly what one would miss by going to Melanesia, one is prevented by inexperience frompicturing what one would gain.” – F. E. Sparshott, An Enquiry into Goodness (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1958), pp. 267-268.
 

My brainstorm here is that you might use the bit of humor about the cocktail lounges. Further, his point about the chimps seems so simplistic but may just mean that human nature must be at least partly genetic. What needs we have beyond the biological needs from out genetic structure seem to fill out the picture. Some try to define human nature in terms of capacities, but here Sparshott suggests we should define the rest of human nature in terms of needs instead of capacities (such as the faculty of reason, as Aristotle used). Maybe we should use them all, genes, capacities and needs. On needs, remember the book The Needs of Strangers that I sent to you in the mail. I was impressed by it. He's a fine writer, and a prolific one.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 88: “It is easy to show that the ego ideal answers to everything that is expected of the higher nature of man. As a substitute for a longing for the father, it contains the germ from which all religions have evolved. The self-judgement which declares that the ego falls short of its ideal produces the religious sense of humility to [end of p. 281] which the believer appeals in his longing. As a child grows up, the role of father is carried on by teachers and others in authority; their injunctions and prohibitions remain powerful in the ego ideal and continue, in the form of conscience, to exercise the moral censorship. The tension between the demands of conscience and the actual performances of the ego is experienced as a sense of guilt. Social feelings rest on identifications with other people, on the basis of having the same ego ideal.
 

Religion, morality, and a social sense – the chief elements in the higher side of man – were originally one and the same thing. According to the hypothesis which I put forward in Totem and Taboo they were acquired phylogentically out of the father-complex: religion and moral restraint through the process of mastering the Oedipus complex itself, and social feeling through the necessity for overcoming the rivalry that then remained between the members of the younger generation. The male sex seems to have taken the lead in all these moral acquisitions; and they seem to have then been transmitted to women by cross-inheritance. Even to-day the social feelings arise in the individual as a superstructure built upon impulses of jealous rivalry against his brothers and sisters. Since the hostility cannot be satisfied, an identification with the former rival develops. The study of mild cases of homosexuality confirms the suspicion that in this instance, too, the identification is a substitute for an affectionate object-choice which has taken the place of the aggressive, hostile attitude …” – Sigmund Freud, in Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, ed., Freud on Women: A Reader (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1990), pp. 281-282.
 

My brainstorm here is that this passage should be a springboard to improving your discussion of Freud. It also suggests that his conception of human nature is somewhat normative or includes a moral element, since he speaks of man’s higher nature. Combine this with the death wish, man’s evil nature, etc.
 

HUMAN NATURE 89: “But Corwin’s Law was established in advice he gave a budding speaker: ‘Never make people laugh. If you would succeed in life, you must be solemn, solemn as an ass. All the great monuments are built over solemn asses.” – Thomas Corwin, quoted by American politican Clayton Fritchey, “A Politician Must Watch His Wit,” New York Times Magazine, July 3, 1960, quoted in David S. Shrager and Elizabeth Frost, eds., The Quotable Lawyer (New York: Facts on File, 1986), p. 130.
 

My brainstorm here is that you should include Corwin’s Law because it is really funny, even though I disagree with the substance; for I recommend adding good-natured humor in philosophy at every reasonable opportunity. I agree with the great comedian John Cleese that one can be serious without being somber (and without be as solemn as an ass). Humor is well-appreciated in politics, too, since monuments are (and will continue to be) erected to Ronald Reagan, who is famous for his excellent, Irish sense of humor. The same goes for Reagan’s fellow Irishman ‘Tip’ O’Neil.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 90: “Every law which the state enacts indicates a fact in human nature.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson, ‘History,’ Essays, 1899, quoted in David S. Shrager and Elizabeth Frost, eds., The Quotable Lawyer (New York: Facts on File, 1986), p. 129.
 

My brainstorm here is that I should tell you that this and Brainstorm 89 appear in the section entitled “Human Nature,” section 63, of the book cited above by Shrager and Frost. I tend to agree with Emerson here, since I think laws are designed to deal with perceived needs or desires of the people involved or the lobbying interests. Laws are significant human creations and thus indicate something significant about the human who create them. This assumes legal positivism, but legal positivism’s main rival -- natural law -- would seem to be even more closely tied to human nature.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 91: “Nature never deceives us; it is always we who deceive ourselves.” – Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Emile, 1762, quoted in the section entitled “Human Nature” in David S. Shrager and Elizabeth Frost, eds., The Quotable Lawyer (New York: Facts on File, 1986), p. 129.
 

My brainstorm is that Rousseau is being silly here. Nature deceives us on a regular basis, from optical illusions like an oar seemingly bent in water to the camouflage of many animals, etc. Even the sense of how much time has passed seems to be a matter of nature deceiving us with good times seeming to pass quickly, and bad times seeming to drag, rather than a matter of self-deception. You can also use this quote to discredit Rousseau’s idea of the Noble Savage, since it seems inconsistent with it. It is not noble of the savage to deceive himself, though perhaps Rousseau would make the implausible claim that the noble savage is never deceived at all.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 92: "No man is so exquisitely honest or upright in living but that ten times in his life he might not lawfully be hanged.” – Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1588, quoted in the section entitled “Human Nature” in David S. Shrager and Elizabeth Frost, eds., The Quotable Lawyer (New York: Facts on File, 1986), p. 129.
 

My brainstorm here is that this is obvious overstatement by the Frenchman, but it’s hyperbole to good effect. It bears on the issue of whether human nature is mainly good, mainly evil, or mainly mixed. You should explore more the issue of whether every human has his/her price. Plato’s Ring of Gyges is a good case in point. So you could discuss explore this issue more in your section on Plato or Aristotle.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 93: “Those who fear men like laws.” – Marquis de Vauvenargues, French moralist, Reflexions, 1746, quoted in the section entitled “Human Nature” in David S. Shrager and Elizabeth Frost, eds., The Quotable Lawyer (New York: Facts on File, 1986), p. 129.
 

My brainstorm here is that I appreciate the Marquis’s brevity here. It would be nice for you to include quotations from a variety of times and nations/cultures. So this and brainstorm 92 should help you get more French thought into your survey of many theories of human nature. Again, this French quote – like the one in Brainstorm 92 -- favors the evil side in the debate over whether human nature is mainly evil, good or mixed.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 94: “For behaviour, men learn it, as they take diseases, one of another.” – Francis Bacon, The Advancement of Learning, 1605, quoted in the section entitled “Human Nature” in David S. Shrager and Elizabeth Frost, eds., The Quotable Lawyer (New York: Facts on File, 1986), p. 129.
 

My brainstorm here is that Bacon seems on the side of nurture in the nature/nurture debate. Of course, Bacon probably knew little or nothing of genetic diseases, so his analogy between behavior and diseases seems dated.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 95: “Man may be a little lower than the angels, but he has not yet shaken off the brute. … His path is strewn with carnage, murder lurks always not far beneath, to break out from time to time, peace resolution to the contrary notwithstanding.” – Learned Hand, “Democracy! Its Presumptions and Realities,” 1 Federal Bar Association Journal 2 (1932), quoted in the section entitled “Human Nature” in David S. Shrager and Elizabeth Frost, eds., The Quotable Lawyer (New York: Facts on File, 1986), p. 129.
 

My brainstorm here is that Hand seems to be on the mixed side of the debate over whether human nature is mainly good, bad or mixed.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 96: "I wish I loved my fellow men more than I do, but to love one's neighbor as oneself, taken literally, would mean to realize all his impulses as one's own, which no one can, and which I humbly think would not be desirable if one could." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., 1841-1935, quoted in Harry C. Shriver, ed., Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: His Book Notices and Uncollected Letters and Papers, quoted in the section entitled “Human Nature” in David S. Shrager and Elizabeth Frost, eds., The Quotable Lawyer (New York: Facts on File, 1986), p. 129.
 

My brainstorm here is that Holmes seems to disagree with both Christianity and utilitarianism here in rejecting “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” Holmes seems to be a utilitarian. See, H. L. Pohlman, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and Utilitarian Jurisprudence (Harvard University Press, 1984).
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 97: “Possibly gaiety is the miasmic mist of misery.” – Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., 1841-1935, quoted in Mark De Wolfe Howe, Holmes-Pollock Letters, 1946, quoted in the section entitled “Human Nature” in David S. Shrager and Elizabeth Frost, eds., The Quotable Lawyer (New York: Facts on File, 1986), p. 129.
 

My brainstorm here is that this is a nice bit of humor and alliteration by Holmes. Good show, Holmes.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 98: “Neither Law nor Human Nature is an exact science.” – George W. Keeton, ed., Harris’s Hints on Advocacy, 1943, quoted in the section entitled “Human Nature” in David S. Shrager and Elizabeth Frost, eds., The Quotable Lawyer (New York: Facts on File, 1986), p. 129.
 

My brainstorm here is that Keeton seems right here. I enjoyed his book Venturing to Do Justice on Harvard University Press. Keeton’s point here seems to support the mixed side of the debate over whether human nature is mainly good, bad or mixed.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 99: “…[Government employees] are subject to that very human weakness, especially displayed in Washington, which leads men to ‘crook the pregnant hinges of the knee where thrift may follow fawning.’” – Robert H. Jackson, Frazier v. United States, 335 U.S. 497, 515 (1948), quoted in the section entitled “Human Nature” in David S. Shrager and Elizabeth Frost, eds., The Quotable Lawyer (New York: Facts on File, 1986), p. 129.
 

My brainstorm here is that I need help understanding Jackson. Maybe you get the uncited allusion to the quote within the quote but it eludes me at the moment. Anyway, without getting the allusion I seem not to be getting Jackson’s point. Well, I’m guessing that Jackson is making the point that human nature is profligate rather than thrifty. That’s another measure of or spectrum on which to measure human nature. He seems to be saying that it is human nature to be weak of will rather than disciplined and thrifty in one’s spending.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 100: “Never advise anyone to go to war or to marry.” – Spanish proverb, quoted in Lewis C. Henry, ed., Best Quotations for All Occasions (New York: Permabooks, 1948), p. 4.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 101: “There are men of whom we can never believe evil without having seen it. Yet there are few in whom we should be surprised to see it.” – La Rochefoucauld, Maximes, 1665, quoted in David S. Shrager and Elizabeth Frost, eds., The Quotable Lawyer (New York: Facts on File, 1986), p. 105.
 

My brainstorm here is that the quote supports the mainly evil side in the debate on whether human nature is mainly evil, mainly good or mainly evil.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 102: “There is in many, if not in all men, a constant inward struggle between the principles of good and evil; and because a man has grossly fallen, and at the time of his fall added the guilt of hypocrisy to another sort of immorality, it is not necessary, therefore, to believe that his whole life has been false, or that all the good which he ever professed was insincere or unreal.” – Roundell Palmer, 1st earl of Selborne, British jurist; lord chancellor; Symington v. Symington (1875), L.R. 2 Sc. & D. 428, quoted in David S. Shrager and Elizabeth Frost, eds., The Quotable Lawyer (New York: Facts on File, 1986), p. 105.
 

My brainstorm here is that this quote might help on the issue of whether human nature is mainly evil, mainly good or mainly mixed, since it seems to favor mainly mixed due to the constant struggle between good and evil in the nature of man. This citation is indexed under 'human nature,' as was the quote for Brainstorm 101 and all the Brainstorm quotes from the human nature section of the book cited above.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 103 “It is a sin to believe evil of others, but it is seldom a mistake.” – H. L. Mencken, A Book of Burlesques, 1916, quoted in David S. Shrager and Elizabeth Frost, eds., The Quotable Lawyer (New York: Facts on File, 1986), p. 105.
 

My brainstorm here is that Mencken often has quotable quotes, though not all of them are politically correct nowadays. Anyway, this quote is not indexed under human nature in the book above but it could have been, since it is on the mainly evil side of the debate over whether human nature is mainly evil, mainly good or mainly mixed. Putting Mencken in your work might heighten interest, since Mencken is somewhat infamous.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 104: “A related objection raised by Elizabeth Wolgast, among others, interprets the original position [of Rawls] as making a metaphysical claim about our essential nature. Since the original position requires that we imagine ourselves to be ignorant of virtually all of our particular traits, this is seen to imply the view that none of those traits are [sic, is] essential to who we are. … Fortunately, the original position need not be interpreted as implying anything about our essential nature.” – James Sterba, Contemporary Social and Political Philosophy (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1995), p. 21.
 

My brainstorm here is that Sterba seems right, since Rawls wrote an essay with “Political Not Metaphysical” in it. I think it appeared in Philosophy and Public Affairs and in his recent book collecting his essays. This quote is a springboard to discuss Rawls more, if you wish, and it is a chance to include another point from a woman philosopher, Elizabeth Wolgast, which would be useful.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 105: “Second, the Welfare Liberal Conception of Justice does not require that one endorse a completely ahistorical conception of human nature. Welfare liberals can certainly admit that human nature manifests itself in different ways in different social conditions. As Rawls has put it (1978: 55),
 

everyone recognizes that the institutional form of society affects its members and determines in large part the kind of persons they want to be as well as the kind of persons they are. The social structure also limits peoples’ ambitions and hopes in different ways; for they will with reason view themselves in part according to their position in it and take account of the means and opportunities they can realistically expect. So an economic regime, say, is not only an institutional scheme for satisfying existing desires and aspirations but a way of fashioning desires and aspirations in the future. More generally, the basic structure shapes the way the social system produces and reproduces over time a certain form of culture shared by persons with certain conceptions of their good.” – James Sterba, How To Make People Just: A Practical Reconciliation of Alternative Conceptions of Justice (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1988), p. 70.
 

My brainstorm here is that your term paper should have more discussion of this contemporary debate over human nature and liberalism. It’s an important issue and it has generated a significant literature.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 106: “A more specific problem is that capitalism does not seem to be a fetter on the growth of productive power. Further, we must doubt that communism is the ultimate release Marx described. Marx argued that communism would be such a release because it resolves the contradictions of capitalism, but this ignores the possibility of communism bringing its own distinctive fetters with it. For [end of p. 123] example, we might think that democracy and collective control may inhibit growth through the unadventurous and unimaginative rule of th emajority and the dead hand of the bureaucracy. Similarly, the removal of stimulus (of need or greed) may render us degenerate, unconcerned with more power over nature. It may be, then, that communism cannot play the role Marx allocated it. And Marx’s grounds for doing so are not compelling. Fundamentally he relies on an ungrounded belief in the perfectibility of human nature under communism, a belief relying more on quasi-Hegelian philosophy of mind than on anthropology.” – Alan Brown, Modern Political Philosophy: Theories of the Just Society (New York: Penguin Books, 1986), pp. 123-124.
 

My brainstorm here is tht this might add a bit to your discussion of Marx and that this book should appear in your bibliography, since it has two longer discussions of human nature and 9 other pages on human nature listed in its index.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 107: “Albeit in barest outline, we now have eudaimonism’s conception of personhood in our hands, and it will be useful to begin to see what light it casts into shadowed regions of practicallife. Deep within the antagonisms, frustrations, cruelties, and thwartings that taint life’s unfolding in the world, the keenly focused investigative eye detects a common denominator in one hallmark of human nature – its duplicity.” – David L. Norton, Personal Destinies: A Philosophy of Ethical Individualism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), p. 27.
 

My brainstorm here is that the second sentence of this quote is an especially quotable quote, since I find it well-worded and a bit surprising at the end. Further, it is relevant for discussion of whether human nature is mainly good, mainly evil or mainly mixed, since the quote seems to put Norton in the mainly evil or mainly mixed camp. Furthermore, Norton’s book should ideally appear in your bibliography, since it has one 3-page discussion listed in its index under human nature.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 108: “The popular view of the sexual instinct is beautifully reflected in the poetic fable which tells how the original human beings were cut up into two halves – man and woman – and how these are always striving to unite again in love. It comes as a great surprise therefore to learn that there are men whose sexual object is a man and not a woman, and women whose sexual object is a woman and not a man. People of this kind are described as having ‘contrary sexual feelings’, or better, as being ‘inverts’, and the fact is described as ‘inversion’. The number of such people is very considerable, though there are difficulties in establishing it precisely.” – Sigmund Freud, in Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, ed., Freud on Women: A Reader (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1990), p. 90.
 

My brainstorm here is that you might include this bit of poetry about human nature, and perhaps some of Freud’s remarks on homosexuality, too.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 109: “Freud’s assessment of causality was careful. First he rejected the idea that inversion [homosexuality] was a form of degeneracy, because it was so obvious that many – if not most – inverts functioned at a superior level intellectually, particularly in societies where inversion was not considered pathological. Then he indicated that only in absolute inverts can a constitutional or innate factor be argued as crucial, but even in these cases, it is likely that the inmate factor is one common to all people, not just to inverts – namely, bisexuality.” – Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, in Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, ed., Freud on Women: A Reader (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1990), p. 91.
 

My brainstorm here is that students might find it interesting to learn that Freud thought bisexuality was common to all people, and thus evidently part of human nature, and that Freud and Young-Bruehl find it so obvious that so many homosexuals function at a superior level intellectually. This is likely to spark some debate and critical thinking.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 110: “It is popularly believed that a human being is either a man or a woman. Science, however, knows of cases in which the sexual characters are obscured, and in which it is consequently difficult to determine the sex. This arises in the first instance in the field of anatomy. The genitals of the individuals concerned combine male and female characteristics. (This condition is known as hermaphroditism.) In rare cases both kinds of sexual apparatus are found side by side fully developed (true hermaphroditism); but far more frequently both sets of organs are found in an atrophied condition.
 

The importance of these abnormalities lies in the unexpected fact that they facilitate our understanding of normal development. For it appears that a certain degree of anatomical hermaphroditism occurs normally. In every normal male or female individual, traces are found of the apparatus of the opposite sex. These either persist without function as rudimentary organs or become modified and take on other functions.
 

These long-familiar facts of anatomy lead us to suppose that an originally bisexual physical disposition has, in the course of evolution, become modified into a unisexual one, leaving behind only a few traces of the sex that has become atrophied.” – Sigmund Freud, in Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, ed., Freud on Women: A Reader (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1990), p. 91.
 

My brainstorm here is that this is a new ism to include – hermaphroditism. Further, I think many students will find Freuds remarks here of significant interest. Freud sees a role for evolution in changing normal human nature from bisexual to unisexual. Hey, it might encourage some students doubtful of evolution's existence to accept evolution if the alternative is to accept the bisexuality of their human nature.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 111: “It is an instructive fact that under the influence of seduction children can become polymorphously perverse, and can be led into all possible kinds of sexual irregularities. This shows that an aptitude for them in innately present in their disposition. There is consequently little resistance towards carrying them out, since the mental dams against sexual excesses – shame, disgust and morality – have either not yet been constructed at all or are only in [the] course of construction, according to the age of the child. In this respect children behave in the same kind of way as an average uncultivated woman in whom the same polymorphously perverse disposition persists. Under ordinary conditions she may remain normal sexually, but if she is led on by a clever seducer she will find every sort of perversion to her taste, and will retain them as part of her own sexual activities. Prostitutes exploit the same polymorphous, that is, infantile, disposition for the purposes of their profession; and, considering the immense number of women who are prostitutes or who must be supposed to have an aptitude for prostitution without becoming engaged in it, it becomes impossible not to recognize that this same disposition to pervrsions of every kind is a general and fundamental human characteristic.” – Sigmund Freud, in Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, ed., Freud on Women: A Reader (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1990), p. 119, ‘the’ in square brackets added by Harwood.
 

My brainstorm is: Wow, Freud is making quite a few interesting and sweeping generalizations here. He seems to imply above that a serious aptitude of prostitution and perversity is part of human nature.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 112: "It is commonly assumed that Freud counted masochism among the defining characteristics of femininity, ‘an expression of feminine nature,’ as he indeed wrote toward the beginning of this 1924 essay [“The Economic Problem of Masochism”].” – Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, in Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, ed., Freud on Women: A Reader (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1990), p. 283.
 

My brainstorm is that you should make sure you discuss this claim of Freud’s, which is bound to be controversial and interesting.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 113: “The female sex, too, develops an Oedipus complex, a super-ego and a latency period. May we also attribute a phallic organization and a castration complex to it? The answer is in the affirmative; but these things cannot be the same as they are in boys. Here the feminist demand for equal rights for the sexes does not take us far, for the morphological distinction is bound to find expression in differences of psychical development. ‘Anatomy is Destiny’, to vary a saying of Napoleon’s. The little girl’s clitoris behaves just like a penis to begin with; but, when she makes a comparison with a playfellow of the other sex, she perceives that she has ‘come off badly’ and she feels this as a wrong done to her and as a ground for inferiority.” – Sigmund Freud, in Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, ed., Freud on Women: A Reader (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1990), p. 299.
 

My brainstorm here is that we have more controversial and fascinating ideas from Freud here to discuss. What makes it all the more amazing is that he’s writing in 1934, in his essay “The Dissolution of the Oedipus Complex.” He uses at least two phrases that seem very modern: “the feminist demand for equal rights” and “‘Anatomy is Destiny.’”
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 114: “I cannot evade the notion (though I hesitate to give it expression) that for women the level of what is ethically normal is different from what it is in men. Their super-ego is never so inexorable, so impersonal, so independent of its emotional origins as we require it to be in men. Character-traits which critics of every epoch have brought up against women – that they show less sense of justice than men, that they are less ready to submit to the great exigencies of life, that they are more often influenced in their judgements by feelings of affection or hostility – all these would be amply accounted for by the modification in the formation of their super-ego which we have inferred above. We must not allow ourselves to be deflected from such conclusions by the denials of the feminists, who are anxious to force us to regard the two sexes as completely equal in position and worth; but we shall, of course, willingly agree that the majority of men are also far behind the masculine ideal and that all human individuals, as a result of their bisexual disposition and of cross-inheritance, combine in themselves both masculine and feminine characteristics, so that pure masculinity and feminity remain theoretical constructions of uncertain content.” – Sigmund Freud, in Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, ed., Freud on Women: A Reader (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1990), p. 314.
 

My brainstorm here is that Freud again provides a quotable quote and a fertile ground for much discussion here.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 115: “If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” – Alexander Solzhenitsyn, quoted in Connie Zweig and Jeremiah Abrams, eds., Meeting the Shadow: The Hidden Power of the Dark Side of Human Nature (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1991), p. v.
 

My brainstorm here is that this is an especially quotable quote. Further, it may apply to your cosmopolitanism paper, too. The quote is relevant putting Solzhenitsyn on the side of mainly mixed in the debate over whether human nature is mainly good, mainly evil, or mainly mixed. Finally, the book cited above should appear in your bibliography. You might use the quote above in your discussion of Marx and the USSR, including the idea of the New Soviet Man.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 116: “People won’t do for themselves what government will do for them; that’s human nature.” – Tucker Carlson, speaking about the prescription medicine bill signed into law by President George W. Bush recently, on the TV show “Tucker Carlson Unfiltered” (PBS), broadcast 7/18/04.
 

My brainstorm here is that Carlson’s conservative view might help with a discussion of the issue of whether human nature is lazy or greedy, especially concerning politics.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 117: “Plato explicitly rejected conventional morality … and Kant’s own view here points in the same direction. … [end of p. 8]
 

Since Kant has previously said that happiness will follow from the moral perfection of humanity, whereas now it is said to be the result of a perfect constitution and its corresponding laws, we can infer that the moral perfection of humanity and, hence, the moral society will develop within the framework of the state. Thus, the thesis that the conscience within us will rule the world when the moral society is realized means not that the state will be abolished, but that it will lose its repressive character. Another conclusion that emerges is that the duty to promote the highest good encompasses the duty to realize the perfect state. This conclusion is supported by Kant’s further considerations of Plato.
 

Kant continues his criticism of the opponents of Plato with the contention that any appeal to adverse experience as a basis for claiming that visions of a perfect state have no practical value is misplaced, because such adverse experience would not have occurred in the first place if pure ideas had been used to make the laws. Kant turns the tables in similar fashion on those opponents who argue that present imperfect political institutions are the inevitable and unchangeable product of a flawed human nature. He argues that the real explanation for political imperfection is ‘the neglect of the pure ideas in the making the laws’ (ibid.). The interesting suggestion here is that what appears as a flawed human nature is itself in large measure the product of faulty political structures. This leads Kant to develop the radical claim that the more legislation and government harmonize with the idea of a perfect constitution the rarer punishment will become, and he argues that it is, therefore, rational to maintain, with Plato, that in a perfect state no punishment will be necessary. This radical claim – wrong ascribed to Plato – shows again that Kant perceptively held that certain sociopolitical conditions block moral progress. It also shows that the duty to seek the highest good includes the duty to pursue the perfect state, and, indeed, Kant asserts here that it is a duty of humanity to bring existing legal institutions as close as possible to the ideal. To what degree this can be accomplished cannot be said in advance …
 

The merit of Plato’s work, Kant proceeds to argue, is that it demonstrates that ideas originate not in empirical reality but in [end of p. 9] reason. This is of crucial importance, since ‘[n]othing is more reprehensible than to derive the laws prescribing what ought to be done from what is done, or to impose upon them the limits by which the latter is circumscribed’ (313; 259). Kant’s ethics, then, makes its own progressive nature a question of principle.” – Harry van der Linden, Kantian Ethics and Socialism (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co., 1988), pp. 8-10, emphasis added in bold.
 

My brainstorm here is that this quote seems relevant for both your human nature book and your cosmopolitan paper. A Plato/Kant team is interesting and hard to beat. Van der Linden’s remarks here seem to contradict his remarks I quoted in cosmopolitan comment 7, where he says that Kant’s politics on cosmopolitanism seem not to grow out of Kant’s ethics.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 118: “The implicit ‘realism’ of ordinary moral language, like that of the ordinary language of colour, was therefore a serious error. Hobbes indeed usually treated this error as the major difficulty in the way of a peaceful life, rather than (as is often supposed) viewing the clash of naked self-interest as the fundamental problem in human social existence.
 

The account of the passions which Hobbes gave, after all, treated them as broadly beneficial: what men feel strongly about or desire strongly is what helps them to survive and they cannot for long want a state of affairs in which their survival is endangered. Such a view was common ground between Hobbes and many of his contemporaries, including Descartes: all argued that the traditional idea that reason should control the passions was an error, and that (properly understood) our emotions would guide us in the right direction. Men, on Hobbes’s account, do not want to harm other men for the sake of harming them; they wish for power over them, it is true, but power only to secure their own preservation. The common idea that Hobbes was in some sense ‘pessimistic’ about human nature is wide of the mark, for his natural men (rather like Grotius’s) were in principle stand-offish toward one another rather than inherently belligerent.” – Richard Tuck, Hobbes: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 65, emphasis added in bold but italics are in original.
 

My brainstorm here is that contrarian Tuck is surprisingly going against the mainstream of interpreting Hobbes on two points: 1) that Hobbes thought a linguistic error of ordinary language (rather than clashing self-interest) was the major obstacle to peaceful living; and 2) that Hobbes was not in any way pessimistic about human nature. I find 1) even harder to believe than 2), but Tuck has a very respected reputation. Check to see if you are going with the flow of mainstream interpretation of Hobbes and thus run afoul of Tuck here. You might adjudicate issue 2) at least. Tuck’s quote affects how one would classify Hobbes if you classify Hobbes on the issue of whether human nature is mainly good, mainly evil or mainly mixed.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 119: “The Development of Roman Ethics
 

From what has been said above it should be clear that the Romans, quite apart from Greek philosophy, had a strong, though unsystematic, set of ethical concepts. The traditional emphasis on virtus, while rendered problematic by its link to public recognition, made Romans familiar with Stoicism receptive to the doctrine that ethical virtue is sufficient by itself to constitute the summum bonum. In Stoicism fame, wealth, and noble birth count as ‘preferable’ but as completely nonessential to human flourishing. Thus Stoic ethics could serve as a means of justifying part of the pre-philosophical values, while also providing reasons for rejecting their dependence on external success and approval. In addition, the Stoics had developed a doctrine of ‘proper functions’ (kathekonta), which served as moral rules for determining how people should act in specific circumstances. These were grounded in a ‘reasonable’ understanding of human nature from self-regarding and from other-regarding perspectives. Independently of Stoicism, the Romans had a concept that they called officium. The term, like its English derivative ‘office,’ signifies a person’s functions or roles and the conduct appropriate to the execution of these. Romans who encountered Stoicism could readily adapt the Stoic concept of ‘proper functions’ to their traditional view of propriety in the fulfillment of offices they had undertaken.
 

In his De officiis (On Duties), which has already been mentioned, Cicero seeks to do three things: first, he expounds a series of appropriate actions, grounding these in the four cardinal virtues – wisdom, temperance, courage, and justice – which are represented as the perfections of human nature. Second, he argues that genuine conflict between morality and expediency is impossible. Third, he explores and disposes of apparent conflicts of this kind.” – A. A. Long, “Roman Ethics,” in Lawrence C. Becker and Charlotte B. Becker, eds., A History of Western Ethics (New York: Garland Publishing, 1992), p. 36, emphasis added in bold but italics are in original.
 

My brainstorm here is that grounding duties in a reasonable understanding of human nature is an attempt to bridge the is/ought gap. This book has 5 pages indexed under “human nature,” and so you might include it in your bibliography.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 120: “As Stoics they take moral rules to be grounded in human nature, but it is not what they say about thes rules that is chiefly interesting, but the questions, answers, objections and illustrations they attach to these.” – A. A. Long, “Roman Ethics,” in Lawrence C. Becker and Charlotte B. Becker, eds., A History of Western Ethics (New York: Garland Publishing, 1992), p. 42.
 

My brainstorm is, again, the grounding of moral rules in human nature would be a bridge to the is/ought gap.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 121: “Marx’s professed thoroughgoing naturalism blocks any appeal to religious, metaphysical or teleological principles transcending human life; and yet the moral vision that inspires both his polemic and his advocacy of revolution requires some sort of grounding if it is to withstand critical scrutiny. The only recourse available to him for this purpose would appear to be to appeal to considerations pertaining to our fundamental human nature; but in view of his own criticisms of this notion, this recourse would not seem to be a very promising one for him.” – Richard Schacht, “Nineteenth-Century Continental Ethics,” in Lawrence C. Becker and Charlotte B. Becker, eds., A History of Western Ethics (New York: Garland Publishing, 1992), p. 112, emphasis added in bold.
 

My brainstorm is that here’s another knock on Marx you might add, suggesting he is saddled with a contradiction. This quote adds another ism to touch base with in your analysis: Marx’s naturalism.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 122: “[M]ost people remain more committed to their own ambitions than to the public interest, and ‘never do anything good except by necessity’ …” – Quentin Skinner, Machiavelli: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 76.
 

My brainstorm here is that this quote may help classify Machiavelli on issues of human nature such as the extent to which human nature verifies psychological egoism, claims that humans are by nature aggressive, and claims that human nature is mainly mixed or mainly evil or mainly good.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 123: “Civilized ages inherit the human nature which was victorious in barbarous ages, and that nature is, in many respects, not at all suited to civilized circumstances.” – Bagehot, quoted in W. H. Auden and Louis Kronenberger, eds., The Viking Book of Aphorisms: A Personal Selection (New York: Compass Books, 1966), p. 232.
 

My brainstorm here is that Bagehot seems to to be on the flexible side of the debate over whether human nature is mainly fixed or mainly flexible. Since this quote concerns barbarism and civilization, it might also serve you in your cosmopolitan paper.n
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 124: “If literature is to be made a study of human nature, you cannot have a Christian literature. It is a contradiction in terms to attempt a sinless literature of sinful man.” – Newman, quoted in W. H. Auden and Louis Kronenberger, eds., The Viking Book of Aphorisms: A Personal Selection (New York: Compass Books, 1966), p. 275.
 

My brainstorm here is that Newman seems wrong. I see no contradiction and he fails to show it. It puts him on the mainly mixed or mainly evil side of the debate over the goodness of human nature. The Newman is presumably Cardinal Newman rather than Alfred E. Newman of Mad Magazine (What, me worry?). ;o)
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 125: “Human nature is so well disposed toward those in interesting situations, that a young person who either marries or dies, is sure to be kindly spoken of.” – Jane Austen, quoted in W. H. Auden and Louis Kronenberger, eds., The Viking Book of Aphorisms: A Personal Selection (New York: Compass Books, 1966), p. 379.
 

tHIS QUOTE REMINDS  me of the famous Woody Allen quote: "Marriage is the death of hope." Here it is again, another comparison marriage with a matter of life and death (war).
 

This quote is funny in comparing war to marriage, and it has special relevance after Spain’s recent election results and its aftermath, the withdrawal of Spain from W’s Coalition of the Willing.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 126: “Everyone has a theory of human nature. Everyone has to anticipate the behavior of others, and that means we all need theories about what makes people tick. A tacit theory of human nature – that behavior is caused by thoughts and feelings – is embedded in the very way we think about people. …
 

Our theory of human nature is the wellspring of much of our lives. We consult it when we want to persuade or threaten, inform or deceive. It advises us on how to nurture our marriages, bring up our children, and control our own behavior. … Rival theories of human nature are entwined in different ways of life and different political systems, and have been a source of much conflict over the course of history.
 

For millennia, the major theories of human nature have come from religion. The Judeo-Christian tradition, for example, offers explanations for much of the subject matter now studied by biology and psychology. Humans are made in the image of God and are unrelated to animals. Women are derivative of men and destined to be ruled by them. The mind is an immaterial substance: it has powers possessed by no purely physical structure, and can continue to exist when the body dies. The mind is made up of several components, including a moral sense, an ability to love, a capacity for reason that recognizes whether an act conforms to ideals of goodness, and a decision [end of p. 1] factulty that chooses how to behave. Although the decision faculty is not bound by the laws of cause and effect, it has an innate tendency to choose sin. …
 

The Judeo-Christian conception is still the most popular theory of human nature in the United States. According to recent polls, 76 percent of Americans believe in the biblical account of creation, 79 percent believe that the miracles in the Bible actually took place, 76 percent believe in angels, the devil, and other immaterial souls, 67 percent believe they will exist in some form after their death, and only 15 percent believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on Earth. Politicians on the right embrace the religious theory explicitly, and no mainstream politician would dare contradict it in public. But the modern sciences of cosmology, geology, biology, and archaeology have made it impossible for a scientifically literate person to believe that the biblical story of creation actually took place. As a result, the Judeo-Christian theory of human nature is no longer explicitly avowed by most academics, journalists, social analysts, and other intellectually engaged people.
 

Nonetheless, every society must operate with a theory of human nature, and our intellectual mainstream is committed to antoher one. The theory is seldom articulated or overtly embraced, but it lies at the heart of a vast number of beliefs and policies. Bertran Russell wrote, ‘Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day.’” – Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (New York: Viking, 2002), pp. 1-2.
 

My brainstorm here is that this is an important book for you to read, if you have yet to do so. It has 509 pages packed with relevant ideas. It praises The Bell Curve. It has some nice jacket blurbs like “The best book on human nature that I or anyone else will ever read. Truly a magnificent job – Matt Ridley, author of Genome.” I’ve read only about 10% of the book but I’ve been impressed so far at how the author makes some good points about Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke. Philosophers are cited throughout. If you’d like to borrow this book, just let me know.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 127: “Human nature is gentleness.” – The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet, speech at the Royal Albert Hall, London, England, in Ethics for the New Millennium (New York: Mystic Fire Video, 1999).
 

My brainstorm here is that the Dalai Lama is probably being seriously overoptimistic. He rejects the idea that man is by nature more aggressive than gentle. He says in the same talk that it is important to keep an optimistic outlook, with which I generally agree. Still, there’s seems to be much aggressiveness that he doesn’t recognize. Further, I think I see a contradiction in his Buddhism, since he wants us to have: 1) compassion for all living things, yet 2) avoid attachments. I conceive of compassion as a form of attachment and hence see a contradiction here.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 128: “Our nature consists in movement; absolute rest is death.” – Blaise Pascal, Pensees (New York: Penguin Classics), p. 238, saying 641.
 

My brainstorm is that human nature seems a mixed bag here. This quote seems to go against the Dalai Lama’s suggestion that human nature is gentleness. Movement suggests more than gentle movement but some aggressiveness. Many humans are lazy. Many more take narcotic or tranquilizing drugs and so their movement is to take drugs to sedate themselves with valium, heroin, alcohol, etc. Our species seems to keep moving with science, technology and exploration but individual humans seem much more of a mixed bag.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 129: “Mitton sees quite well that nature is corrupt and that men are opposed to integrity, but he does not know why they can fly no higher.” – Blaise Pascal, Pensees (New York: Penguin Classics, 1966), p. 238, saying 642.
 

My brainstorm here is that this quote is relevant for the key issue of whether human nature is mainly good, mainly evil or mainly mixed. The quote seems to put Pascal squarely in the camp of claiming human nature is mainly evil.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 130: “This book is about the moral, emotional, and political colorings of the concept of human nature in modern life. I will retrace the history that led people to see human nature as a dangerous idea, and I will try to unsnarl the moral and political rat’s nests that have entangled the idea along the way. Though no book on human nature can hope to be uncontroversial, I did not write it to be yet another ‘explosive’ book, as dust jackets tend to say. I am not, as many people assume, countering an extreme ‘nurture’ position with an extreme ‘nature’ position, with the truth lying somewhere in between. In some cases, an extreme environmentalist explanation is correct: which language you speak is an obvious example, and differences among races and ethnic groups in test scores may be another. In other cases, such as certain inherited neurological disorders, an extreme hereditarian explanation is correct. In most cases the correct explanation will invoke a complex interaction between heredity and environment: culture is crucial, but culture could not exist without mental [end of p. viii] faculties that allow humans to create and learn culture to begin with. My goal in this book is not to argue that genes are everything and culture is nothing – no one believes that – but to explore why the extreme position (that culture is everything) is so often seen as moderate, and the moderate position is seen as extreme.” – Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (New York: Viking, 2002), pp. viii-ix.
 

My brainstorm here is that you should discuss, or discuss more, the claim that human nature is a dangerous idea. What are the dangers and how do they arise? How severe are these dangers and can we contain them reasonably well?
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 131: “Nor does acknowledging human nature have the political implications so many fear. It does not, for example, require one to abandon feminism, or to accept current levels of inequality or violence, or to treat morality as a fiction. For the most part I will try not to advocate particular policies or to advance the agenda of the political left or right. I believe that controversies about policy almost always involve tradeoffs between competing values, and that science is equipped to identify the tradeoffs but not to resolve them. Many of these tradeoffs, I will show, arise from features of human nature, and by clarifying them I hope to make our collective choices, whatever they are, better informed. If I am an advocate, it is for discoveries about human nature that have been ignored or suppressed in modern discussions of human affairs.
 

Why is it important to sort this all out? The refusal to acknowledge human nature is like the Victorians’ embarrassment about sex, only worse: it distorts our science and scholarship, our public discourse, and our day-to-day lives. Logicians tells us that a single contradiction can corrupt a set of statements and allow falsehoods to proliferate through it. The dogma that human nature does not exist, in the face of evidence from science and common sense that it does, is just such a corrupting influence.” – Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (New York: Viking, 2002), p. ix.
 

My brainstorm here is that you should say more about how the very existence of human nature is ignored or suppressed, for example in existentialism and perhaps in feminism, and then say more about how such ignorance and suppression distorts the areas Pinker mentions above. Doing this at the very start or the very end of your term paper seems to make the most sense.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 132: “The taboo on human nature has not just put blinkers on researchers but turned any discussion of it into a heresy that must be stamped out. Many writers are so desperate to discredit any suggestion of an innate human constitution that they have thrown logic and civility out the window. Elementary distinctions – ‘some’ versus ‘all,’ ‘probable’ versus ‘always,’ ‘is’ versus ‘ought’ – are eagerly flouted to paint human nature as an extremist doctrine and thereby steer readers away from it. The analysis of ideas is commonly replaced by political smears and personal attacks. This poisoning of the intellectual atmosphere has left us unequipped to analyze pressing issues about human nature just as new scientific discoveries are making them acute.
The denial of human nature has spread beyond the academy and has led to a disconnect between intellectual life and common sense. I first had the idea of writing this book when I started a collection of astonishing claims from pundits and social critics about the malleability of the human psyche: that little boys quarrel and fight because they are encouraged to do so; that children enjoy sweets because their parents use them as a reward for eating vegetables; that teenagers get the idea to compete in looks and fashion from spelling bees and academic prizes; that men think the goal of sex is an orgasm because of the way they were socialized. The problem is not just that these claims are preposterous but that the writers did not acknowledge they wre saying things that common sense might call into question. This is the mentality of a cult, in which fantastical beliefs are flaunted as proof of one’s piety. That mentality cannot coexist with an esteem for the truth, and I believe it is responsible for some of the unfortunate trends in recent intellectual life. One trend is a stated contempt among many scholars for the concepts of truth, logic, and evidence. Another is a hypocritical divide between what intellectuals say in public and what they really believe. A third is the inevitable reaction: a culture of “politically incorrect” shock jocks who revel in anti-intellectualism and bigotry, emboldened by the knowledge that the intellectual establishment has forfeited claims to credibility in the eyes of the public.” – Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (New York: Viking, 2002), p. x.
 

My brainstorm here is that this quote or a trimmed version of it would be a fine springboard for you to opine on the contemporary intellectual climate. The examples from Pinker’s collection of astounding claims about human nature are pretty humorous. Please add humor every reasonable chance you get. ;o)
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 133: “Though it is a scene [from Isaac Bashevis Singer’s Enemies, A Love Story] of considerable sadness, it has a streak of sly humor, as we watch these pathetic souls forgo their chance to savor a moment of rare good fortune and slip instead into petty quarreling. And Singer’s biggest joke is on us. Dramatic conventions, and a belief in cosmic justice, lead us to expect that suffering has ennobled these characters and that we are about to witness a scene of great drama and pathos. Instead we are shown what we ought to have expected all along: real human beings with all their follies. Nor is the episode a display of cynicism or misanthropy: we are not surprised when later in the story Herman and Tamara share moments of tenderness, or that a wise Tamara will offer him his only chance at redemption. It is a scene that has the voice of the species in it: that infuriating, endearing, mysterious, predictable, and eternally fascinating thing we call human nature.” – Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (New York: Viking, 2002), p. 435.
 

My brainstorm is that this quote is how Pinker ends his book. How can human nature be mysterious after he writes about it for 435 pages and after he concludes that it is ‘predictable’ above?
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 134: “Before this last step, namely, the joining of the states, is taken, in other words, the half-way mark of mankind’s development is reached; human nature is enduring the worst hardships under the guise of external welfare and Rousseau was not so very wrong when he preferred the condition of savages; [for it is to be preferred], provided one omits this last stage which our species will have to reach.” – Immanuel Kant, from “Idea for a Universal History with Cosmopolitan Intent,” [1784] in Carl J. Friedrich, ed., The Philosophy of Kant (New York: The Modern Library, 1949), p. 126, emphasis in bold added, words in square brackets originally in Friedrich’s edition.
 

My brainstorm here is that this quote is relevant for your human nature book and your cosmo paper. I seem to recall that you do take issue with it. I disagree with Kant here, since I would not prefer the condition of the savages even if we lacked the culmination of history for our species that Kant assumes, and Kant’s assumption is of course very improbable from a secular perspective.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 135: “Our human nature has this aspect that it cannot be indifferent to even the most remote epoch at which our species may arrive if only that epoch may be expected with certainty.” – Immanuel Kant, from “Idea for a Universal History with Cosmopolitan Intent,” [1784] in Carl J. Friedrich, ed., The Philosophy of Kant (New York: The Modern Library, 1949), p. 127, emphasis in bold added.
 

My brainstorm here is that this quote is relevant for your term paper on human nature and your paper on cosmopolitanism. Further, this quote reminds me of the Woody Allen joke about eternity and Tom Nagel’s response to that joke. The Woody Allen joke is something like: what difference does it make what shirt I wear today when I realize that an eternity of oblivion waits for me at the end of my life. Nagel’s response to thoughts like Allen’s is, as I recall, is that it doesn’t matter that it doesn’t matter. In other words, just as it doesn’t matter nearly an eternity from now what we do today, neither does it matter today what doesn’t matter nearly an eternity from now. Both are equally far apart in time and hence rendered essentially irrelevant to each other. So even the certainty Kant relies on here seems insufficient to make it matter to us now what happens in “the most remote epoch” as far as Nagel seems to imply. Never pass up a reasonable opportunity to include a joke in your term paper. You might find more accurate versions of Allen’s joke, since I’m relying on memory and couldn’t find any reference to Allen in Nagel’s Mortal Questions, What Does It All Mean? (which lacks an index) or The View from Nowhere. Nagel’s response to thoughts like Allen’s appears in the first paragraph of Ch. 10 of his What Does It All Mean? and goes on from there. The ideas Nagel discusses there seem at odds with Kant’s quote above.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 136: “You can’t change human nature” and “We’re not going to change human nature anytime soon.” It’s not that we’re not rational. We are rational. But reason has limits.” – Robert McNamara, from the film ‘The Fog of War’ (2003), which won the Academy Award for best documentary.
 

This is a fantastically great film. I highly recommend that you view it, if you haven’t seen it. Even if you have seen it, it does reward repeated viewing.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 137: “Since human nature is part of cosmic nature, the law which governs the cosmos, that of the divine Logos, provides the law to which human action ought to be conformed. At once an obvious question arises. Since human life proceeds eternally through an eternally predetermined cycle, how can human beings fail to conform to the cosmic law? What alternatives have they? The Stoic answer is that men as rational beings can become conscious of the laws to which they necessarily conform, and that virtue consists in conscious assent to, vice in dissent from, the inevitable order of things.” – Alasdair MacIntyre, A Short History of Ethics (New York: Macmillan, 1966), p. 105.
 

This book has 5 other indexed pages that discuss human nature. MacIntyre seems merely to be describing Stoicism above rather than committing himself to any view of his own on the underlying subject. Compare Joseph Campbell’s view that Buddhism morally requires us to engage in joyful participation in the sorrows of the world, which are inevitable. Campbell makes this point in his book and video series The Power of Myth.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 138: "The criticism of our desires and their rational remolding have no place in the Hobbesian system. It follows that, inevitably, our desires are for one individual object after another; and thus desires cannot include the desire for a certain kind of life, the desire that our desires should be of a certain kind.
 

Nonetheless, we owe to Hobbes a great lesson. This is that a theory of morals is inseparable from a theory of human nature. Just because Hobbes commits himself to a conception of a timeless human nature he commits himself to an unhistorical answer to the question of what had destroyed political order in England in the 1640’s, replacing it by the question of what social and political order as such consist in. … He discusses freedom of the will only in order to stress that all human acts are determined, and he discusses political freedom only within the limits allowed by the limitless power of the sovereign. … It is remarkable that Hobbes should be as impressed as he was by the fact of civil war and as unimpressed as he was by the declared and avowed aims of those who fought that war. But he was unimpressed and he was so because his theory of motives led him to suppose that high-minded ideals were necessarily but a mask for the drive to domination.” – Alasdair MacIntyre, A Short History of Ethics (New York: Macmillan, 1966), p. 139.
 

Note to students: I suggest that you add MacIntyre’s book to your bibliography. The above is a nice point he makes about Hobbes, one of philosophers featured prominently in your term paper. The point above might allow a significant link between Hobbes and Nietzsche (will to power) or Freud (death wish or unconscious aggression) regarding the drive to domination mentioned above.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 139: "'There's been a lot of changes in the league, but the only thing, to me, that hasn't changed is human nature,' Gibbs says. 'Some people are motivated by money, some people are motivated by fear, some are motivated by getting a little sugar. Some are not going to be good team people. Some are self-centered. Human nature, that's going to be part of the game plan until the Lord comes here again.'" From http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/sports/article.adp?id=20050621071709990010, posted on aol 6/21/05 @ 701am.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 140: "It is a generally accepted view that the perfect good is self-sufficient. By self-sufficient we mean not what is sufficient for oneself alone living a solitary life, but something that includes parents, wife and children, friends and fellow-citizens in general; for man is by nature a social being. ... A self-sufficient thing, then, we take to be one which by itself makes life desirable and in no way deficient; and we believe that happiness is such a thing." -- Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, translated by J.A.K. Thomson, from Aristotle, "Happiness and the Virtues," in Christina Sommers and Fred Sommers, ed., Vice and Virtue in Everyday Life, 6th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 2004), pp. 214-215.
 

Note to students: Do you agree with Aristotle that man is a social animal? Is man an antisocial animal? Can man take or leave society, making a free choice to participate in society or reject it?
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 141: "Life on this plane is not too high for the divine element in human nature. But such a life will be too high for human attainment; for any man who lives it will do so not as a human being but in virtue of something divine within him, and in proportion as this divine element is superior to the composite being, so will its activity be superior to that of the other kind of virtue." -- Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, translated by J.A.K. Thomson, from Aristotle, "Happiness and the Virtues," in Christina Sommers and Fred Sommers, ed., Vice and Virtue in Everyday Life, 6th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 2004), p. 222.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 142: "They seemed to have trusted altogether to the old familiar instruments, praise and pleasure, especially of pain, might be created, and might produce desires and aversions capable of lasting undiminished to the end of life. But there must always be something artificial and casual in association thus produced. The pains and pleasures thus forcibly associated with tings are not connected with them by any natural tie; and it is therefore I thought, essential to the durability of these associations, that they should have become so intense and inveterate as to be practically indissoluble before the habitual exercise of the power of analysis had commenced. ... Analytic habits may thus even strengthen the associations between causes and effects, means and ends, but tend altogether to weaken those which are, to speak familiarly, a mere matter of feeling. ... These were the laws of human nature, by which, as it seemed to me, I had been brought to my present state [of persistent unhappiness]." -- John Stuart Mill, Autobiography, Chapter 5, appearing as "A Crisis in My Mental Life," in Christina Sommers and Fred Sommers, ed., Vice and Virtue in Everyday Life, 6th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 2004), p. 407.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 143: "The limitations and restraints of civil government, and a legal
constitution, may be defended either from reason, which reflecting on the great frailty and corruption of human nature, teaches that no man can be trusted with unlimited authority; or from experience and history, which inform us of the enormous abuses that ambition, in every age and country, has been found to make of so imprudent a confidence." -- David Hume, 1748
 

Note to students: This is relevant to the issue of whether human nature is basically good, basically bad, or basically a mixed bag. Hume seems to agree generally with the negative views of human nature by Machiavelli and Kant, though Hume seems to avoid being as negative as those two great thinkers.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 144: "As opposed to knowledge concerning nature, the validity of laws has no a priori guarantee in the realm of praxis. On the contrary, here [in Immanuel Kant's ethics] we only find imperatives to which we ought to adhere in so far as we understand ourselves as rational beings, but which human nature does not readily obey by itself as it vacillates between sensory impulses and rational determination. Only the 'holy will' of a god that acts solely from reason would be above the moral 'ought' and the obliging aspect of rational motivation." ~ Rudiger Bubner, Introduction, German Idealist Philosophy (New York: Penguin Books, 1997), p. 8.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 145: "Kant set forth the thesis that while human nature in our species has remained constant over time, humanity has made process [sic, progress] through its moral institutions." ~ Louis P. Pojman, Terrorism, Human Rights, and the Case for World Government (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2006), p. 62.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 146: "Human nature is ambiguous and very complicated, so that utopian community of peace and plenty will continue to remain a long-term goal. We will probably always need law and government to enforce the law. But we would come closer to universal peace and justice if we all become world citizens instead of merely Americans, Russians, Mexicans, Canadians, British, French, or Chinese." ~ Louis P. Pojman, Terrorism, Human Rights, and the Case for World Government (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006), p. 56.
 

Note to students: Do you agree with Dr. Pojman that we should become citizens of the world rather than "merely Americans" etc.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 147: "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Who can know it?" ~ Jeremiah 17:9 (Jeremiah, chapter 17, verse 9, Old Testament Bible, King James Version).
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 148: "So our moral reactions in this domain have two facets, as it were. On one side, they are almost like instincts, comparable to our love of sweet things, or our aversion to nauseous substances, or our fear of falling; on the other, they seem to involve claims, implicit or explicit, about the nature and status of human beings. From this second side, a moral reaction is an assent to, an affirmation of, a given ontology of the human.
An important strand of modern naturalist consciousness has tried to hive this second side off and declare it dispensable or irrelevant to morality. The motives are multiple: partly distrust of all such ontological accounts because of the use to which some of them have been put, e.g., justifying restrictions or exclusions of heretics or allegedly lower beings. And this distrust is strenthened where a prmimitivist sense that unspoiled human nature respects life by instinct reigns. But it is partly also the great epistemological cloud under which all such accounts lie for those who have followed empiricist or rationalist theories of knowledge, inspired by the success of modern natural science." Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (Princeton University Press, 1989), p. 5.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 149: “No distinct part of the soul has been allotted by philosophical theory to the mastery of languages. A relevant philosophy here is that of Vico, whose ‘New Science’ of philosophy, as he conceived it, was the historical study of human nature, and of human knowledge, largely through the development of language in individual minds and in history. This historical study of human nature and knowledge was designed to replace the dominant Cartesian study of human knowledge by inquiry into the rational foundations of knowledge, foundations that do not come to be and pass away, as the forms of language do. … In short, philology embraced the whole of the humanities, as conceived in a contemporary university; and Vico argued against Descartes that these historical studies could provide a greater certainty than is possible in the natural sciences.
Vico’s theory of knowledge takes historical knowledge as the paradigm of secure knowledge rather than mathematics and the natural sciences. Vico’s principle of ranking is the verum factum principle: truth resides in what we have made. God made the natural world, and he possess the certain truth about it, but we do not and will not. Human beings made their own history and their own cultures, and they can recapture, and represent to themselves, exactly what they made. In developing this epistemology, Vico puts alongside the faculty of intellect the faculty of imagination, which Descartes and Spinoza had made the typical source of illusion and error.” – Stuart Hampshire, Innocence and Experience (Harvard University Press, 1989), p. 45.
 

Note to students: My brainstorm here is that your term paper would profit from more mention of the Vico/Descartes debate over epistemology (and history versus math as the paradigm of knowledge). My other brainstorm here is that you should discuss history a bit more or a bit more prominently, by quoting what seems to be a flaw in human nature: our tendency to fail to learn from history. Quote George Santayana’s “Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it” and I like to paraphrase Hegel’s long quote about history in Bartlett’s familiar quotations as “We learn from history that we don’t learn from history.”
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 150: "Human beings do not only exist but are also capable of conscious rumination about existence -- which constitutes both our dignity and misery. Once a crack starts to open up in a life which runs along the tracks of custom, the dark abyss begins to threaten our existence. Human beings are not sufficiently cunning to be able to conceal their true selves to the end; nor are they strong enough to endure such darkness." ~ Tetsuaki Kotoh, "Language and Silence: Self-Inquiry in Heidegger and Zen," in Graham Parkes, ed., Heidegger and Asian Thought (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1987), p. 202.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 151: "The sympathy and frustration shown by Miki towards Heidegger's philosophy were expressed in an amplified fashion in the response that the ounger Japanese generation showed towards the political and social situation after the defeat in the war. That is, on the one hand they were interested in the nonrational anxiety fundamentally inherent in human nature. On the other hand, they took the attitude of discovering a challenge in the political situation where people's lives were oppressed. A truly human way of life lies in the pursuit of actual truth (shinjitsu) in both one's inner and outer world. Therein we can find a reason why Sartre's claim that 'existentialism is a humanism' gained explosive poularity after the war [World War II]. Although this sort of response was a tendency common to the advanced nations of Europe and America, after the seventies Sartre's popularity dwindled. This is not because we have found an answer. It simply means that the crisis has become chronic. We probably cannot expect an answer from politics." ~ Yasuo Yuasa, "Modern Japanese Philosophy and Heidegger," in Graham Parkes, ed., Heidegger and Asian Thought (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1987), p. 163.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 152: "The fundamental goal of Heidegger's philospohy was to open up this kind of new horizon. Consequently, the goal for the path of his thinking, if seen in light of the turn from the earlier period to the later period, was to stand on the horizon that overcomes the Christian tradition in which man had been grasped as 'the image of God,' and in terms of the recognition of 'the superiority of man over nature.' Moreover, Heidegger senses that the thinking pattern of 'man as superior in nature' had already begun surfacing in Plato and Aristotle, wherein we can probably find the reason why his concern shifted to the Presocratic Greeks." ~ Yasua Yuasa, "Modern Japanese Philosophy and Heidegger," in Graham Parkes, ed., Heidegger and Asian Thought (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1987), pp. 173-174.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 153: "I do not think there are any plain moral facts out there in the world, nor any truths independent of language, nor any neutral ground on which to stand and argue that either torture or kindness are preferable to the other. So I want to offer a different reading of Orwell. ... In the view of 1984 that I am offering, rwell has no answer to O'Brien, and is not interested in giving one. Like Nietzsche, O'Brien regards the whole idea of being 'answerd,' of exchanging ideas, of reasoning together, as a symptom of weakness ... [Orwell]does not view O'Brien as crazy, misguided, seduced by a mistaken theory, or blind to the moral facts. ... I take Orsell's claim that there is no such thing as inner freedom, no such thing as an 'autonomous individual,' to be the one made by historicist, including Marxist, critics of 'liberal individualism.' This is that there is nothing deep inside each of us, no common human nature, no built-in human solidarity, to use as a moral reference point. There is nothing to people except what has been socialized into them." ~ Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity (Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 176-177.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 154: "The problem is that [Baron d'] Holdbach needs the reductive view as much as he needs morality. His whole strategy against relgion and traditional metaphysics depends on denying the supposed qualitative distinction between human desire and the brute movements of inanimate nature, which are outside the purview of judgements of right. And yet he needs just as much a certain horizon of moral understanding, if this picture of suffering and desiring human nature is going to move us to benevolent action -- to relieving the pain, righting the inustice, rearing the fabric of felicity -- as a noble cause, one that lays a claim on us as humans." ~ Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (Princeton University Press, 1989), p. 333.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 155: "... Hume has in any case an a priori reason for disbelieving in God's moral attributes. On his moral theory, moral attributes are derived from human nature, and only make sense in relation to it -- our ideas of moral goodness are necessarily ideas of human goodness, and could not conceivably be applied to a non-human, infinite being. Indeed, in a letter to Francis Hutcheson, with whose moral theory his own had much in common, he criticises him for inconsistency in supposing that moral attributes could be applied to the Deity." ~ Bernard Williams, The Sense of the Past: Essays in the History of Philosophy, (Princeton University Press, 2006) p. 272.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 156: "There is a great uniformity among the actions of men, in all nations and ages, and that human nature remains still the same, in its principles and operations. The same events follow from the same causes. Ambition, avarice, self-love, vanity, friendship, generosity, public spirit; these passions, mixed in various degrees, and distributed through society, have been, from the beginning of the world, and still are, the source of all the actions and enterprises which have ever been observed among mankind. ... [History's] chief use is only to discover the constant and universal principles of human nature, by showing men in all varieties of circumstances and situations, and furnishing us with materials, from which we may form our observations, and become acquainted with the regular springs of human action and behavior." ~ David Hume, Essays, Moral, Political and Literary, quoted in Louis P. Pojman, Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, 2nd ed. (Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1995), p. 40.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 157: "For Hobbes [British philosopher Thomas Hobbes 1588-1679] every act we perform, though ostensibly kind or altruistic, is actually self-serving. Thus my donation to chairty is actually a means of enjoying my power. An accurate account of human action, including morality, must, he argues, acknowledge our essential selfishness. In Leviathan he wonders how we might behave in a state of nature before the formation of any government. He recognizes that we are essentially equal, mentally and physically: even the weakest -- suitably -- has the strength to kill the strongest." ~ Raymond Wacks, Philosophy of Law: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 6.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 158: "Hume [Scottish philosopher David Hume 1711-1776] sought to show that facts about the world or human nature cannot be used to determine what ought [emphasis on 'ought' in original] to be done or not done." ~ Raymond Wacks, Philosophy of Law: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 10.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 159: "For Aquinas [St. Thomas Aquinas, Catholic theologian and philosopher, 1225-1274], to discover what is morally right is to ask, not what is in accordance with human nature, but what is reasonable [emphasis in original on 'reasonable']." ~ Raymond Wacks, Philosophy of Law: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 17.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 160: "[Myron Magnet:] The reason we have society is that, as [Thomas] Jefferson put it, it's a great reflection on human nature: that if men really could live together in harmony without government, without social order, they would have been doing it for all these milennia that there have been men. It was, finally, a very fundamental error that the hippies and those around them made in the 60s: if we would all just live naturally, everything would be fine. [Peter Coyote, narrator:] Along with its holier-than-thou self-image, the movement was losing its heroes. On April 17, 1970, Paul McCartney announced that the Beatles, the band that helped bring hippie values to the world, was calling it quits." ~ from "Hippies," The History Channel, (c) 2007 A&E Television Networks.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 161: "[T]he notion of a moral consensus, based on a common human nature, underlies all of Dewey's writings about ethics." ~ Martin Gardner, The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener (Quill, 1983), p. 92.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 162: "Are there standards in ethics, norms for right and wrong, that apply everywhere, at all times and places, because they derive from the needs of a common human nature? This question, clearly more important than the previous chapter's question about aesthetic standards, is intimately connected with difficult problems over which philosophers are as much divided today as they were in ancient times. Nevertheless, I believe the answer is yes ..." ~ Martin Gardner, The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener (Quill, 1983), p. 85.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 163: "Suppose a nihilist wants to trigger a nuclear holocaust that will destroy humanity. You try to reason with him. He insists tha the human race is not worth preserving, that it should go the way of the dinosaurs, that the universe would be better off if the human race were to vanish. Is it not obvious that there is no way to confront him with scientific evidence that will refute his belief, or with any rational arguments he will find persuasive? In this sense the emotivists are clearly right. A disciple of Dewey can only insist that anyone holding a belief so contrary to human nature must be mad." ~ Martin Gardner, The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener (Quill, 1983), p. 93.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 164: "Though I sympathize with the postmodern rejection of essentialist theories of human nature, I do not agree that there is nothing beyond mere historically conditioned, relatively pervasive human traits. The truth lies somewhere in between. While conceptions of human nature are too often overgeneralizations made on the basis of one's situated experience, one needn't reject the very possibility of finding sufficiently general human characteristics and experiences. Since there are such sufficiently general characteristics and experiences, we need not reject conceptions of human nature as providing a foundation for morality, though we do need to examine such conceptions." ~ Rita Catherine Manning, Speaking from the Heart (Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1992), pp. 65-66.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 165: "Conceptions of human nature generate a picture of the good life. The good life involves overcoming human nature, liberating human nature, or a combination of both: overcoming what is base and liberating what is pure. In this way, conceptions of human nature inform morality." ~ Rita Catherine Manning, Speaking from the Heart (Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1992), p. 66.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 166: "Many have argued that liberal ethical theories and political philosophies have assumed an unflattering and inaccurate picture of human nature. [Karl] Marx, for example, criticizes the 'individualistic monad' lurking behind defenses of rights." ~ Rita Catherine Manning, Speaking from the Heart (Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1992), p. 66.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 167: "Human nature is good." ~ Mencius, quoted in Leslie Stevenson, ed., The Study of Human Nature, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 23.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 168: "Ancient Chinese thought seems to have been more human centered and less obviously religious than that of the Middle East or India. The widsom of Confucius (551-479 B.C.E) as recorded or interpreted in the 'Analects,' consists mostly of practical precepts about human relations, ethics, and politics, with only a little about underlying human nature, or about the metaphysical background mysteriously called 'Heaven.'" ~ Leslie Stevenson, in Leslie Stevenson, ed., The Study of Human Nature, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 22.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 169: "I could not publish this book [Sociobiology: The New Synthesis] without including humans. After all, we are, no matter how highly evolved we are, animals. And we have remarkable similarities in many ways to our closest living relatives, the monkies and the apes. What I didn't realize at the time was this is a no-no because most of the social scientists had already come to an agreement -- incorrect, as it turns out -- that the human brain is a blank slate, that human behavior including social behavior is determined by the accidents of cultural evolution and by learning alone and that there was no such thing for the most part as human nature, that instincts do not exist except in the most basic, primitive manner, and the human brain is absolutely unique in this respect. That was the dogma." ~ Edward O. Wilson, interviewed in "Lord of the Ants," Nova (PBS), original air date May 20, 2008.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 170: "Back in the '70s the received wisdom was that human behavior was a product of how we were reared, a purely environmental phenomenon. To suggest it was in some way genetically programmed was heresy." ~ Narrator, "Lord of the Ants," Nova (PBS), original air date May 20, 2008.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 171: "Cannibalism, abhorrent and appalling, seems beyond comprehension. And yet cannibalism is now, and always has been, a part of human nature. It lurks in that dark corner of humanity marked ‘unexplained.’" ~ Bill Kurtis, narrator, "Cannibals," The Unexplained, Biography Channel, original air date 1/23/1997.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 172: "It is human nature to reserve a special dislike for those whose lives are a rebuke to our own." ~ Roger Ebert, "Pundits Go Astray Taking Aim At JFK," Universal Press Syndicate, January 15, 1992, reprinted in JfK: The Documented Screenplay (Applause Books, 1992), pp. 419-421, p. 420.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 173: "The picture of human nature in No Country for Old Men is by contrast so bleak I wonder if it must provide for some a reassuring explanation for our defeatism and apathy in the face of atrocity." ~ Jonathan Rosenbaum, "All the Pretty Carnage," Chicago Reader, 11/8/2007, http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/moviereviews/2007/071108/, last visited 8/10/08.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 174: “[A]ll practical suggestions about how we ought to live, depend on some belief about what human nature is like.” ~ Mary Midgley, Beast and Man: The Roots of Human Nature(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1978), p. 166.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 175: "Man's natural feelings and dispositions are the root of government and the source of rules of proper conduct ([in Chinese:] li) and music. Therefore as we investigate the matter, we find that rules of proper conduct are employed to check the excesses of dispositions and feelings and that music is used to regulate them. In man's natural dispositions there are qualities of humbleness, modesty, deference, and compliance. In men's natural feelings there are the qualities of likes and dislikes , pleasure and anger, and sorrow and joy. Hence music has been created to enable their feeling of reverence to be expressed everywhere. Natural dispositions and natural feelings are therefore the reason why systems of rules of proper conduct and music have been created." ~ Wang Chung (27-100? A.D.), On Original Nature, quoted in Wing-tsit Chan, trans., A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1963), p. 293.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 176: "What I call Externalism, as the term suggests, construes the connection between morality and human nature as essentially an external affair. On this view, morality is in some sense alien to human nature. The very existence of morality, consequently, points to certain problematic aspects of man's basic motivation structure. As opposed to this view, what I call Internalism construes the connection as an intimate and internal one. On this view, morality is in some sense inherent in human nature. More fully, there are in man's basic nature certain feelings and dispositions, which, if unimpeded in their expression and development, will attain fulfillment in human conduct." ~ A. S. Cua, "Morality and Human Nature," Philosophy East and West: A Quarterly of Asian and Comparative Thought, Vol. XXXII, No. 3 (July 1982), p. 280.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 177: "[E]xactly what Mencius means by his theory of human nature is not clear. Many different views on his theory have been offered and, in addition, the theory itself has been translated in many different versions, each version having different nuances and even different meanings. The theory is said to be:
a. that man is by nature good, or
b. that human nature is good, or
c. that human nature is originally/naturally good, or
d. that all men have good nature." ~ Philip Ho Hwang, "What is Mencius' Theory of Human Nature," Philosophy East and West: A Quarterly of Asian and Comparative Thought, Vol. XXIX, No. 2 (April 1979), p. 201.
 

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 178: "How could there be so much evil in the world? Knowing humanity, I wonder why there is not more of it." ~ Woody Allen, from 'Hannah and Her Sisters,' a feature film from 1986.


HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 179: “It’s not simply … outdated metaphysics if the Church speaks of the nature of the human person as a man and a woman, and asks that this order of creation be respected.” ~ Pope Benedict XVI, December 22, 2008, quoted in The London Times and on Special Report with Brit Hume, Fox News Channel, 12/23/2008.


HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 180: “Like many stories of modern behavioral science, this one begins with Margaret Mead.  Mead was one of the greatest of all social scientists … [S]he could have been cited, for instance, for her almost single-handed formulation of our present, flexible concept of human nature … [S]he established a concept of human differences as more flexible, more malleable, more buffeted by the winds of life experience – as delivered by our very different cultures – than anybody had then thought possible.  And this concept has stood the test of tie.” ~ Melvin Konner, The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit, (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1982), p. 107.


HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 181: “The purpose of a man is to love a woman and the purpose of a woman is love a man.”~ from "Game of Love" by Wayne Fontana & the Minders © 1965.


HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 182: “Well, I, I think that it would be a little ridiculous for me to say that I don’t care what people think.  I think it’s, it’s human nature to care what others think.” ~ Jenna Jameson, porn star, actress and author, interviewed by William Shatner on Shatner’s Raw Nerve, first aired 2/24/2009.


HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 183: “People talk about The Holocaust as the greatest example of inhumane times.  But my guess is even at Auschwitz people were telling jokes, as they were.  It’s human nature to find light in darkness somehow.” ~ Jon Stewart, from “Jon Stewart,” Biography, first aired 11/7/2007.


HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 184: “Our human nature is to push into places that we don’t know about.” ~ from “Extreme Cave Diving,” Nova, National Geographic Channel (NGC), first aired 2/9/2010.


HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 185: “It is the nature of man, Athenians said, to take power wherever he can.  The strong do what they like and the weak accept what they have to accept.” ~ Bettany Hughes, from Athens: The Dawn of Democracy, first aired 11/19/2007, Public Broadcasting System (PBS), Lion Television © 2007.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 186: “The normalcy bias causes smart people to underestimate the possibility of a disaster and its effects.  In short: People believe that since something has never happened before … it never will.  We are all guilty of it … it’s just human nature.” ~ Porter Stansberry, http://www.stansberryresearch.com/pro/1011PSIENDVD/OPSIM205/PR , retrieved 2/14/11.


HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 187: "[C]onservative intellectuals actually are more in touch with human nature.  They have a more accurate view of human nature.  We need structure.  We need families.  We need groups.  It's OK to have memberships and rivalries.  All that stuff is OK so long as it doesn't cross the threshold into Manicheism.  So I think it would be very difficult to run a good society without resting much on loyalty, authority and sanctity.  I think you need to use those. . . . You have to have consequences following bad behavior.  That is as basic an aspect of system design as any.  And that's one where conservatives see it much more clearly than liberals." ~ Jonathan Haidt, social psychologist interviewed by Bill Moyers, Moyers & Company, PBS-TV, first aired 2/3/2012.


HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 188: “All salesmen are psychologists.  They have to be.  They have to know human nature in order to sell.” ~ Roger Moore, actor playing The Saint, “The Man Who Liked Toys,” The Saint, first aired 11/26/1964.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 189: "When you're a player and you know you can go to a facility that you are comfortable with and you're going to get a lot of work done, you just have a tendency to have a better attitude. It's just human nature. You know, if you guys go to a place at work and it's cold and it's dingy and it's awful, you don't want to get there until you have to be there. You go to a place that's just comfortable and beautiful and everything is convenient, you go early, you get more done, you feel better about yourself. And attitude has a lot to do with these things." ~ Dave Johnson, sportscaster, Wall to Wall Baseball, first aired 2/21/2015.


HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 190: “We are by nature explorers and so of course we we’ll go to Mars.” ~ Chris Hadfield, astronaut, from “Race to the Red Planet,” Mars: The Secret Science, first aired 11/14/2016, Science Channel, Channel 284 on DirecTV.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 191: “[A] lot of our research has shown that people often have wrong intuitions about their own behavior – they can say one things and do another.” ~ Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions, revised and expanded edition (New York: HarperCollins Publishers), p.253.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 192: “[H]uman beings tend to focus on short-term benefits and our own immediate needs …” ~ Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions, revised and expanded edition (New York: HarperCollins Publishers), p.256.


HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 193: “[Some] confirmed something that we suspected about human nature, given a simple setup and a clear goal (in this case, to make money), all of us are quite adept at pursuing the source of our satisfaction.” ~ Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions, revised and expanded edition (New York: HarperCollins Publishers), p.189.


HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 194: “[B]y our very nature, we are wired to compare.” ~ Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions, revised and expanded edition (New York: HarperCollins Publishers), p.16.


HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 195: “Tom [Sawyer] had discovered a great law of human action, namely, that in order to make a man covet a thing, it is only necessary to make the thing difficult to attain.” ~ Mark Twain, quoted in Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions, revised and expanded edition (New York: HarperCollins Publishers), p.27.


HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 196: “[T]o the extent that we all believe in human rationality, we are all economists. I don’t mean that each of us can intuitively develop complex game-theoretical models or understand the generalized axiom of revealed preference (GARP); rather, I mean that the basic beliefs about human nature on which economics is built.” ~ Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions, revised and expanded edition (New York: HarperCollins Publishers), p.xix.


HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 197: “[W]hen I refer to the rational economic model, I refer to the basic assumption that most economists and many of us hold about human nature – the simple and compelling idea that we are capable of making the right decisions ourselves.”~ Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions, revised and expanded edition (New York: HarperCollins Publishers), p. xix.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 198: “Throughout this book I have described experiments that I hoped would be surprising and illuminating. If they were, it was largely because they refuted the common assumption that we are all fundamentally rational. Time and again I have provided examples that are contrary to Shakespeare’s depiction of us in ‘What a piece of work is man.’ In fact, these examples show that we are not noble in reason, not infinite in faculty, and rather weak in apprehension. (Frankly, I think Shakespeare knew that very well, and this speech of Hamlet’s is not without irony.)”~ Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions, revised and expanded edition (New York: HarperCollins Publishers), p. 310.


HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 199: “We all tend to see virtues in other people that we think we ourselves possess. That’s human nature.” ~ Jon Meacham, Morning Joe, MSNBC, first aired 12/13/16.


HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 200: “Joe, this whole thing is such an interesting exercise in human nature, and how people react. Donald Trump has used twitter the way no one has ever used it. He’s an expert in social media, a marketing genius. But in the last 5 to 6 weeks you can make a strong case that he has turned twitter against himself. There are three elements – you can look at any variety store in America – three elements of human nature that people repel against:  braggarts, bullies and BS artists. And his twitter, his twitter schemes, you know, multiple times a day, fall into each of those three categories many of them. That’s a huge, I think, answer to why his poll numbers are just plummeting.” ~ Mike Barnacle, Morning Joe, first aired January 18, 2017.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 201. “These people are human beings. They’ve been accused of something. The natural human response … will be to defend themselves …” ~ Gen. Michael V. Hayden, former CIA Director, Morning Joe, MSNBC, first aired 3/6/2017.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 202. “Imagine being a child and all of a sudden you’re in a situation where you can do whatever you want and nobody’s gonna to say much. I’m going to act like an adult. I think I’ll drink, and smoke, and swear. That’s human nature, for the most part.” ~ David Marks, one of the original members of The Beach Boys, from “Dennis Wilson,” Autopsy: The Last Hours of …, first aired 3/18/2017.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 203. "[T]he most endlessly fascinating topic that all of us witness each and every day ... is human nature." ~ Mike Barnacle, Morning Joe, MSNBC, first aired 4/10/2017.


HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 204. “Human nature [is] thinking … because he [Steve Bannon] created the presidency [of Donald Trump] it’s now his job and he has the authority to mold and manipulate the presidency.” ~ Mike Barnacle, Morning Joe, MSNBC, first aired 4/10/2017.


HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 205. “The concept of law, it has been observed, sprang from an innate sentiment for justice within the human heart. This is a great truth. So implanted in human nature is the distinction between right and wrong that persons whose own conduct is less than satisfactory are invariably insistent that all others behave ethically. In the unchanging moral sentiments of the human heart the penal laws of all nations are anchored.” ~ Bernard Lande Cohen, Law without Order: Capital Punishment and the Liberals (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1970), p. 15.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 206. “A cardinal rule of Washington [D.C.], and sort of a cardinal rule of human nature, is you do not eclipse the person whom you are supposed to be serving.” ~ Frank Bruni, New York Times columnist, Morning Joe, MSNBC, April 17, 2017.

HUMAN NATURE QUOTE 207. “Rationalism claims in support of reason that reason is universal in all human beings; that reason is the most important element in human nature; that reason is the only means to certainty in knowledge; [and] that reason is the only way to determine what is morally right and good and what constitutes a good society.” ~ T. Z. Lavine, From Socrates to Sartre (New York: Bantam Books, 1984), p. 93.

208. “Part Two [of my book] is an account of the sourced of the moral sentiments – human nature, family experiences, gender, and culture. The reader is no doubt quite prepared to encounter chapters on family and culture, but may be surprised to find ones on biology and gender. He shouldn’t be. We already know that criminality is importantly influenced by biological factors, including sex; it stands to reason that noncriminality should be influenced by such factors as well. To believe otherwise is to believe that law-abidingness is wholly learned, while criminality is a quasi-biological interruption of that acquired disposition. That is, to say the least, rather implausible.” James Q. Wilson, The Moral Sense (The Free Press, 1993), p. xiv.
 

Note to students: Here’s my brainstorming on this quote. Think more about criminality and human nature. Since human nature includes two biological genders, and since there are so many more males than females in prison, a question of any difference in criminal human nature along gender lines is raised by these statistics. Of course, this is at least somewhat arbitrary, since what counts as a crime or not is at least often socially determined. For example, without Roe v. Wade -- the 1973 Supreme Court case that could have been decided differently -- America could have continued to make most abortions crimes, in which case most of the 1.5 million abortions a year could be cited by some as evidence of some tendency toward criminality in women (and all abortionists of either gender), even if only a small fraction of those 1.5 million a year would break a law against abortion. A small fraction of 1.5 million abortions per year -- 2% -- would surpass by 10,000 the approximately 20,000 murders committed each year in America.
 

Further, consider Anne Fausto-Sterling's point that some believe there are 3 to 5 sexes, distinguishing anatomical features from genetic features and allow for hermaphrodites with some mix of both male and female anatomical features.

209. "The deepest principle in human nature is the craving to be appreciated. " -William James, quoted by Julia Pitt, “Steps to Success: The Value of Appreciation,” The Royal Gazette, published May 7, 2013.


210. “It’s a natural state for any man to want to live free in their own country.” ~ Keira Knightley, actress, from the film King Arthur (2004).


211. "[The goal] of society should be to encourage people to live rather than to make it easier for them to die. Our ability to overcome medical or emotional adversity is immeasurably enhanced if society's ethic is that we should try to carry on, that our courage in not giving up will give others courage when a crisis hits them. Given the underside of human nature, we will have all too many cases where relatives will want to hasten the end for selfish reasons." Malcom Forbes Jr., Tycoon, "Encouraging the Living to Live," Forbes Magazine, Vol. 157, 4/22/96, p. 24.


212. “When you’re going on a year-to-year basis after a while, I mean, human nature, at a point, you kind of get, I guess, clocked out a little bit sometimes because you don’t know, you don’t know if you’re going to be here or not.” ~ Chris Thompson, Running Back, Washington Redskins, interviewed by J. P. Findlay, Redskins Training Camp Daily, Ch. 642 DirecTV NSWAHD, first aired 7/30/2018.

213. “And these jurors have taken an oath and the process assumes they are fulfilling their oath by not looking at news coverage. But we got to wonder is that really human nature in the world of smart phones for them to see none of this avalanche of coverage about this trial.” ~ Ken Dilanian, MSNBC National Security Reporter, MSNBC Live with Stephanie Ruhle, 8/20/18.

214. “Historians will show how this [the rise of Nazism] happened and perhaps even try to explain why it happened. The philosophical interest is also a historical interest: for instance, in the replacement of the idea of justice by the idea of liberty as the dominant concept in political morality during the nineteenth century, not only among Hegelians and Marxists, but also among liberals and radicals. The identification, or at least association, of improvement and progress with the extension of liberty persisted from Rousseau and the Jacobins through J. S. Mill up to the present day, and it is conspicuous again in Rawls’s A Theory of Justice. Liberty, like happiness and the pursuit of happiness, is a positive ideal, while justice is a negative ideal. To recommend practices and institutions in proportion as they remove barriers to the freedom of individuals is to aim at a positive good. The aim is one of enlightened improvement in harmony with those human desires which can be assumed to be almost universal. We think of justice as a restraint upon those desires: the desire for a greater share of rewards, the desire for dominance. It is the denial of pleonexia, as Plato wrote, of getting more than is due, of unmeasured ambi- [end of p. 71] tion, of over-reaching, and of self-assertion without limit. When justice needs to be enforced and is enforced, the scene is not one of harmony; some ambitions are frustrated. A barrier is erected; an impossibility declared.” – Stuart Hampshire, Innocence and Experience (Harvard University Press, 1989), pp. 71-72.
 

Dr. Harwood’s Note: My brainstorm here is that you can use some of this to help thinking about free will and to broaden the discussion to include political freedom. There seems to be something in human nature that craves freedom. Hampshire’s contrasting of liberty with justice here is interesting. Human nature also seems to crave justice, in the form of revenge, for example.
 

Think of the new series by Oxford University Press on the vices. Simon Blackburn wrote a book in the series, a book on lust. So, another aspect of human nature to discuss are other cravings such as lust, gluttony, greed or avarice, etc.

215. “Hume, in common with other British moralists of his century, envisages both an actual and a desirable convergence of all humanity on shared moral sentiments, admitting local varieties around a common center. He is not greatly interested in the specific virtues attached to specific social roles and functions. In this respect he is to be ranked with Kant as sharing the Enlightenment programme: that humanity should be united across all barriers of social status and origin in shared moral concerns and values. Benevolence and a capacity for sympathy were to be the primary virtues and they were appropriate in every rank of society and to every office and function.
The arguments of this book [Hampshire’s Innocence and Experience] are throughout directed against this Enlightenment conception of a single substantial morality, including a conception of the good and of human virtue, as being the bond that unites humanity in universal sentiments or in universal moral beliefs. Humanity is united in the recognition of the great evils which render life scarcely bearable, and which under-determine any specific way of life and any specific conception of the good and of the essential virtues. The glory of humanity is in the diversity and originality of its positive aspirations and dif- [end of p. 107] ferent ways of life, and the only universal and positive moral requirement is the application of procedural justice and fairness to the handling of moral conflicts between them.” – Stuart Hampshire, Innocence and Experience(Harvard University Press, 1989), pp. 107-108.
 

Dr. Harwood’s Note: My brainstorm here is that you might combine many thoughts into a section called ‘The Enlightenment Conception of Human Nature.’ Further, you would usefully discuss more whether human nature implies any single substantive morality or any conception of the good or of human nature, and whether any of these things could serve as a bond uniting humanity.


216. “Contrary to the simple-minded historical relativism traceable to Hegel’s influence, the problem in moral philosophy of combining consistency in theory and fidelity to known facts about human nature remains much the same; the problems have not greatly changed in the changing social conditions. Past theories and their critics have revealed blind alleys, and we can stand on the shoulders of the moral philosophers of the past and try to come closer both to the facts of human nature and to new social conditions. But one could sit in the same room with Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle, Montaigne, Hobbes, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Hume, Kant, Burke, Mill, and Tocqueville, and one could read a paper on procedural justice to this gathering. In the discussion that followed it would be clear that everyone present was talking about the same subject, and that it was certainly not a subject sustained only by a university syllabus. The discussion would touch on the perennial topics of the underpinnings and origins of justice, of the universal and conventional elements in justice, and of the relation of private to public morality.” – Stuart Hampshire, Innocence and Experience (Harvard University Press, 1989), p. 157.
 

Dr. Harwood’s Note: My brainstorm here is that W. B. Gallie’s distinction between concepts and conceptions applies usefully here, and that it solves some of the relativism traceable to pages 100-101 in the original edition of Thomas S. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, circa 1962).
 

Additionally, if the subject is not sustained only by a university syllabus, what does sustain it? Is it something in human nature itself that sustains it? Is some part of human nature riveted to the idea of justice and the application of ideas of justice? Are we by our natures advocates of justice or avengers of injustice?


217. “No one is just anything.” ~ from the film The Wages of Sin (19??***).


218. “And the wisdom of his [Confucius’s] refusal to define jen is simply this – that a human being is always greater than anything he can say about himself and anything that he can think about himself. If we formulate ideas about our own nature, about how our own minds and emotions work, those ideas are always going to be qualitatively inferior – that is to say, far less complicated, far less alive than the actual author of those ideas themselves. And that is us.” ~ Alan Watts, from the film Man and Nature(1960).

 

219. “At least since Hobbes’s Leviathan, political philosophers have used the device of the device of the social contract to pick out a set of shared beliefs, or of shared purposes, actual and possible, which can form a consensual meeting-Harmony and ground for all citizens, whatever the other differences between them are. The hankering after some kind of consensus, which persists in Rawls’s theory, is both nat- [end of p. 188] tural and very strong. It is assumed that there cannot be social stability within nations, and – now perhaps more urgent – peace between nations, unless an implicit consensus is first discovered and then is made explicit and reinforced. The assumption has been that, from the moral point of view, the bedrock of human nature is to be found in self-evident and unavoidable beliefs. But after every attempt the alleged unavoidable beliefs are shown to be either vacuous or, if substantial, dubious, and at least very far from being unavoidable.
 

We should look in society not for consensus, but for ineliminable and acceptable conflicts, and for rationally controlled hostilities, as the normal condition of mankind; not only normal, but also the best condition of mankind from the moral point of view, both between states and within states. This was Heraclitus’s vision: that life, and liveliness, within the soul and within society, consists in perpetual conflicts between rival impulses and ideals, and that justice presides over the hostilities and finds sufficient compromises to prevent madness in the soul, and civil war or war between peoples. Harmony and inner consensus come with death, when human faces no longer express conflicts but are immobile, composed, and at rest. To correct Plato’s analogy: justice within the soul may be seen as the intelligent recognition and acceptance of conflicting and ambivalent elements n one’s own imagination and emotions – not the suppression of conflicts by a dominant intellect for the sake of harmony, but rather their containment through some means of expression peculiar to the individual. In pursuing its changing conceptions of the good, the life of the soul is a series of compromise formations, which are evidently unstable and transient, just as every successive state of society is evidently unstable and transient.” – Stuart Hampshire, Innocence and Experience (Harvard University Press, 1989), pp. 188-189.
 

Dr. Harwood’s Note: My brainstorm here is that this passage applies to both cosmopolitanism and Plato. The vision of Heraclitus or Hampshire deserves a mention, if only in a note, in work on Plato, to give an alternative vision to Plato’s vision. It may realistically even warrant a paragraph or so of discussion in the main text of your chapter on plato. As an advocate of Enlightenment liberalism, I find Hampshire’s view surprisingly challenging. I think his view must go wrong somewhere, but his eloquence makes his points seem to ring true to me and so I have some difficulty locating any source of error. So maybe he’s right after all or maybe there needs to be a synthesis of the best of his view with the best of Enlightenment liberalism.
 

I seem to agree with Hampshire that human nature is to be or involve a tendency toward a state of unrest, toward instability and transient states of becoming. Yet there also seem to be remarkably many humans who stagnate in laziness or otherwise stay remarkably the same for remarkably long periods of time. Laziness and resistance to change seem to be significant parts of human nature, for many humans at least. Others seem to exhibit by nature a mammalian restlessness.

 

220. “A tablet in Winchester Cathedral tells us how portions of that vast and beautiful building had begun to sink alarmingly into the mud of an insecure foundation. The walls sank visibly, and would in time threaten to tumble upon the worshipers. Who, thought the architect, is an expert in mud? … A fundamental overhauling of our international politics is assuredly imperative; but the weakness of human nature needs study, too – bitterness, jealousy, hate, sense of interiority, overweening pride, lust for power over the lives of others, together with the economic and social weaknesses which underlie the political. [emphasis added] Into the mud of [end of p. 3] pathological human relationships the lofty edifice of international understanding has dangerously sunk. Like the architect at Winchester, we shall seek in this volume to find divers, experts in mud, trained in the process of making clean and sound the psychological foundations of the relations of men.” – Gardner Murphy in Gardner Murphy et al., Human Nature and Enduring Peace(Houghton Mifflin Co., 1945), pp. 3-4.
 

Note to students: This passage suggests that we are getting our hands dirty in exploring all relevant aspects of human nature. Some of the above quote provides a small checklist of vices or weaknesses that you should devote index entries and a paragraph or section to somewhere in your thinking on human nature. You might also have something at the start or end of your term paper that uses the metaphor of mud or getting our hands dirty in the nitty gritty of human nature.

 

221. “It’s human nature to try and find a complicated answer to a very simple question.” ~ Katy Tur, guest anchor, The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, MSNBC TV, first aired 12/21/18.


222.  “Human nature, Joe, is this: I mean if a fire truck comes down the street, people cheer. If a cop car comes down the street, people get nervous.” ~ Mike Barnacle, Morning Joe, MSNBC TV, 3/28/18.


223.   “The Founders understood, in a way that we are not entirely conscious of or that we don’t acknowledge as much, that we are sinful, fallen, frail, fallible. We’re going to screw things up far more often than we get them right. The Founders based The Constitution on the fact that our passions would need checking. And that bet on human nature, which in some ways was a bet against human nature, has been proven right.” ~ John Mecham, interviewed on Morning Joe, MSNBC, 10/22/19.


224. “We are the most durable, the longest-lasting, experiment in trying to run a democratic experience, experiment, in a pluralistic, complicated, disputatious country. And the bet has always been that that document [The U.S. Constitution], which he, part of which he [President Trump] referred to as phony the other day, is in many ways – for all of its failings – it was the embodiment, the manifestation, of a really profound insight about human nature. Really, two, two insights. One was that, as [Thomas] Jefferson put it in the Declaration, we were all created equal. We didn’t apply that sentence fully then. We haven’t applied it now. I understand that. But it put in process a, a story where liberty would ultimately move, again, from the few to the many. And [two] the Constitution, which was really the operator’s guide, right? The Declaration was our statement of aspiration. The Constitution in more simplistic terms was the user’s guide for this country. And it has stood up, it has endured, because the system is a sound one.” ~ John Mecham, interviewed on Morning Joe, MSNBC, 10/22/19. 


faq4: have quotes on drugs?

1. “The mind, it’s our link to consciousness, our thoughts, and as a byproduct, the expression of our soul – that free and unfettered aspect of being human that no one else has jurisdiction over. But as easily as the mind expresses the depths within, it remains easily lured into a false reality where thoughts become the object of attention, and the source becomes forgotten. It is here where some scientists and philosophers believe we have lost the true reality, and in turn, become products of our environment and culture.” ~ Narrator, “Psychedelics and Consciousness,” Psychedelica, Season 1, Episode 1, 2018, circa 0:20 and following, available from amazon.com.


2. “The Eleusinian Mysteries in Ancient Greece clearly had a psychedelic sacrament. We even know what it was now. It was a form of ergot that grows on barley [and] was used in a beverage called a kykeon that initiates of the Eleusinian Mysteries drank. And then they had extraordinary and life-changing experiences in the dark halls. They were addressing setting there as well. These experiences were underwent [sic] and undergone in a place called the Telesterion, which was underground and probably dimly lit with little lamps here and there, creating a setting for the experience to unfold in. And the initiates of the Eleusinian Mysteries, which included people like Plato, people like Socrates, people like Cicero, came out and afterwards reported that their lives had been utterly transformed by the [psychedelic] experience that they had undergone. They had lost their fear of death. They knew that they were immortal spirits, that they were just temporarily housed in the human body.” ~ Graham Hancock, author of Fingerprints of the Gods and of Supernatural, from “Shamanic Roots,” Psychedelica, Season 1, Episode 2, circa 3:16 and following, 2018, available through amazon.com.


3. “In Shamanism, when you have sickness, when you have an ill individual for any reason, you don’t do what Western medicine does and look for the causes of that illness at the level of the physical being. The causes of that illness are always at one level above. They’re at the next level, in the spiritual dimension. There is a spiritual disconnect which is the source of this illness. So, the shaman will address the spiritual problem in order to step down and solve the physical problem. In Western medicine we have no such concept because Western medicine doesn’t even believe in the spirit or soul or any such aspect of human beings. Western medicine really does regard human beings as rather clever and sophisticated meat robots. OK. But that is not, that is not the shamanistic view. The shamanistic view is that we are immersed in an incredibly complex multi-layered reality and that what is happening at other levels of that reality directly impacts what is happening at the level of reality that we inhabit.” ~ Graham Hancock, author of Fingerprints of the Gods and of Supernatural, from “Shamanic Roots,” Psychedelica, Season 1, Episode 2, circa 18:42 and following, 2018, available through amazon.com.

faq5: have quotations by or about rene descartes (1596-1650)

Last revised 7/1/19


1. “I think, therefore I am.” ~ Rene Descartes, Discourse on Method (1637). Note: this is sometimes translated as “I am thinking, therefore I am.” The statement is often given in Latin: Cogito ergo sum. See, Tom Sorrell, Descartes: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 1.


2. ***“There is nothing so hidden … that we cannot discover it.” ~ Rene Descartes, quoted by John Young in the film Nothing So Hidden; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xc61kv4aH0, last visited 7/1/19.  ***doublecheck the exact wording & location in the film.


3. “No doubt you know that Galileo had been convicted not long ago by the Inquisition, and that his opinion on the movement of the Earth had been condemned as heresy. Now I will tell you that … same opinion about the movement of the Earth … Nevertheless, I will not for the world stand up against the authority of the Church. ...I have the desire to live in peace and to continue on the road on which I have started.” ~ Rene Descartes, Letter to Marin Mersenne (end of Feb., 1634) as quoted by Amir Aczel, Pendulum: Leon Foucault and the Triumph of Science (2003).


4. “So blind is the curiosity by which mortals are possessed, that they often conduct their minds along unexplored routes, having no reason to hope for success, but merely being willing to risk the experiment of finding whether the truth they seek lies there.” ~ Rene Descartes, Rules for the Direction of the Mind: IV


5. “No more useful inquiry can be proposed than that which seeks to determine the nature and the scope of human knowledge. ... This investigation should be undertaken once at least in his life by anyone who has the slightest regard for truth, since in pursuing it the true instruments of knowledge and the whole method of inquiry come to light. But nothing seems to me more futile than the conduct of those who boldly dispute about the secrets of nature ... without yet having ever asked even whether human reason is adequate to the solution of these problems.” ~ Rene Descartes, Rules for the Direction of the Mind.


6. “But in my opinion, all things in nature occur mathematically.” ~ Rene Descartes, Correspondence with Mersenne.


7. “If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.” ~ Rene Descartes, quoted in David J. Darling, The Universal Book of Mathematics (Wiley, 2004), p. 90.


8. “René Descartes is more widely known as a philosopher than as a mathematician, although his philosophy has been controverted while his mathematics has not.” ~ Eric Temple Bell, The Development of Mathematics (1940).


9. “… Descartes was the first scientist who dared to question our common views, including even all the notions that had always seemed so primitive and obvious …” ~ Bernard d'Espagnat, "My Interaction with John Bell", in R. A. Bertimann & A. Zeilinger, Quantum [Un]speakables (2002).


10. “Thus was the Nixon Administration first exposed to the maddening diplomatic style of the North Vietnamese. It would have been impossible to find two societies less intended by fate to understand each other than the Vietnamese and the American. On the one side, Vietnamese history and Communist ideology combined to produce almost morbid suspicion and ferocious self-righteousness. This was compounded by a legacy of Cartesian logic from French colonialism that produced an infuriatingly doctrinaire technique of advocacy.” ~ Henry A. Kissinger, The White House Years.


11. “Descartes was an eminent mathematician, and it would seem that the bent of his mind led him to overestimate the value of deductive reasoning from general principles, as much as Bacon had underestimated it.” ~ Thomas Henry Huxley, The Advance of Science in the Last Half-Century (1889).


12. Robert Costa: “You wrote recently that thinking about politics in the age of Trump means relying less on the knowledge of political science and more on the probings of D.H. Lawrence, David Foster Wallace and Carl Jung.  Explain what that means.”
 

David Brooks of the New York Times: “... I do think things have deteriorated in some ways.  And mostly the social fabric has deteriorated.  There's a guy, Rusty Reno, has a phrase "a crisis of solidarity."  And to me that's what we're suffering from.  We're just less close to one another, across class, within our communities.  Our social capital is down.  And so we're more isolated in fundamental ways.  And for me that happened for philosophical reasons.  We made mistakes. ... And that's because we chose the wrong philosophers.  We should, we chose John Stuart Mill when we should have chosen Martin Buber.  What I mean by that is that Mill sees us as a series of individuals for an individualistic worldview.  Martin Buber wrote a book called I/Thou.  He sees us as a bunch of relationships.  And so we became too individualistic when we should be a little more communitarian.
    We also chose Jeremy Bentham instead of Viktor Frankl.  Jeremy Bentham thought that we were motivated by pleasure and pain.  Viktor Frankl thought we were motivated by a search for meaning, we want to lead good lives.  And so in my view our society has become too economic, too social sciency and too utilitarian and not enough moralistic.

     And then finally we chose Rene Descartes when we should have chosen St. Augustine.  And Rene Descartes thought we should think with our heads, that we are primarily cognitive, rational creatures.  Augustine thought we were primarily emotional, loathing creatures.  And so we've become too cognitive when we should be more emotional.
     And so basically we've turned into shells of ourselves.  And that's cut down on intimacy and it has had these devastating social effects.  But it's ideas that drive behavior and I think we have some of the wrong ideas.”
From Charlie Rose, PBS, first aired 3/13/2017.

FAQ6: Have quotes to ponder on Global Warming?

  

Quotes on Human-Caused Global Warming

1. “Something mysterious is happening to our weather. The climate gets steadily warmer. What’s going on? The great Sahara Desert of Africa is advancing Southward at the rate of three miles per year. In recent years something mysteriously strange has been happening in our weather – something that has many climatologists, meteorologists, physicists and just plain citizens seriously worried, if not actually alarmed. The climate of the United States – in fact of the entire continent – is getting warmer at an unprecedented rate. This phenomenon has been stepping up its pace noticeably since we first unleashed the atomic bomb and continued with the explosion of various other atomic weapons in New Mexico and Nevada. The question is being seriously asked, ‘Do these explosions produce mysterious changes in the atmosphere – perhaps in the ionized layers in the atmosphere at high altitudes – that reduce the ability of the atmosphere to reflect a high proportion of the Sun’s radiant energy and so permit more heat to reach the surface?’” ~ Edgar Price, “Why Our Climate Is Getting Warmer,” Man to Man, October 1953, pp. 30-31 & 46-47, p. 30.


2. "Snowing in Texas and Louisiana, record setting freezing temperatures throughout the country and beyond. Global warming is an expensive hoax!" ~ Donald J. Trump, https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/428414113463955457?lang=en, May 15, 2017.

 

3. “[Sian Proctor:] When you are constructing, you need a lot of concrete. What a lot of people don’t realize about concrete is that it actually generates a lot of heat.

[Harry Pritchett, narrator:] When water is added to cement, it causes a chemical reaction that produces heat.” ~ from “Stargate in the Jungle,” Strange Evidence, Science Channel, first aired 6/20/2019.


4. "The only way to slow climate change is to use less fuel." ~ Gregory Benford, Climate Control, Reason, November 1997, p. 25.


5. "There's no scientific analysis either. I have 4,000 scientists that tell me global warming is a hoax. The Earth has cooled for 20 years." ~ Robert Murray, CNBC Squawk Box, CNBC, February 17, 2017

.

6. "The simplest way to remove carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, is to grow plants – preferably trees, since they tie up more of the gas in cellulose, meaning it will not return to the air within a season or two." ~ Gregory Benford, Climate Control, Reason, November 1997, p. 26.


7. "There is no such thing as normal weather." ~ Michael D. Lemonick, “Life in the Greenhouse,” Time, April 9, 2001, p. 18.


8. "The claim that global warming is caused by man-made emissions is simply untrue and not based on sound science." ~ Coral Davenport, https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/us/politics/climate-change-denialists-in-charge.html, May 17, 2018.


9. "Scientists calculated that human contribution to warming since 1950 is between 92 percent and 123 percent. It's more than 100 percent on one end, because some natural forces — such as volcanoes and orbital cycle — are working to cool Earth, but are being overwhelmed by the effects of greenhouse gases..." ~ Katharine Hayhoe, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-report-contradicts-trump-team-says-global-warming-mostly-n817486, May 17, 2018

.

10. “NOAA scientists conducted a review of the research on global sea level rise projections, and concluded that there is very high confidence (greater than 90% chance) that global mean sea level will rise at least 8 inches (0.2 meter).” ~ Rebecca Lindsey, https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level, May 23, 2018. Note: ‘NOAA’ means “National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration.”

FAQ7: Have quotes to ponder on Abortion?

  

For all courses, what are about 61 arguments about abortion that students have the option of evaluating in term papers?

Remember, you have my permission to quote in your A-sections of your ABC sets in your term paper any controversial claim from any published source, including (but not limited to) the following 61 quotes. In the C-sections of your ABC sets, you may quote, cite or use any info from any legal source – just cite your source using Guideline O.


1. “Banning abortions will not stop abortions. It will stop safe, legal abortions. And we know what happened before Roe versus Wade: thousands of women died every year because they didn’t have access to safe, legal abortions. And we just cannot go back to that time. …  For us in Planned Parenthood this is the fight for our patients’ lives. And it’s the fight of our lives … Women in this country are paying attention. We are outraged. We know who is standing up for us and our health care and who wants to take away our rights. We know that keeping people unhealthy is a tool of oppression and that stigmatizing women’s health care is a tool of misogyny. And we will be holding all of these anti-women’s health politicians accountable.” ~ Dr. Leana Wen, President, Planned Parenthood, New Day Weekend with Victor Blackwell and Christi Paul, CNN, first aired 5/18/2019, between 512am and 521am.


2. “The baby is born. The mother meets with the doctor. They take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully. And then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby. I don’t think so.” ~ President Donald Trump, Campaign Speech, Green Bay, Wisconsin, Saturday April 27, 2019.


3. “The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother as to what would happen to that viable child.” ~ Governor Ralph Northam (Virginia), quoted by Elaina Plott, Reliable Sources, CNN, Sunday April 28, 2019.


4. "I doubt that Republicans would put someone into the White House that is pro-choice on that [the abortion issue] because there is such a strong family value among Republicans.  We look into the womb and we see two legs, two arms, two eyes, a nose, and a beating heart, unique DNA, and we say that's a person.  ... This is not anti-choice this is pro-life.  ... We see that as a child.  And we see every single child as inherent value and should have the opportunity to be able to live.  ... A pregnant woman has the same rights as everyone else does, but so does that child.  This is splitting up Americans and saying an American that is very small doesn't have the same amount of rights as an American that's taller.  That's not true.  No matter what your height is, no matter what your weight is, as an American you have unique rights and responsibilities under our Constitution.  And we want to say that we want to honor life and honor people and we don't think that's irrational." ~ Rep. James Lankford (Republican-Oklahoma), interviewed by Chris Matthews on Hardball with Chris Matthews, MSNBC TV, first aired 11/26/2012.


5. "Eagle eggs are similar to human fetuses in that both are precious. We should have laws protecting eagle eggs human destruction. Therefore, we should have laws protecting human features from abortion." Paraphrase of an argument by Steve Friend, a Pennsylvania state legislator. A version of this argument appears in The New Civil War with Peter Jennings, ABC News, 1991. Harwood's Helpful Hint: see False Analogy and ask if Steve Friend commits that fallacy here.


6. "Regarding your May 31 [2005] article about late term abortions ('A Late Decision, a Lasting Anguish'): I have a few thoughts to share. As the mother of a baby with Down syndrome, I have met hundreds of other parents of children with Down syndrome in real life and in online support groups. Rather than feelings of guild, regret and depression, the mothers who give their babies with Down syndrome a chance at life are filled with joy, hope and love. Rather than experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder, they are experiencing pride at their children's accomplishments.
And right now, instead of looking at my baby's ashes on the mantle, my home is filled with shared laughter as I watch his big sister cover him with kisses.  With early intervention, many children with Down syndrome are growing up to live full and meaningful lives -- working, paying taxes, getting married and contributing to society. What a shame some families deprive themselves of the opportunity to see just how big their hearts can grow." -- Shannon Deisen, Fernandina Beach, FL, Letter to the Editor, The Los Angeles Times, June 4, 2005, p. B20, column 3.


7. "One who has voluntarily assumed no special obligation toward another person has no obligation to do anything requiring great personal cost to preserve the life of other. Often a pregnant woman has voluntarily assumed no special obligation toward the unborn child (a person), and to preserve its life by continuing to bear the unborn child would require great personal cost. Therefore a pregnant woman has no obligation to continue to bear the unborn child." -- Harry J. Gensler, argument quoted in Robert Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum, The Ethics of Abortion, 3rd edition, Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books 2001, p. 284.


8. "Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everybody would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide that happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed." Argument paraphrased in Judith Jarvis Thompson, “A Defense of Abortion,” in Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum, eds., The Ethics of Abortion, 3rded. (Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 242.


9. "This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." ~ Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe v. Wade, United States Supreme Court case, January 1973, quoted in Leonard Roy Frank, ed., Random House Webster's Quotationary (New York: Random House, 1999), p. 1.


10. "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." ~ Florynce R. Kennedy, quoted in Gloria Steinem, "The Verbal Karate of Florynce R. Kennedy, Esq.," Ms., March 1973, quoted in Leonard Roy Frank, ed., Random House Webster's Quotationary (New York: Random House, 1999), p. 1.


11. "The preservation of life seems to be rather a slogan than a genuine goal of the anti-abortion forces; what they want is control. Control over behavior: power over women. Women in the anti-choice movement want to share in male power over women, and do so by denying their own womanhood, their own rights and responsibilities." ~ Ursula K. Le Guinn, from "The Princess," address before the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), Portland, Maine, January 1982, quoted in Leonard Roy Frank, ed., Random House Webster's Quotationary (New York: Random House, 1999), p. 1.


12. "How can a moral wrong be a civil right?" Bumper sticker slogan, anti-abortion position, 1990s, quoted in Leonard Roy Frank, ed., Random House Webster's Quotationary (New York: Random House, 1999), p. 1. Note: Does this quote commit the fallacy of begging the question by begging the main question at issue, whether abortion is a moral wrong or not?


13. "The cemetery of the victims of human cruelty in our century is extended to include yet another vast cemetery, that of the unborn." ~ Pope John Paul II, quoted in the British newspaper Observer, June 9, 1991, quoted in Leonard Roy Frank, ed., Random House Webster's Quotationary (New York: Random House, 1999), p. 1. Note: fixed typo ‘I’ to ‘in’ in “in our century.”


14."I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." ~ Ronald Reagan, televised presidential campaign debate, Baltimore, Maryland, Sept. 21, 1980, quoted in Leonard Roy Frank, ed., Random House Webster's Quotationary (New York: Random House, 1999), p. 1. Note: Is Reagan committing the ad hominem fallacy? If so, how?


15. "A woman's right to choose an abortion [is] something central to a woman's life, to her dignity. ... And when government controls that decision for her, she's being treated as less than a full adult human being responsible for her own choices." ~ Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in Clare Cushman, ed., The Supreme Court Justices: Illustrated Biographies 1789-1995 (1995), p. 535, quoted in Leonard Roy Frank, ed., Random House Webster's Quotationary (New York: Random House, 1999), p. 1.


16."I, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, strongly support lawful efforts to end abortion. As I see it, the scientific, historic, philosophical, and religious evidence points to the conclusion that life begins at conception. While the birth of an unwanted child can bring problems and difficulties, these do not compare with he tragedy of taking a life." Rep. Joe Barton, quoted in, Opposing Viewpoints (Greenhaven Press), p. 203.


17.  "Abortion has not only resulted in he death of millions of unborn children, but has also contributed to the erosion of our nation's moral fabric. When we take actions that cheapen the sanctity of life, we are contributing to an overall decline in our society's moral values. And by allowing aborting, we indirectly encourage crime, illegitimacy, and the breakdown of family." -- Former Republican Representative from California Robert Dornan, www.bobdornan.com/abortion.html, last visited 1/1/09.


18.  "Indiscriminate use of abortion is wrong because the indiscriminate taking of human life is wrong." John R. Silber, "Don't Roll Back 'Roe'," in Jerry Cederblom and David W. Paulsen, Critical Reasoning, 4th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996), p. 343. If this argument is an enthymeme (an argument with an unstated premise), is there an unstated premise that would make the argument valid? Is this argument valid as it is currently stated by Silber?


19."I would oppose any law prohibiting abortion in the first two trimesters. ... It is very doubtful, considering past experience, that restrictive legislation would do more than make presently legal abortions illegal. Some of these abortions, involving technologies that enable laymen to perform abortions safely, would be different from current abortions only in their illegality. Others, performed with coat hangers in back alleys, will be fatal. I could not in conscience recommend legislation having these effects." John R. Silber, "Don't Roll Back 'Roe'," in Jerry Cederblom and David W. Paulsen, Critical Reasoning, 4th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996), p. 342.


20.  "[T]his does not lead me to conclude that abortions are morally justified when the pregnancy does not threaten the life of the mother and follows from sexual intercourse in which she voluntarily participated. ... The value of the life of an infant is based on its potential to become a fulfilled human being, and that potential exists from the time of conception." John R. Silber, "Don't Roll Back 'Roe'," in Jerry Cederblom and David W. Paulsen, Critical Reasoning, 4th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996), pp. 342-343.


21. "A free society cannot maintain its unity and order unless there is toleration of diverse opinions on which consensus has not been achieved. On the issue of abortion, there is no political, philosophical, moral or religious consensus. I believe abortion is, in general, morally wrong. But I also believe the state should not enact laws to restrict abortion further. This is an issue that cries out for toleration." John R. Silber, "Don't Roll Back 'Roe'," in Jerry Cederblom and David W. Paulsen, Critical Reasoning, 4th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996), p. 343.


22.  "The abortion issue is for many individuals a religious issue, and on such issues we should scrupulously observe the separation of church and state. ... [T]he state should not enact laws to restrict abortion further." John R. Silber, "Don't Roll Back 'Roe'," in Jerry Cederblom and David W. Paulsen, Critical Reasoning, 4th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996), p. 343.


23. "A free society cannot maintain its unity and order unless there is toleration of diverse opinions on which consensus has not been achieved. On the issue of abortion, there is no political, philosphical, moral or religious consensus. I believe abortion is, in general, morally wrong. But I also believe the state should not enact laws to restrict abortion further. This is an issue that cries out for toleration." John R. Silber, quoted in Jerry Cederblom and David W. Paulsen, Critical Reasoning, 4th edition (Belmont: CA, Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996), p. 343.


24. "There are instances when the taking of human life is justifiable, legally and morally. Homicide is not equivalent to murder. Some homicides are entirely justified, especially those involving self-defense. A woman whose life is threatened by a pregnancy is justified in terminating the pregnancy that might kill or severely injure her. So, too, when a woman is raped she is under no obligation morally, and should be under no obligation legally, to accept the consequences of an act of sexual intercourse in which she did not voluntarily participate. She has a right to protect herself from the consequences of assault." John R. Silber, "Don't Roll Back 'Roe'," in Jerry Cederblom and David W. Paulsen, Critical Reasoning, 4th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996), p. 342.


25. "If a human person is created at the moment of conception, then abortion always kills a human person. If abortion always kill a human person, then it is never justified. If a human is created at the moment of conception, then abortion is never justified." -- author unknown, argument quoted in Jerry Cederblom and David W. Paulsen, Critical Reasoning, 4th edition, (Belmont, CA: Wadworth Publishing Co., 1996), p. 32.


26. "A woman's right to control her own body outweighs any religious or moral burden." http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.emu/user/scotts/ftp/pro-choice/naral.position, May 21, 1995. Harwood's Helpful Hint: Consider these questions. If a woman has a "right to control her own body", where does this right come from? How strong could this right be? Could it be strong enough to make it wrong to imprison any woman for any crime? Could it be strong enough to make it wrong to use self-defense against any woman? Could it be strong enough to allow any woman to use her body (e.g., her fists or feet) to beat to death any adult she targeted?


27. "The right to life is described in the Declaration of Independence as 'unalienable' and as a right with which all men are endowed by the Creator. The constitutional amendment should restore the basic protection for this human right to the unborn, just as it is provided to all other persons in the U.S." -- Connie Paige, The Right to Lifers, (NY: Summit Books, 1993), p. 59.


28. "The constitution should express a commitment to the preservation of all human life. Therefore the prohibition against the direct and intentional taking innocent human life should be universal and without exception." Connie Page, The Right to Lifers, (NY: Summit Books, 1993), p. 59.


29. "Anything having a balance of good results (considering everyone) is morally permissible. Abortion often has a balance of good results (considering everyone). Therefore, abortion often is morally permissible." Robert Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum, The Ethics of Abortion, 4th edition, Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books 1993, p. 236.


30. "It's obvious to me that abortion is wrong - after all, everybody deserves a chance to be born." author unknown, quoted in Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker, Critical Thinking, 4th edition (Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Press, 1992), p. 170. Harwood's Helpful Hint: Does this argument beg the question? Is this argument evaluated in the 6th edition?


31. "Andrea Keene's selective morality is once again showing through in her July 15 letter. This time she expresses her abhorrence of abortion. But how we see only what we choose to see! I wonder if any of the anti-abortionists have considered the widespread use of fertility drugs as the moral equivalent of abortion, and, if they have, why they haven't come out against them, too. The use of these drugs frequently results in multiple births, which lead to the death of one the infants, often after an agonizing struggle for survival. According to the rules of the pro-lifers, isn't this murder." Letter to the editor, North-State Record, quoted in Brooke Noel Moore & Richard Parker, Critical Thinking, 4th ed., (Mayfield Publishing Co., 1992), p. 173. Harwood's Helpful Hint: does the 6th edition evaluate this argument?


32. “Many people view the fertilized egg as a potential human life. The fertilized egg is not a complete human being; it is not simply a small body that has grown larger. It needs to develop from a single cell to a complete individual, just as an acorn has to develop into an oak tree. The human individual develops biologically in a continuous fashion. We could therefore consider the possibility that the rights of a human person might develop in the same way." ~ Carol Emmens, The Abortion Controversy, revised edition, (N.Y.: Julian Messner A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.), 1991, p. 3.


33. "Abortion is always morally wrong for the simple reason that murder is always morally wrong." author unknown, quoted in Harrison, Vital Speeches of the Day, Oct. 15, 1988, p. 8. Harwood's Helpful Hint: Is this argument an enthymeme (that is, an argument with an unstated premise)? If so, what is the unstated premise? Does any missing or unstated premise beg the question?


34. "It is obviously the case that all self-induced abortions are nothing more than murders because all abortions are willful killing of babies." author unknown, quoted in Harrison, Vital Speeches of the Day, publisher unknown, October 15, 1988, p. 530. Harwood's Helpful Hint: consider whether there is an equivocation on 'murders'. Joel Feinberg wrote an essay on being morally speaking a murderer, as distinct from being legally speaking a murderer. 'Murder' is a legal term and, since abortion is legal, the abortions that are legal aren't murder in the legal sense of murder. Murder is illegal of course. Willful killing in self-defense is not murder, but can you think of how this could apply to willful killing of fetuses? If you can imagine self-defense against fetuses, then the argument is invalid.

35. "I simply believe that childbirth can be a greater crime than abortion and, sometimes, giving life ought to be a criminal offense. 'Nice' little words such as head traumas, dehydration and oral venereal disease dress up what is actually happening to 1 million reported victims of child abuse and neglect, according to federal studies. These children are being thrown up against walls, tortured with cigarette butts, burned in scalding water and sexually abused in their cribs. Recently, a 9-week old child, born to a cocaine addict here, was brought into a hospital dead from head wounds and infections from diaper sores so bad that hospital workers cried. If birth control fails, how are torture and starvation superior to an abortion." author unknown, USA Today; September 23, 1988, quoted in Harrison, Vital Speeches of the Day, October 15, 1988, p. 498. Harwood's Helpful Hint: Ask yourself if this argument commits the fallacy of false dilemma. Are our choices limited to: 1) torture and starvation, or else 2) abortion? If not, then this argument commits the fallacy of false dilemma. Does "can be" involve a possible horrible, understating the point too much?

36. "Considering all pregnant women, only relatively few have unnatural abortions. That is, medically induced abortion is not the natural, or normal, way of terminating a pregnancy. What is unnatural, of course, falls outside the general mainstream of social action. Certainly, society ought to guard itself against what is repugnant and harmful to it. So, abortion ought to be outlawed by society." -- Harrison, quoted in Vital Speeches of the Day, Oct. 15, 1988, p. 489.


37. "[The pro-life position argues:] The fetus is a human person and thus has the same right to life as any other human person." -- Beryl Lieff Benderly, Thinking About Abortion, The Dial Press/Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1984, p. 36.


38. "[The pro-choice position argues:] The fetus -- for at least part of nine months -- is not a human person and thus has no right to life that weighs against the mother's right to control the uses made of her own body." -- Beryl Lieff Benderly, Thinking About Abortion, The Dial Press/Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1984, p. 36.


39.  "[The pro-life position argues:] Possession of a soul makes the fetus a person with a right to temporal life and a chance at salvation equal to that of all other human persons, including the woman carrying it in her body. As the rights of one human person can not override the rights of another, the life of the fetus can not be interrupted for the convenience or good of anyone else. In this argument's most extreme form, as stated by the Catholic Church, the fetus's life cannot be interrupted even to save that of the mother." -- Beryl Lieff Benderly, Thinking About Abortion, The Dial Press/Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1984, pp. 37-38.


40. "An embryo or fetus developing inside a human being is itself a human being, and an innocent one from conception onwards. It is seriously wrong to kill an innocent human being. Abortion involves killing an embryo or fetus developing inside a human mother. Therefore, abortion is wrong." -- A pro-life argument quoted in Michael Tooley, Abortion and Infanticide, (Oxford University Press, 1983), pp. 61-62.


41."Other ethical arguments are based on the premise that the embryo is not a person. In other words, the embryo or fetus not attained 'personhood', and therefore the fetus does not have equal rights with the woman in whose womb the pregnancy resides." -- Myron Denney, A Matter of Choice: An Essential Guide to Every Aspect of Abortion, Simon & Schuster, 1983, p. 109.


42.  "Some ethical arguments focus on the quality of 'personhood,' affirming that life after birth is as important a consideration as the development of embryos and fetuses in the womb. These arguments assert that abortion is justified to relieve the suffering that may occur following the birth of physically or mentally deformed individuals or those who would be denied parental love and the basic financial, social and educational nurturing required to become self-sufficient adults." -- Myron Denney, A Matter of Choice: An Essential Guide to Every Aspect of Abortion, Simon & Schuster, 1983, p. 109.


43. "If a particular ethical argument is based on the premise that the embryo or fetus is a human being with full rights, then abortion is considered wrong. According to these arguments, the woman and the embryo or fetus are both subject to all the basic moral obligations of interpersonal relationships. These arguments are usually expressed in abstract allegories such as the rights and obligations of two people in a sinking boat, the justification for killing in self-defense and the dilemma inherent in rescuing a drowning man who is intent on killing someone. From analogies such as these, one can formulate theories about if and when abortion is the 'right' thing to do." -- Myron Denney, A Matter of Choice: An Essential Guide to Every Aspect of Abortion, Simon & Schuster, 1983, p. 108. Harwood's helpful hint: do these arguments by analogy commit the fallacy of false analogy?


44. "One ... theory about abortion, written by Judith Jarvis Thomason, proposes an analogy something like this: A woman wakes up one morning to find attached to her own bloodstream a violinist whose kidneys cannot function for nine months and for whom no artificial kidney is available. Without being attached to the woman, and thereby utilizing her kidneys, the violinist would surely die within a few days. Yet the woman may not want the musician to be so intimately attached to her own body. What to do? Although it might be benevolent for the woman to allow the violinist to stay, according to the ethical analogy, it would certainly not be wrong for her to refuse, even though the musician may have equal rights as a human being." -- Myron Denney, A Matter of Choice: An Essential Guide to Every Aspect of Abortion, Simon & Schuster, 1983, pp. 108-109.


45. "Arguments about relative 'personhood' are usually based on the biological limitations of embryos and fetuses. Recognizing that reproduction is a continuous process from joining of sperm and egg to birth, different people select different significant points along the way at which to define 'personhood.' Their discussions of abortion can then proceed on their own particular premises. Some argue that fertilization, or conception, is the moment of the beginning of 'personhood.' Other arguments suggest the time when the nervous system starts to function, when the heart starts beating, when the fetus begins to move inside the womb or when the fetus is viable, able to live outside the womb with modern intensive care." -- Myron Denney, A Matter of Choice: An Essential Guide to Every Aspect of Abortion, Simon & Schuster, 1983, p. 109.


46. "Other ethical arguments define partial 'personhood.' They point out that although there is anatomical development, embryos and fetuses cannot walk, talk or eat, or interact with others socially. With only partial 'personhood,' goes the argument, embryos and fetuses may have rights, but not those equal to a woman's [right]. On the basis of the various ethical arguments, abortion can be condemned or approved at various times in pregnancy, depending on the basic premise [defining partial 'personhood']." -- Myron Denney, A Matter of Choice: An Essential Guide to Every Aspect of Abortion, Simon & Schuster, 1983, p. 109.


47. "Understandably, women with unwanted pregnancies may find abstract ethical arguments only minimally useful. Facing the hard[,] biological reality and the personal, social and financial upheavals of an unwanted pregnancy, a woman may find her own conscience more useful than theoretical analogies. Most women have their own beliefs about the nature and status of embryos and fetuses. More importantly, it is within their own bodies that the resolution of the question takes place. [Therefore, some would conclude, such women should have a right to choose abortion.]" -- -- Myron Denney, A Matter of Choice: An Essential Guide to Every Aspect of Abortion, Simon & Schuster, 1983, pp. 109-110.


48. "Because the mother does not want to bear this fetus, it is to the fetus' advantage that he not be born, that his life be taken by abortion." Baruch Brody, Abortion and the Sanctity of Life: A Philosophical View, (MIT Press, 1974), p. 36.


49. "The woman in question has already suffered immensely from the act of rape and the physical and or psychological after effects of the act. It would be particularly unjust, the argument runs, for her to have live through an unwanted pregnancy owing to that act of rape. Therefore, even if we are at a stage at which the fetus is a human being, the mother has the right to abort it." Baruch Brody, Abortion and the Sanctity of Life: A Philosophical View, The MIT Press, 1974, p. 37.


50. "There is a second sort of consideration that could be raised in favor of the claim that the mother occupies a special vis a vis the fetus, a status that permits abortion even if the fetus has a full right to life and even when the life of the mother is not at stake. These have to do with the idea that the fetus is an entity that owes its existence to the mother. One way of stating the argument is the following: The fetus has come into existence only because of the mother's act of intercourse, and it therefore owes its life to the mother. If so, the continued existence of the fetus can not be allowed to work a hardship upon the mother, and she has to terminate its existence by aborting it. What she once gave, she may now withdraw." -- Baruch Brody, Abortion and The Sanctity of Life, The MIT Press, 1974, p. 31.


51. "Though the fetus is innocent itself, it may pose threat to the pregnant woman's well being, life prospects or health, mental or physical. If the pregnancy presents a slight threat to her interest, it seems self defense cannot justify abortion. But if the threat is on par with serious beating or the loss of a finger, she may kill the fetus that poses such a threat, even if it is an innocent person." Jane English, in Stephen Satris, ed., Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Moral Issues, 10th edition (Dubuque, IA: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin, 2006), p. 73.


52. "The loss of one's life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer. The loss of one's life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one's future. Therefore, killing someone is wrong, primarily because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim." Don Marquis,  in Stephen Satris, ed., Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Moral Issues, 10th edition (Dubuque, IA: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin, 2006), p. 65. 226.


53. "It's indisputable that a fetus is not a person, since it doesn't have a body of its own (a requisite of personhood)" (http://www.now.org/issue/abortion/ywabort.html, last accessed May 19, 1997). Harwood's Helpful Hint: Whether or not the fetus is a person is a different question from whether or not a pregnant woman has a right to abort. For example, Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that a woman may abort even if the fetus is a person. And a utilitarian might argue against an abortion even if the fetus is not a person. These two questions, however, are certainly related to some extent.


54. "What makes me think abortion is murder? When my pediatrician refused to perform an abortion for me, she said she wouldn't be a party to murder. Babies and childbrith are her business, you know." Author unknown, quoted in Nancy Cavender and Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric (Belmont: CA, Wadsworth Publishing Co., circa 2000), p. 58.


55. "The end never justifies the means if the means are evil. In other words, no matter how difficult the alternatives, they cannot justifiy the killing of an innocent human being." Connor, Information Plus, date unknown, p. 98. Harwood's Helpful Hint: Consider the old saying "Never say never." Use your imagination to try to develop a counterargument where the end might justify using somewhat evil means. Does utilitarianism or the philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli agree with "The end justifies the means"?


56. “Abortion's direct attack on innocent human life is precisely the kind of violent act that can never be justified. Because victims of abortion are the most vulnerable and defenseless members of the human family, it is imperative that we, as Christians called to serve the least among us, give urgent attention and priority to this issue of justice. Our concern is intensified by the realization that a policy and practice allowing over one and a half million abortions annually cannot but diminish respect for life in other areas.” ~ Fr. Frank Pavone, Fr. Richard Hogan, Fr. Peter West, and Fr. Denis G. Wilde, http://www.priestsforlife.org/elections/fundamentalissue.htm, retrieved 12/16/10. Harwood's Helpful Hint: Consider the truth tip about watchwords like 'never' and the aphorism "Never say 'never'" and use your imagination to try to create a counterexample.


57. "Is it true what people are saying, that abortion is killing babies? Is it true? Then I thought about all these poor children who I've seen parked in front of just dives-hungry, dirty, neglected and abused, their families inside boozing it up. And I thought I did the right thing." -- Norma McCorvey, unknown publication, unknown publisher, unknown date, p. 70. Harwood's Helpful Hint: Norma McCorvey is also known as Jane Roe of the famous or infamous United States Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, January, 1973.


58. "Legal abortion helps parents limit their families to the number of children they want and can afford, both financially and emotionally. Anti-abortion laws create new families consisting of a child and her child, living at the lowest levels of society. Pro-Choice is definitely Pro-Family." ~ author unknown, http:/www.wcla.org(articleprocon.html), last visited May 1, 2006.

59. "Re Michael Ramirez's May 28 cartoon: I have no problem with a young girl getting an abortion without parental consent because the alternative may be to force her to give birth to a child without her consent -- a particularly onerous form of child labor -- or to seek an illegal abortion.  Pro-lifers don't get it. Abortions will take place if unwanted pregnancies occur. Giving birth to a child is a big deal -- physically, emotionally and financially. So much so that free women and girls will rarely choose to give birth to unwanted children, regardless of the self-rightous, hypocritical lip service to the contrary." -- Laura J. Rift, Canoga Park, CA, Letter to the Editor, The Los Angeles Times, June 4, 2005, p. B20, column 3.


60. "Your article ["A Late Decision, a Lasting Anguish"] kicked me right in the gut -- especially Paige, who aborted her 25-week-old fetus, Emma, because she could not bear to imagine surgeons cutting open Emma's tiny chest to rebuild her heart. In the 1950s, my mama lovingly raised a child with an inoperable heart defect. And she and my daddy bore it when surgeons finally knew how to cut open my adult-sized chest, twice, to rebuild my heart. I'm glad I got the chance at life that Paige denied her daughter." -- Nancy J. Doman, Garden Grove, CA, Letter to the Editor, The Los Angeles Times, June 4, 2005, p. B20, column 3.


61."If you are consistent and think that abortion is normally permissible, then you will consent to the idea of your having been aborted in normal circumstances. You do not consent to the idea of your having been aborted in normal circumstances. Therefore, if you are consistent then you will not think that abortion is normally permissible." -- from "An Appeal for Consistency," Quoted in Robert Baird and Stuart Rosenbaum, eds., The Ethics of Abortion, 3rd ed., Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001, p. 103.

FAQ8: Have Quotes to Ponder on Euthanasia?

  

QUOTES ON EUTHANASIA

LAST REVISED 11/2/19

Note: students should explore the idea of adding controversial quotes from the book Stay by Jennifer Michael Hecht (2015).


1. "For the Christian, life is God's gift and its end is to be determined by Him. God is sovereign over life and death: we have no jurisdiction in this area; therefore, we have no mandate to end our lives. We trust the Author of life to allow only what ultimately benefits us to be fall us. God's providence." Dr. Robert C. Pankratz and Dr. Richard M. Welsh, "A Christian Response to Euthanasia," http://www.tkc.com/resources/resources-pages/euthanasia.html, last visited 12/28/2009. Dr. Harwood makes this quote an exception to his usual rule that an A-section quote may not be from an Internet source only.


2. “[Patient:] I just want to die with a little dignity. [Dr. Gregory House:] There’s no such thing. Our bodies break down, sometimes when we’re 90, sometimes before we’re even born, but it always happens and there’s never any dignity in it. I don’t care if you can walk, see, wipe your own ass, it’s always ugly – always. We live with dignity; we can’t die with it.” ~ from “Pilot,” House, first aired circa 11/16/2004.


3. "If we did not have effective means of controlling and alleviating severe pain, then active euthanasia (mercy-killing) would be morally acceptable. But through medical advances we now have very effective methods of controlling and alleviating even themost severe pain. So, obviously, active euthanasia is not morally acceptable." Author unknown; argument presented in Bruce Waller, Critical Thinking: Consider the Verdict (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1998), pp. 105-106.


4. “[N]obody who has experienced both higher and lower pleasures would be willing to swap a life filled with the former for a life filled with the latter.” ~ from Barry Loewer, ed., 30-Second Philosophies, Fall River Press, 2009, p. 90, describing the view of John Stuart Mill (1806-1873).


5. “No intelligent human being would consent to be a fool … even though they should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs.” ~ John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), quoted in Barry Loewer, ed., 30-Second Philosophies, Fall River Press, 2009, p. 90.


6. "The philosophers rightly observe that existing law against assisted suicide reflect and entrench certain views about what gives life meaning. But the same would be true were the court to declare, in the name of autonomy, a right to assisted suicide. The challenge is to find a way to honor these claims that preserves the moral burden of hastening death, and that retains the reverence for life as something we cherish, not something we choose. Michael J. Sandel, Staff Writer, "Last Rights", The New Republic, April 14, 1997, Vol. 216, Issue 15, p. 27.


7. “The things we make turn around and make us; and just as the Pill helped transform our ideas about sexual freedom, so will the obitioner (a physician who practices assisted VE [voluntary euthasia]) change the way we regard aging. How often, in the assisted-suicide future, will someone look at an elderly person and thing, consciously or semiconsciously, 'Gee, guess it's about time, huh? I'm thinking of the way we treat people in wheelchairs, people who can't feed themselves whose bodies don't look or work 'right'. Societies that drift in this direction, as Germany did under the Nazis, instill in their citizens a visceral sense of the handicapped as a drain or drag on the healthy body of the rest of us. Such attitudes are not spontaneous manifestations of evil. You have to train people to feel this way; but if you do, they will." Rand Richards Cooper, author, "The Dignity of Helplessness: What Sort of Society Would Euthanasia Create?", Commonwealth Magazine, Vol. 123, 10/25/1996, p. 12.


8. "I've been thinking a lot this week about mother's death two years ago: about the family's arguments regarding whether her dialysis should be discontinued as she slipped further into end-stage diabetes and an increasing state sleep and hallucination. She hung on for months until her body gave out on its own. Yeller's death was shorter and less anguished. Yeller was an animal, not a person. Putting him " to sleep" was the right thing to do. We don't put animals through the same ropes, trying to maintain life when it's obviously untenable. I wonder if we are being kinder to them than to ourselves." Richard Scheinin, Religion and Ethics writer, "A Loved Pet Dies with Dignity Without Prolonging the Inevitable – Don’t Humans Deserve the Same Peace?", San Jose Mercury News, 5/4/1996, p. 1E.


9. "[The goal] of society should be to encourage people to live rather than to make it easier for them to die. Our ability to overcome medical or emotional adversity is immeasurably enhanced if society's ethic is that we should try to carry on, that our courage in not giving up will give others courage when a crisis hits them. Given the underside of human nature, we will have all too many cases where relatives will want to hasten the end for selfish reason." Malcom Forbes Jr., Tycoon, "Encouraging the Living to Live," Forbes Magazine, Vol. 157, 4/22/1996, p. 24.


10. "There is reason to believe that many religious groups will end up endorsing death with dignity, because religions have a habit of changing. Although the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has been emphatic in its opposition to euthanasia, spending millions to defeat such propositions at the polls, there are respected voices raised within that church in support of physician - assisted death. A Gallup poll, reported in American Demographics magazine four years ago, indicated that 65 percent of the American public favored allowing doctors to help the terminally ill end their suffering if the patient and his or her family request it. Many of those people will want the comfort of knowing that, if they so choose, a physician will be ready, willing, and able to help them escape agonizing pain and the humiliation of helplessness by offering a death with dignity and the churches blessing." William H. Carr, Staff Writer, "A Right to Die," Saturday Evening Post, Vol. 267, Sept.-Oct. 1995, p. 50.


11. "A few hospice leaders claim that their care is so perfect that there absolutely no need for anyone to consider euthanasia. While I have no wish to criticize them, they are wrong to claim perfection. Most, but not all, terminal pain can today be controlled with the sophisticated use of drugs, but the point these leaders miss is that personal quality of life is vital to some people. If one's body has been so destroyed by disease that it is not worth living in, that is an intensely individual decision which should not be thwarted. In some cases of the final days in hospice care, when the pain is very serious, the patient is drugged into unconsciousness. If that way is acceptable to the patient, fine. But some people do not wish their final hours to be in that fashion." Derek Humphry, "Why I Believe in Voluntary Euthanasia," (1995), p. 5.


12. "One objection to assisted suicide and active voluntary euthanasia is that they involve killing, and all killing is morally wrong. This principle may be based on religious views (e.g., the sixth commandment) or maintained on purely secular grounds. But whatever its basis, we cannot appeal to this unqualified principle to condemn the practices in question unless we are prepared to condemn, for example, the killing of steers for food, fish for sport, trees for paper, weeds to beautify a garden, mosquitoes for comfort, and so forth." Alister Browne, Ph.D., Division of Biomedical Ethics, UBC, "Assisted Suicide and Active Voluntary Euthanasia", Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, Vol. II, No. 1, January 1989, p.3.


13. "The category of the hopelessly ill provides the possibility of even worse abuse. Embedded in a social policy, it would give society or its representatives the authority to eliminate all those who might be considered too 'ill' to function normally any longer. The dangers of euthanasia are too great to all to run the risk of approving it in any form. The first slippery step may well lead to a serious and harmful fall." J. Gay-Williams, "The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia," in Joseph Grcic, ed., Moral Choice: Ethical Theories and Problems, West Publishing Co., 1989, p. 308.


14."The maintenance of life by artificial means is, in such cases, sadly pointless, and if all available means of prolonging life were always used, the hospitals would be quickly filled with living corpses while ordinary patients could find no beds. Thus, virtually everyone who has thought seriously about the matter agrees that it is morally acceptable, at some point, to cease treatment and allow such people to die." James Rachels, quoted in Tom Regan, Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, 3rd ed., Temple University Press, 1980, p. 38.


15. "If an action promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one's rights, then that action is morally acceptable. In at least some cases, active euthanasia promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one's rights. Therefore, in at least some cases, active euthanasia is morally acceptable." James Rachels, quoted in Tom Regan, Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, 3rd ed., Temple University Press, 1980, p. 38.


16."If a person prefers and even begs for death as the only alternative to lingering on in this kind of torment, only to die anyway after a while, then surely, it is not immoral to help this person die sooner." James Rachels, quoted in Tom Regan, Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, 3rd ed., Temple University Press, 1980, p. 38.


17. "Moreover, as Bentham's famous follower John Stuart Mill put it, the individual is sovereign over his own body and mind; where one's own interests are concerned, there is no other authority. Therefore, if one wants to die quickly rather than lingering in pain, that is strictly a personal affair, and the government has no business intruding." James Rachels, quoted in Tom Regan, Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, 3rd ed., Temple University Press, 1980, p. 38.


18. "For the utilitarian, the question was simply this ' Does it increase or decrease human happiness to provide a quick, painless death for those who are dying n agony?' Clearly, they reasoned, the only consequences of such actions will be to decrease the amount of misery in the world; therefore, euthanasia must be morally right." James Rachels, quoted in Tom Regan, Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, 3rd ed., Temple University Press, 1980, p. 38.


19.“Once a certain practice is accepted, from a logical point of view we are committed to accepting certain other practices as well, since there are no good reasons for not going on to accept the additional practices once we have taken the all important first step." James Rachels quoted in Tom Regan, Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Philosophy, 3rd ed., Temple University Press, 1980, p. 61.


20. "Suffering is a part of life; God has ordained that we must suffer as part of His Divine plan. Therefore if we were to kill people to 'put them out of their misery,' we would be interfering with God's plan." James Rachels, in Tom Regan, ed., Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, 3rd ed., Temple University Press, 1980, p. 53.


21.  “Our second theological argument starts from the principle that "The life of a man is solely under the dominion of God." It is for God alone to decide when people shall live and when they shall die; therefore, we have no right to 'play God' and arrogate this decision unto ourselves. So euthanasia is forbidden." James Rachels, in Tom Regan, ed., Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, 3rd ed., Temple University Press, 1980, p. 53.


22. "VE [voluntary euthanasia] as an individual choice is entirely distinct from murdering people who are judged (by others) to have no worth. The "right" view of morality indicates that if we have a right to live, we have a right to give up that life... religious arguments cannot apply to anyone who does not share that belief. A wish to exercise personal autonomy and a desire to avoid unwanted suffering are the twin foundation stones of the case for VE." Dr. Robert L. Gandling, Family Physician, "The Case for Voluntary Euthanasia", [date unknown], pp. 1-2.


23.  "Man is called to fullness of life which far exceeds the dimensions of his earthly existence, because it consists of sharing the very life of God. Every individual, precisely by reason of the mystery the Word of God who was made flesh, is entrusted to the maternal care of the Church. Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful destruction... all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practice them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator." Pope John Paul II, "On the Value and Inviolability of Human Life," [date unknown], pp. 6-7.


24. "It is naive to imagine that a policy and a law permitting euthanasia will not lead to insensitive, inhumane, and intolerable abuse simply because those who designed the law were governed by pure motives and noble purpose. The position in favor of legalizing VE [Voluntary Euthanasia] rests upon an assumption of ideal hospitals, doctors, nurses and families. But we do not live in an ideal world. The issue is whether we should try this social experiment. I believe we should not." David J. Roy, Director, Center of Bioethics, Clinical Research Institute of Montreal, "When the Dying Demand Death: A Position Paper on Euthanasia," [date unknown], pp. 10-11. Dr. Harwood makes a rare exception to allow students to use this quotation and partial citation in an A-section of an ABC set in the student’s term paper even though this citation lacks the date.

faq9: have quotes from socrates & plato?

  

Note: The first 10 quotes are from this vinyl LP: POITIER MEETS PLATO: TRANSCRIPT of the LP Record released in the 1960s as Warner Brothers 1561


TRACK 1: THE PHILOSOPHER-KING MUST RULE

Who are to be the rulers and who their subjects? The best rulers will be those who most have the character of philosopher guardians. To this end they ought to be wise and efficient. There must be a selection. Let us note, then, those among us who in their whole life show the greatest eagerness to do what is for the good of their country, and the greatest repugnance to do what is against its interests. They will have to be watched at every age, from youth upwards, in order to see whether they preserve their resolution and never under the influence either of force or enchantment forget or cast off their sense of duty. We must make them perform actions in which they are most likely to forget or to be deceived, since only he who remembers and is not affected by pleasures, pains or terrors are to be selected. Such a one is more thoroughly pure than gold in the refiner’s furnace. He will always bear himself nobly for he has a rhythmical and harmonious nature. He shall be honored in life and in death with the greatest memorials of honor that we have to give. But he who fails must be rejected.


I think that there might be a reform of our state if only one change were made. This change, though possible, is not easy. Yet the word shall be spoken. Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, until political greatness and wisdom meet in one ruler and those commoner natures who pursue either attribute to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from evils. No, nor the human race. Then, only then, will our state have a possibility of life and behold the light of day.


TRACK 2: THIS I KNOW – THAT I KNOW NOTHING

I went to a politician who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed him. But as I talked with him I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many and wiser still by himself. I tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise but was not really wise. The consequence was that he hated me. And his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So I left, saying to myself, well although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he, for he knows nothing and thinks that he knows while I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular I seem to have slightly the advantage of him. After this I went to one man after another, being unconscious of the enmity I provoked. I went to the poets, and would you believe me I am almost ashamed to speak of this, for it showed to me it is not by wisdom that the poets write but by a sort of genius and inspiration. Nonetheless, upon the strength of their poetry they believe themselves to be the wisest of men. At last I went to the artisans, being sure they knew more than I. I observed, however, that the good artisans, because they were good workmen, thought that they also knew all sorts of matters. This defect in them overshadowed their wisdom. The result of my Herculean labors, as I may call them, was just this: I found that the men most in repute were all but the most foolish. Therefore, I asked myself whether I would like to be, as I am, neither having their sort of knowledge nor their ignorance or be like them in both. I made answer that I am better off as I am. As a result of this discovery, I am called wise, for in here is imagined that I find the wisdom I find wanting in others. But the truth is that God alone is wise. So I go my way obedient to the God within, making inquiry into the wisdom of anyone who appears to be wise. If he is not wise, then in vindication of truth I show him that he is not wise, so that he may know all that I know. For this I know … that I know nothing.


TRACK 3: CONTRIBUTION OF MUSIC AND GYMNASTICS

The true function of the two arts of music and gymnastics must be made clear. It is not that the one is for the training of the soul while the other is for the training of the body. Both improve the soul and each is of value in this work only when employed in the proper proportion and harmony. And the harmonious soul is both temperate and courageous, while the inharmonious is cowardly and boorish. It is good for a man to allow music to play upon him and in the first stage of this process to pour into his soul sweet and soft melancholy airs. In this way the passion or spirited element in him is tempered, like iron, and made useful instead of brittle and useless. If, however, in the second stage he still carries on this softening and soothing process, he begins to melt, and may waste away his spirit until he has cut out the sinews of his soul. Then he becomes a feeble warrior.


In gymnastics, if a man takes violent exercise and is a great eater, being the reverse of a proficient student of music and philosophy, at first the high condition of his body fills him with pride and spirit. He becomes twice the man he was. Then what happens? If he does nothing else and holds no converse with the muses, then even that intelligence which there may be in him grows feeble. He becomes dull and blind through a lack of any sort of inquiry or culture. His mind never wakes up or receives nourishment. His senses are never purged of their mists. Finally, he ends up by becoming a hater of philosopher and, uncivilized, he never uses the weapon of persuasion. Like a wild beast, violent and ferocious, he knows no other way of dealing. He lives in ignorance and evil conditions, and has no sense of propriety and grace.

Thus, there are two principles of human nature, one philosophical and the other spirited, which correspond to music and gymnastics. He who mingles them in the fairest proportions, best tempering them to his soul, may rightly be called the true musician and harmonist in a far higher sense than the tuner of strings. Such a presiding genius as this will always be required if we are to last…if we are to last…if we are to last.


TRACK 4: IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL

Consider this proof of immortality. Are not all things which have opposites generated out of their opposites? I mean such things as good and evil. And does not this hold universally of all opposites? There is, for instance, an opposite of life, which is death, as being awake is the opposite of being asleep. These are generated the one from the other. Let us, then, analyze life and death.


Is not death opposed to life, and therefore generated from life? And is not life in a similar manner generated from death? One of the processes, the act of dying, is visible, the other is invisible. But it may be inferred that the complement of dying is living and that birth is the revival of the dead into this world of the living. For nature must not be supposed to go about on one leg. Surely the inference is that our souls do exist in the other world.

My favorite doctrine, that knowledge is simply recollection, also necessarily implies immortality as well as a previous existence in which the soul learned what it now recollects. And what a man recollects must have been known by him at some former time. Previous to the time when we first saw material objects we must have known absolute ideas. Furthermore, if we acquired this knowledge before we were born, we were born with it. Thus it must be that we knew all ideas before we were born. This knowledge was lost at birth but may be recovered by the use of the senses. So learning is really an act of recovering by recollection. And our souls existed without bodies before they were in the form of man and must have had intelligence.


But, my friends, what is the nature of this recollection? We see material things such as pieces of wood and stone and from them gather the idea of other things, which are different from them. Now whenever from seeing one thing we conceive of another there is surely an act of recollection. Moreover, anyone who looks at an object, perceiving that it aims at being something better but falls short of attaining its ideal, must have had a previous idea and knowledge of that ideal.


I now want to share with you the nature of ideas as causes, for this has long occupied my thoughts. To do this I shall assume, first of all, that there is an absolute idea of beauty, goodness, greatness, and of life. Grant me this and I hope to be able to show the nature of cause and to further prove the immortality of the soul. I think, for instance, that if there is anything beautiful other than absolute beauty, it can be beautiful only insofar as it partakes of absolute beauty. I know nothing and can understand nothing of those other wise causes which are alleged. If a person says to me that the bloom of color or form or anything else of that sort is a source of beauty, it only confuses me. As to the manner, I am uncertain. Still I stoutly contend that by beauty all beautiful things become beautiful. This I shall say of everything, for all things exist only insofar as they participate in some idea. So we live because our life partakes of the eternal idea of life. And thus our souls are eternal. To this I cling, persuaded that I shall never be overthrown.


TRACK 5: THE GREEKS HAD A WORD FOR IT

If there was a knowledge which was able to make men immortal without giving them knowledge of the way to use that immortality, there would be no use in it.


The best man is he who most tries to perfect himself. And the happiest man is he who most feels that he is perfecting himself.

To a man who has any sense at all, no question can be more serious than the meaning of human life.


To be curious about that which is not one’s concern while still in ignorance of oneself is ridiculous.


Wealth and poverty are both evils, the one is ferent of luxury and indolence, the other of meanness and viciousness, and both of discontent.


When he who asks waits to hear the answer, he demonstrates a very rare gift.

I have one singularly good quality, which is my salvation. I am not ashamed to learn. I ask and inquire and am indeed grateful to those who answer me.


A calm and happy nature will hardly feel the pressure of age but to the opposite disposition youth and age alike are equally a burden.

The mask which an actor wears is apt to become his face.

The unexamined life is not worth living.


 Like a good-for-nothing cock, without having won the victory, some people walk away from an argument and crow.


“Know thyself” and “Nothing too much.”


Oh, my friends, if the soul is really immortal what care should be taken of her not only in respect to the portion of time that is called life but of eternity?


TRACK 6: OUR WORLD IS A CAVE

Let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened -- or unenlightened. Behold, human beings living in an underground cave, which has a mouth open toward the light. Here they have been from their childhood, and are chained so they can see only what is in front of them. Behind them a fire is blazing and they are not allowed to turn their heads. So, like ourselves, they see only their own shadows, the shadows of one another or of objects they possess, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave. Further, this prison has an echo, which is heard from people on the outside. The prisoners within have always fancied when one of the passersby spoke that the voice came from a passing shadow. To them the truth is literally nothing but shadows. Of true images they know nothing.


Look again now. You see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are set free and so come to realize their error. At first when one of them is liberated and suddenly compelled to turn his head and look toward the light he will suffer sharp pains. The glare will distress him. He will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state of illusion he saw only the shadows. He will at first fancy that the shadows he formerly saw are truer than the real objects which are now revealed to him. He will be required to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. At first he will see the shadows best. Last of all he will be able see the sun in its own proper place and not merely its reflections. He will then understand that the sun is what gives the seasons, and in a certain way causes all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold.

When he remembers his old habitation and the wisdom of the cave and of his fellow prisoners, he will pity them. And if the inhabitants of the cave have been in the habit of conferring honors among themselves, he will no longer care for such honors or envy the possessors of them. He will endure anything rather than think as they do and live after their manner. And if such a one were suddenly to come back out of the sun and place himself back in his old situation, he would be certain to have his eyes will be full of darkness. ***It would be very bad for him if there were a contest and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the cave. In such an instance, the men of the cave would say of him: he went up, and down he came without his eyes. They will maintain that it is better not even to think of ascending. Hence, if anyone tried to loose another prisoner from the cave and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender and they would put him to death.


TRACK 7: WOMAN’S PLACE IN SOCIETY


Women are to have the same duties as men. Thus they must have the same nurture and education. They will be taught music, gymnastics and the art of war, which they must practice like the men. I expect that to some people our proposals may appear ridiculous. Most ridiculous of all will be the sight of naked women exercising in the Pelastra[?] with men, especially when they are no longer young. Our opponents will say, “Socrates, no adversary need convict you, for at the foundation of the state you admitted that everybody was to do the one work best suited to his own nature.” We would have to reply that such an admission was made. Further, they would say, “Do not the natures of men and women differ very much indeed?” And we would say “Of course they do.” Then we shall be asked, “In that case, should not the tasks assigned to men and to women be different?” “Certainly they should,” we shall answer. They will conclude: “But if so, have you not fallen into a serious inconsistency in saying that men and women, whose natures are different, ought to perform the same actions?”


What defense should we make against these objections? When a man is out of his depth, whether he has fallen into a little, swimming bath or into mid-ocean he has to swim all the same. Can any way of escape be found? We have acknowledged that different natures ought to have different pursuits. And that the natures of men and women are different. And now we are accused of saying that different natures ought to have the same pursuits. This is the inconsistency charged to us.


However, we never considered what was meant by sameness or difference of nature. If the difference consists only in the fact that women bear and men beget children, then we must maintain that this does not amount to a proof that woman differs essentially from man in respect to the sort of education she should receive. Therefore, we shall continue to hold that men and women ought to have the same pursuits. Next we shall ask our opponent, how in reference to any of the pursuits or arts of civic life the nature of a woman differs from that of a man? Let us say to him there is no special faculty in the administration of a state which a woman has because she is a woman or that a man has by virtue of his sex. The gifts of nature are diffused alike in them. So the pursuits of men might be the pursuits of women except that woman is weaker than man. Are we therefore to impose all our enactments on men and none of them on women? No, for men and women alike possess the qualities which make good guardians of the state. This must be the law; for it is agreeable to nature, and therefore not an impossibility, while the contrary practice, prevailing at present, is in reality a violation of nature.


TRACK 8: DISCOVERY OF THE GOOD LIFE


Let us offer up a prayer; for we are the cupbearers and here at our side are two fountains flowing. One, which is wisdom, is a sober draught in which no wine mingles. It is temperate and healthful. The other, which is pleasure, may be likened to a fountain of honey. Out of these, the fairest of all possible mixtures must be sought. Tell me, is the good life most likely to be found if every sort of wisdom is mingled with every sort of pleasure? I, for my part, should be afraid of the risk and suggest a safer plan; for one science is more certain than another and one pleasure more pure than another. If, then, we consider the subdivisions of wisdom and of pleasure which are most pure and mingle them, will the union suffice to give us the best of lives? Imagine a man who has an understanding of the true nature of things. Will he have enough wisdom if he is acquainted only with pure geometry and knows nothing of our human circles and spheres? Surely not. We must mix into the good life the practical part of geometry which uses the imperfect circle, as does the builder; that is, if any of us is ever to find his way home.

The time has come to decide about the pleasures. Can we in like manner admit them all or only the pure ones? First, mix the pure ones. That would be the sounder course. And now if there are any other pleasures as there were practical sciences, they must be mingled in. Let us ask the daughters of pleasure themselves. They would certainly answer that for any class to be alone in perfect solitude is not good nor altogether possible. Let us now interrogate the daughters of wisdom, asking them if in addition to the pure pleasures, they wish to have the most vehement pleasures for their companions. They will say “How can we, seeing that they are the source of ten thousand hindrances to us? They trouble the souls of men, which are our habitations, with their madness. They prevent our ideas, our children, from coming to birth, and are the ruin of them when they do come to birth. But the pure pleasures of which you spoke, know these to be of our kindred. These pleasures which accompany health and temperance are the handmaidens and inseparable attendants of wisdom. Mingle these but not the others. Anyone who wishes to devise the highest good for man would show a great lack of sense to allow the pleasures which are always in the company of folly and vice to mingle with might.”


There is yet something more that must be added to our formula of the good life; for unless truth enters into the composition, nothing can be worthy. And now we are close to that which is the cause of every good and universally beloved. I mean symmetry, which renders every mixture of the highest value. Let us ask if in the order of the universe symmetry is more akin to wisdom or to pleasure. Every reasonable man knows that any want of symmetry in any mixture must of necessity be fatal both to the elements and to the mixture. Thus, the nature of all good things has retired into the region of the beautiful; for symmetry or measure everywhere passes into beauty. The elements of the good life have now been found. And we must proclaim everywhere, sending messengers of these tidings far and wide, that pleasure is not the first of possessions nor yet the second. Symmetry stands in first place, with the beautiful in the second. And, if I divine aright, we must reckon truth in the third class. Finally, wisdom takes fourth place with the pure pleasures taking the fifth. This is true even if all the animals of the world in their pursuit of enjoyment should affirm differently.


TRACK 9: ONLY THE WISE ARE BRAVE


There is a saying that every man is good in that in which he is wise, but bad in that in which he is unwise. Thus, if the brave man is good, he must also be wise and all courage will entail a sort of wisdom, a judging power that makes it possible to avoid the extremes of courage, which are cowardice and rashness. And, as I believe, every man may acquire this kind of knowledge. We cannot, however, allow that any wild beast is courageous, for animals have no fear of dangers, because they are ignorant of them. Again, do you imagine I should call little children courageous who fear no dangers because they know none. I am of the opinion that thoughtful courage is a quality possessed by only a few, whereas cowardice and rashness, which have no forethought, are common qualities possessed by many men, children and animals. Men usually call actions courageous that which I call cowardice or rashness; for according to my belief, courageous acts are wise acts.


TRACK 10: THE PENALTY IS DEATH


“So, you condemn me to death. If you had waited a little while your desire would have been fulfilled in the course of nature. I am far advanced in years, as you may perceive, and not far from death. But I would rather die having spoken after my manner than speak in your manner and live. And now I depart hence, condemned by you to suffer the penalty of death while my accusers go their way, condemned by the truth to suffer the penalty of villainy and wrong. I must abide by my award and they must abide by theirs. Let us reflect and we shall see why there is hope that death is a good. One of two things is true: death is a either a state of nothingness and utter unconsciousness, or as men say there is a migration of the soul from this world to the other. Now if you suppose there is no consciousness but merely a sleep, I say that to die is a gain, since eternity is then only a single night. If death is the journey to another place and there all the dead are, what good all my friends and judges can be greater than this? If indeed when the pilgrim arrives in the world below, he is delivered from the professors of justice in this world and finds the true judges who are said to give judgment in that other world, and is privileged to examine the wise poets and heroes. If this be true, let me die again and again. There I shall find out who is wise and who pretends to be wise but is not. What would not a man give to examine the leader of the great Trojan expedition or numberless others? What infinite delight would there be in conversing with them and asking questions? In that world I shall be able to continue my search into the nature of true and false knowledge. And besides being happier there than here, men will be immortal if what is said is true. I see clearly that to die and be released is better for me. The hour of departure has arrived. We go our ways -- I to die, you to live. Which is the better, God only knows."


11. "Plato said all learning has some emotional basis, and he may be right." ~ Carolyn Gregoire, "How Emotionally Intelligent Are You? Here's How to Tell," The Huffington Post, posted 12/05/2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/05/are-you-emotionally-intel_n_4371920.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmaing13%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D415893, last visited 12/07/2013:


* * * FAQ10: HAVE ANY QUOTES TO PONDER ON THE BERMUDA TRIANGLE? * * *

Last revised 11/2/2019

  

Note: The mystery of The Bermuda Triangle is relevant to philosophy because logic is a major part of philosophy and the issue with The Bermuda Triangle is: What is the most logical explanation of the large number of disappearances in the triangle formed by Miami, Bermuda, and Puerto Rico? Many of these disappearances involve the complete absence of may-day calls or involve disappearance without a trace -- without any wreckage being found.

 
 

1. “In the last 10 years, eleven hundred people have lost their lives in these waters [of the Bermuda Triangle], more than in any other coastal area.” ~ Narrator, Bermuda Triangle: New Evidence, Discovery Channel, aired 8/25/2019, Episode 48, https://www.discovery.com/shows/curiosity/episodes/bermuda-triangle-new-evidence.

 
 

2. “No, insurance companies do not charge any more for trips into the Bermuda Triangle. But that might be because, as my now-deceased source inside the insurance industry informed me, someone is paying them off.” ~ Mike Bara, author & convention speaker, in response to a question face-to-face from Sterling Harwood (“Do insurance companies charge more for trips into the Bermuda Triangle?”), Ancient Alien Con, June 2019, Los Angeles, CA.

 
 

3. “We proved that a methane eruption is an unlikely explanation for why boats disappear [in the Bermuda Triangle].”~ Narrator, Bermuda Triangle: New Evidence, Discovery Channel, aired 8/25/2019, Episode 48, https://www.discovery.com/shows/curiosity/episodes/bermuda-triangle-new-evidence.

 
 

4. “But for the first time, our experiments reveal that rogue waves could be sending boats to the bottom of the sea [in the Bermuda Triangle].” ~ Narrator, Bermuda Triangle: New Evidence, Discovery Channel, aired 8/25/2019, Episode 48, https://www.discovery.com/shows/curiosity/episodes/bermuda-triangle-new-evidence.

 
 

5. “And the most extreme forms of lighting [in the Bermuda Triangle] can destroy an airplane.” ~ Narrator, Bermuda Triangle: New Evidence, Discovery Channel, aired 8/25/2019, Episode 48, https://www.discovery.com/shows/curiosity/episodes/bermuda-triangle-new-evidence.

 
 

6. "Ships and planes that go through the Bermuda Triangle often experience equipment failures inside the area." ~ Leonard Nimoy, narrator & anchor/host, Ancient Mysteries, FilmRoos, first aired 1994.

 
 

7. Billionaire Christopher Cline, a coal tycoon, was among 7 people killed in a helicopter crash on 7/4/2019 in The Bahamas. The helicopter went down shortly after taking off from Grand Cay Island. Cline died one day before his 61st birthday (7/5/1958). He founded Forsyth Energy of St. Louis, one of America’s biggest coal companies, and was associated with Pioneer Fuel. Source: America’s Newsroom, Fox News Channel, 7/5/19. Note: This seems to have occurred in The Bermuda Triangle.

 
 

8. “I flew through clouds which resembled a tunnel and formed a spiral when I went inside. It was a wormhole.” ~ Bruce Gernon, Ancient Mysteries, FilmRoos, first aired 1994

.

9. "No trace of any of the squadron planes [of Flight 19 from December 1945 in Florida] was ever found." ~ Gian Quasar, Into the Bermuda Triangle (International Marine/Ragged Mountain Press, February 7 2005), p. 48.

 
 

10. "If pirates had raided these ships and murdered the crews there would be evidence.” ~ Richard Winer, The Devil’s Triangle (New York: Bantam Books, 1974), p. 76.

 
 

11. "The Cyclops was another ship that disappeared without a trace in the [Bermuda] Triangle.” ~ Leonard Nimoy, narrator & anchor/host, Ancient Mysteries, Filmroos, first aired 1994.

 
 

12. "The Marine Sulfur vanished off without any evidence as to what happened." ~ Richard Winer, The Devil’s Triangle, (New York: Bantom Books, 1974), p. 56. ***Double check if there’s a missing word after ‘off.’ Double check if the full name is “Marine Sulfur Queen.” 13. "The ocean floor of the Bermuda Triangle is bubbling with electro-magnetic energy which causes malfunctions." ~ Leonard Nimoy, narrator & anchor/host, Ancient Mysteries, Filmroos, first aired 1994.

 
 

14.“In today’s sophisticated society, many people tend to dismiss the so-called mystery of The Bermuda Triangle in the same way they would a superstition or a fairy tale. But unlike harmless fairy tales, the strange happenings in The Bermuda Triangle, often result in loss of life, not to mention the enormous property losses. Given the growing body of evidence that something sinister, something well beyond our understanding, is going on there, it seems the better part of wisdom to try to discover the truth behind the so-called legends of The Bermuda Triangle.” ~ Narrator, “Bermuda Triangle: Sinister Site or Suspicious Seamanship?,” World’s Greatest Mysteries, Season 1, Episode 11, 2016, writer: Susan Horwitz, streaming on amazon.com, last visited 11/24/18.

 
 

15. “Believe it or not, the first written record of strange happenings in The Bermuda Triangle can be found in the ship’s log of Christopher Columbus. Lying becalmed in the Sargasso Sea, Columbus and his men witnessed strange lights dancing above and below the surface of the water. Little did they know that that would be among the most harmless of the events that would terrorize vessels in The Bermuda Triangle.” ~ Narrator, “Bermuda Triangle: Sinister Site or Suspicious Seamanship?,” World’s Greatest Mysteries, Season 1, Episode 11, 2016, writer: Susan Horwitz, streaming on amazon.com, last visited 11/24/18.

 
 

16.“The Mary Celeste was found floating adrift on the open sea. The vessel seemed to be in perfect condition, but the passengers and crew had disappeared without a trace.” ~ Narrator, “Bermuda Triangle: Sinister Site or Suspicious Seamanship?,” World’s Greatest Mysteries, Season 1, Episode 11, 2016, writer: Susan Horwitz, streaming on amazon.com, last visited 11/24/18.

 
 

17. “According to those who study the mysteries of The Bermuda Triangle, there have been over 1,000 vanishings of everything from huge naval vessels to private boats [and] from small planes to [planes of] commercial airlines since 1945 alone. And, of course, not only the craft disappear forever, but all the people onboard them as well.” ~ Narrator, “Bermuda Triangle: Sinister Site or Suspicious Seamanship?,” World’s Greatest Mysteries, Season 1, Episode 11, 2016, writer: Susan Horwitz, streaming on amazon.com, last visited 11/24/18.


* * * FAQ11: HAVE A SAMPLE PAPER  ON GUN CONTROL? * * *


  

***WARNING: SAMPLE PAPERS ARE IMPERFECT PAPERS BY ANONYMOUS STUDENTS. DR. HARWOOD HAS TRIED TO TWEAK THEM. LEARN FROM THE BEST IN THEM AND DE-EMPHASIZE THE REST IN THEM.***

 
 

Reject Greater Gun Control But Accept Greater Safety

by an Anonymous Student

 
 

1. Introduction - Gun Control Should Avoid Hurting Innocent Gun Owners 

 
 

In this paper, I will argue that gun control in America is immoral by using the five moral principles in chapter four of Sterling Harwood’s book, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual.Limiting the ownership of firearms poses a risk to those who use them for self defense. The focus on gun control is to regulate the criminal use of firearms; however, there are flaws when it comes to controlling gun ownership. Gun control affects innocent gun owners as well as criminals. Furthermore, gun control fails to stop the illegal sales of firearms through the black market.


For my argument, I will be using the moral principle of egalitarianism to treat different cases differently. In addition, I will use the prima facie principle of nonmaleficence to avoid pain and suffering to lawful gun owners. Also, I will be using the moral principle of virtue to show the unkindness towards gun owners. GF Furthermore, I will be using utilitarianism principle to show equal representation to those opposing gun control. GF Finally, I will be using the moral principle of libertarianism to maximize individual freedoms by limiting government control.

 
 

In 2C, I will argue that innocent people should not be taxed alongside criminals and that law abiding citizens should keep the right to protect themselves with handguns. RU BLUE LINE: HYPHENATE In 3C, I will also argue that innocent people should have the right to protect themselves. In 4C, I will argue that guns are different from cigarettes and cars. In 5C, I will argue that criminals will have an advantage against the innocent. In 6C, I will argue that the government should have a limited role in gun ownership. In 7C, I will argue that there are many different factors such as firearms training.

 
 

2. Taxing handguns heavily is a tempting way to interrupt the criminal use of guns.

 
 

2A. “One tempting way to intervene between the manufacturer and the criminal end-use is to raise the price of weapons entering the market, perhaps by taxing handguns heavily.” James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, “The Great American Gun War: Some Policy Implications of the Felon Study,” in Lee Nisbet, ed., The Gun Control Debate, 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 113.

 
 

2B. I disagree with the quote.

 
 

2C. I disagree with the quote 2A. The moral principle of Egalitarianism supports my claim. Egalitarianism is defined as as follows: 

“1. Treat relevantly similar cases similarly, and relevantly different cases differently.

2. Discrimination (e.g., racism and sexism) is wrong. Discrimination is failing to treat relevantly 

similar cases similarly or failing to treat relevantly different cases differently.

3. We should prevent innocent people from suffering through no fault of their own.

4. Exploitation - taking unfair advantage of an innocent person's predicament - is wrong.

5. We should regularly give significant amounts to charity.

6. No one should profit from his or her own wrong.

7. The punishment should fit (be proportional to) the crime.

8. Promises should be kept.

9. Merit should be rewarded.

10. Reciprocity is important.

11. Gratitude is important.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). 

 
 

Egalitarianism number three supports my disagreement on 2A because “we should prevent innocent people from suffering through no fault of their own.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). OF IF The tax would involve criminals and innocent gun owners together in the same tax when the focus of the tax is mainly for criminal use. GF Furthermore, increasing tax on handguns will not drastically change the criminal use of handguns. In addition, there are many other ways to acquire handguns illegally. IF For example, “Victims report to the Victim Survey that handguns were stolen in 53% of the thefts of guns. The FBI's stolen gun file's 2 million reports include information on 1.26 million handguns (almost 60%) 470,000 rifles (22%) 356,000 shotguns (17%).” (Source: Zawitz, Marianne. “Guns Used In Crime.” Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 1995. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF, last visited May 22, 2019). OF

My claim in 2B is also backed up my the moral principle of the prima facie principles. The definition of prima facie is as follows: SU BLUE LINE

“PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #1. Fidelity: Avoid breaking promises.

PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #2. Veracity: Avoid telling lies.

PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #3. Fair play: Avoid exploiting, cheating, or freeloading.

PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #4. Gratitude: Return favors and appreciate the good others do for you.

 
 

PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #5. Nonmaleficence: Avoid causing pain or suffering. Note: this is not the same as nonmalevolence, which concerns only motivation rather than causation.

 
 

PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #6. Beneficence: Benefit others and cause them to be happier. Note: this is not the same as benevolence, which concerns only motivation rather than causation.

 
 

PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #7. Reparation: Right your wrongs; repair the damage that is your fault.

 
 

PRIMA FACIE PRINCIPLE #8. Avoid killing except when necessary to defend against an immoral attack.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). 

 
 

Prima facie principle of nonmaleficence helps my disagreement because its purpose is to avoid pain and suffering. Raising the tax will prevent people from affording handguns, which prevents people from being able to protect their themselves and their families. Many handgun owners own guns for protection. RU BLUE LINE On a survey from gallup.com, it shows that 60% of people claim to own firearms for protection. (Source: Swift, Art. “Personal Safety Top Reason Americans Own Guns Today: Second Amendment rights, job with police or military are lower on list.”Gallup October 28,2013. https://news.gallup.com/poll/165605/personal-safety-top-reason-americans-own-guns-today.aspx, last visited May 22, 2019). OF

Preventing people from owning handguns will cause for pain and suffering to those who can not afford handguns and need them for protection

.

The principle of utilitarianism also supports my claim in 2B. The definition of utilitarianism is as follows: 

 
 

UTILITARIAN SLOGAN #1) Promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

 
 

UTILITARIAN SLOGAN #2) Each person counts for one and only one in calculating the maximum amount of happiness. (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). 

 
 

Utilitarian slogan number two helps my claim in 2B because in any society, people have different opinions on matters. Using a simple tally system for public policy does not show equal representation of a large section of society. Gun control is split between two political spectrums and simply having a minor majority does not equal greater happiness. 

 
 

The moral principle virtue number three defends my point against heavy taxes on handguns. CU ECONOMISTS ARGUE THAT WE SHOULD INTERNALIZE THE EXTERNALITIES OF ANY ACTIVITY, SUCH AS SELLING GUNS OR MANUFACTURING GUNS. WOULD YOU ALLOW THAT? WHY OR WHY NOT? The definition of the moral principle virtue is as follows.

“VIRTUE #1. Courage is a virtue and cowardice is a vice.

VIRTUE #2. Honesty is a virtue and dishonesty is a vice.

VIRTUE #3. Kindness is a virtue and unkindness is a vice.

VIRTUE #4. Loyalty is a virtue and disloyalty is a vice.

VIRTUE #5. Gratitude is a virtue and ingratitude is a vice.

VIRTUE #6. Charity is a virtue and uncharitableness is a vice.

VIRTUE #7. Being forgiving exhibits a virtue and being unforgiving exhibits a vice.”(Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). 

 
 

The sub-principle number three in virtue supports my claim in 2B because the taxes will affect those who lawfully own guns. The purpose of the tax is to target criminal use of handguns; GF however, it is going to force innocent people to pay a tax for something they have not SU done. It is not kind to tax innocent people trying to express their Second Amendment rights.

The moral principle of libertarianism backs up my claim on 2B. The definition of libertarianism is as follows: 

“1.Anything RU BLUE LINE between consenting adults is morally permissible. Note that this does not mean that doing some things to an adult without his consent (for example, punishment) is immoral.

2. Laissez faire capitalism is morally required. This includes caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) rather than government safety or health regulations. In a libertarian nation, there would be no welfare state or government food stamps to save the poor. Private property is important.

3. Coercion (the deprivation of liberty) is wrong except to punish criminals, to defend against an immoral attack, and to supervise the mentally incompetent (for example, children, the senile, the retarded, and the insane). Paternalism against mentally competent adults is wrong. The definition of paternalism is restricting the freedom of another person allegedly for his/her own good.

4. Everyone must keep his/her promises. Fraud is wrong.

5. Government should be minimal. Government should be only a night watchperson limited to peacekeeping functions (for example, the police and the military), enforcing principles 1-4 above with as little force as possible.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4).OF FF

I disagree with the quote on 2A using libertarianism subprinciple number one because the government has not right to intervene when two consenting adults agree to buy and sell firearms. Libertarianism focuses on limited government and controlling what people buy is immoral. 

 
 

3. Using a handgun as self-defense will increase the likelihood of a fatality. 

 
 

3A. “The availability of a handgun and taking of a self-defense measure during an aggravated assault dramatically increased the likelihood of a fatality.” Matthew G. Yeager with Joseph D. Alviani and Nancy Loving, “How Well Does the Handgun Protect You and Your Family?” in Lee Nisbet, ed, The Gun Control Debate, 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 215. 

 
 

3B. I disagree with the quote. 

 
 

3C. I disagree with the quote stated in 3A, and the moral principle of egalitarianism number 1 supports my stance. IF FF Egalitarianism number 1 states; “Treat relevantly similar cases similarly, and relevantly different cases differently.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). OF The quote stated in 3A violates this egalitarian principle because IF it misrepresents the situation found within these criminal cases. Although it may be PU true that fatalities do increase when firearms are present, some of these fatalities are caused when the victim uses the weapon for self defense purposes. RU BLUE LINE In this case, the increased number of fatalities should not SU TU USE THE ACTIVE VOICE; SEE WIKIPEDIA ENTRY FOR THE ACTIVE VOICE be seen as a negative aspect of firearms, as the fatality was someone who actively sought to harm another person. Firearms give people the opportunity to protect themselves and their families from harm.


I disagree with the quote on 3A because IF it violates prima facie subprinciple eight. IF According to prima facie subprinciple eight, it is entirely justified for IF someone to kill in order to protect themselves and innocent bystanders. While it is tragic that some people may have to die, citizens must have a means to end a direct threat. If the handguns were taken away from society, the only people who would end up dying would be the victims. Handguns allow victims to fight back IU ADD: MORE EFFECTIVELY. While this may PU increase the number of fatalities overall, this number is meaningless because IF the people being killed are the ones disturbing the peace within society.

 
 

Utilitarianism number 1 supports the claim I IF make on 3B because IF allowing people to protect themselves brings about the most happiness within society. Utilitarianism number 1 states; “Promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). OF If citizens do not have a means of protecting themselves, then they will constantly become victim to various attacks within society. These crimes will continue because the criminals know that they have an inherent advantage over their defenseless victims. Arming citizens will increase the fatality count, but only among those wishing to inflict harm. It will ensure the maximum happiness for society because crimes will drop, as the risk for committing crimes will increase, citizens PU: ARE MORE APT TO FIGHT BACK EFFECTIVELY can fight back, and criminals are removed from society. 

 
 

A counter argument for the quote on 3A can be made by using the moral principle number four, “ Loyalty is a virtue and disloyalty is a vice.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). OF If citizens put their trust and loyalty to the law, then citizens should not be afraid of attacks; however, there are individuals that do not follow the law. Loyalty to the law is great, but it can not stop all of those who do not follow them. 

 
 

Libertarianism number three IF supports my claim on 3B because IF it is morally wrong to disarm a citizen of their right “to defend against an immoral attack.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). OF IF The quote is trying to advocate against the use of handguns for self-defense. The quote claims that the availability of a handgun will increase the likelihood of a fatality; however, the victim should have the right to defend themselves rather than letting the aggravated assault to take place. GF In addition, the availability to a handgun grants the user the ability to prevent an aggravated assault without taking a shot.

 
 

4. Using Handguns is Like Smoking Cigarettes & Driving Drunk

 
 

4A. “Public health campaigns have changed the way Americans look at cigarette smoking and drunk driving and can do the same for handguns.” Josh Sugarman “The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns,’ in Richard C. Monk, ed., Taking Sides (Duskin Publishing Group, 1991), p. 270. 

 
 

4B. I disagree with this quote. 

 
 

4C. Egalitarianism subprinciple number two supports my claim on 3B because it is discriminating against people who own and want to own handguns. Furthermore, the quote on 4A is violates egalitarianism subprinciple number one because the quote does not view the case differently. The quote on 4A is claiming that handguns are like smoking and drunk driving. handguns are equally harmful to the person who owns them. The quote on 4A cannot conflate these two items because cigarettes have been proven to damage a person's life while guns can be.

 
 

I disagree with the quote on 4A because it violates the subprinciple of prima facie number five which avoids causing “pain or suffering.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). There are laws already restricting gun ownership. Adding more restrictions causes unnecessary risk to those owning and them for self defense. 

 
 

Some argue that we should view handguns the same as cigarettes by using utilitarianism subprinciple number one promoting “the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). OF Having safety commercials and informative advertising can raise awareness on how guns are used. Keeping the population informed will benefit many amounts of people.

A counter argument to the quote on 4A can be PU made with the moral principle virtue number two “Honesty is a virtue and dishonesty is a vice.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). OF Having the ability to see the statistics of how guns are used is valuable information the the public. Seeing the numbers helps people push the government to make changes where it seems fit; however it will also show the defensive usage of handguns. The bad part about this is that both pro-gun and pro-gun control have the ability to cherry pick items to their political favor. 

The moral principle libertarianism number five supports my statement on 4B because government involvement should be minimal. Government should not have the ability to see what gun owners are doing with their firearms. There are background checks and records of each purchase of a firearm, so the government should not violate people’s right to privacy. 

 
 

5. Gun control has not proved to work and it removes the ability for the victims to use guns for RF:self-defense. Punishing the weapon instead of the person using the weapon defeats the reason for gun control. 

 
 

5A. "Gun control has proved to be a grievous failure, a means of disarming honest citizens without limiting firepower available to those who prey on the law-abiding. Attempting to use the legal system to punish the weapon rather than the person misusing the weapon is similarly doomed to fail." Wayne R. LaPierre, Guns, Crime, and Freedom (Regnery Publishing, 1994), p. 102. 

 
 

5B. I agree with this quote 

 
 

5C. I agree with this quote because it argues that gun control violates the third moral principle of libertarianism. The third principle states; “Coercion (the deprivation of liberty) is wrong except to punish criminals, to defend against an immoral attack, and to supervise the mentally incompetent (for example, children, the senile, the retarded, and the insane). Paternalism against mentally competent adults is wrong. The definition of paternalism is restricting the freedom of another person allegedly for his/her own good” (Wayne R. LaPierre, Guns, Crime, and Freedom (Regnery Publishing, 1994), p. 167.). Taking the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens will do nothing to stop those who wish to inflict harm on others. Although killing others is wrong, people do have a right to self defense according to libertarian philosophy. The government should have no authority to restrict this fundamental right.

 
 

Taking away firearms from the hands of the public also violates egalitarian principle number 3. This principle states; “We should prevent innocent people from suffering through no fault of their own” (Wayne R. LaPierre, Guns, Crime, and Freedom (Regnery Publishing, 1994), p. 167.). Firearms are owned by civilians because they want an effective means of self defense. Crime will continue to play a role within society, and it is impossible for police to prevent all criminal activity from occurring. Denying people the right to protect themselves is counterproductive to their safety because they will always be vulnerable to an attack. This unnecessary suffering can be prevented through a decrease in overall gun control in America. 

 
 

I agree with the quote 5A because it argues gun control violates prima facie 3. This prima facie states; “Fair play: Avoid exploiting, cheating, or freeloading” (Wayne R. LaPierre, Guns, Crime, and Freedom (Regnery Publishing, 1994), p. 167.). If it is true that gun control only takes away guns from law abiding citizens, then criminals will have an advantage over their victims. This will then give the criminals the ability to exploit others without fear of retaliation. 

 
 

I agree with the quote of 5A because it violates the moral principle utilitarian slogan number two, “Each person counts for one and only one in calculating the maximum amount of happiness.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). Restricting firearms from every citizen prevents those who want to own firearms. To give the maximum amount of happiness, government should let the citizens choose whether or not they want to own firearms. This gives every citizen an equal chance to be happy with or without firearms. 

 
 

The moral principle virtue number three, “Kindness is a virtue and unkindness is a vice,” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). supports my statement on 5B because gun control focuses citizens being kind to each other. The flaw in that is wishful thinking. Thinking that gun control will stop violence is not realistic. No matter how hard people fight for peace, there will be no true peace in this world. Yes there will be peaceful times; however, people will always fight for the things they believe in and not every mind is the same. Trying to be kind restrices RU REDLINE the people their right to protect themselves with handguns against those who are unkind. 

 
 

6. Gun control’s purpose is to disarm the people from rebelling from tyrannical governments. 

 
 

6A. "Gun control proponents, intent on disarming the American people, ignore history that reveals the greatest crimes against humanity occur when ruthless governments disarm and then kill powerless civilians." Wayne R. LaPierre, Guns, Crime, and Freedom (Regnery Publishing, 1994), p. 167. 

 
 

6B. I agree with this quote. 

 
 

6C. I agree with the quote in 6A because it argues for the 5th principle of libertarianism. This principle states; “Government should be minimal. Government should be only a night watchperson limited to peacekeeping functions (for example, the police and the military), enforcing principles 1-4 above with as little force as possible” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). The Founding Fathers sought to create a free and open republic because they understood the terrors of living under a tyrannical government. A government can only abuse its people if they do not have a means of self defense, so the founding fathers ensured that the personal right to keep and bear arms would not be infringed by the federal government. Allowing the citizens to own guns will ensure that the government continues to perform its assigned duties, and will safeguard against any unwarranted power grabs. 

 
 

The quote in 6A also keeps the government honest, which coincides with virtue number 2. This virtue states; “Honesty is a virtue and dishonesty is a vice.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). Firearms will keep a government honest because they will keep the government accountable for its actions. According to social contract theory, the people have the right to overthrow a government if it begins to abuse its power. The problem begins when the people are not given a means to overthrow the government. If the people possess weapons of their own, then the government will always be wary of their actions, as any misstep might PU spell revolution. Firearms keep the government honest and within control of the people instead of the elite. 

 
 

Prima facie number eight supports my agreement on 6B by stating that citizens have the right to defend themselves from an immoral attack. In America’s history, American citizens used their guns to fight off the British. The reason we won the war was because we had the ability to bear arms. The right to bear arms no only keeps us safe from invading countries, but it also keeps our own government in check by limiting their power. In addition, It gives the citizens the right to fight back when our rights are in danger. 

 
 

Egalitarianism number four “Exploitation - taking unfair advantage of an innocent person's predicament - is wrong,” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). supports my agreement on 6B because this type of situation happens throughout history in many occasions. Not only did it happen during the Revolutionary War in America, it also happened in WWII Germany. Many civilians in WWII could not defend themselves against the oppressive government that was in power in Germany. Those who disagree with the quote on 6B believe that the American government today would not do such a thing; however, government will attain more power if the citizens keep giving them the power to write more laws. 

 
 

I agree with the quote on 6A by using the moral principle utilitarian slogan number two which states “ Each person counts for one and only one in calculating the maximum amount of happiness.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). To achieve maximum happiness, people should have the right to choose whether they want to own firearms or not. During the American Revolutionary War, there were two factions consisting of the patriots and the loyalists. Both had the decision on whether to fight the British or not. The ability to choose for oneself brings maximum happiness for individuals. 

 
 

7. There are no reliable statistics on how often guns are used to wound or scare away intruders. A handgun-toting civilian is likely to be killed or lose the handgun to a criminal than using the gun as self defense. 

 
 

7A. "How often are guns used merely to wound or scare away intruders? No reliable statistics are available, but most police officials agree that in a criminal confrontation on the street, the handgun-toting civilian is far more likely to be killed or lose his handgun to a criminal than successfully use the weapon in self-defense." Josh Sugarmann, "The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns," in Richard C. Monk, ed., Taking Sides (F:RDushkin publishing Group, 1991), p. 268. 

7B. I disagree with this quote. 

 
 

7C. I disagree with this quote because it violates the first principle of egalitarianism. This principle states; “Treat relevantly similar cases similarly, and relevantly different cases differently.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). Although the majority of civilians place themselves in further danger during tense situations, this is mainly due to a lack of firearm training instead of the firearm itself. There are plenty of scenarios in which a civilian with proper training and practice can easily diffuse a tense situation. The problem of civilian deaths can be alleviated with an increase in firearm awareness and training. These programs will ensure that firearms owners are responsible with their weapons, and can reliably use them for self defense. 

 
 

I disagree with this quote because it violates the first principle of libertarian, which states; “Anything between consenting adults is morally permissible. Note that this does not mean that doing some things to an adult without his consent (for example, punishment) is immoral.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). Even if guns are extremely harmful for adults, they should be given the right to own one. It is not the government’s place to regulate what an adult chooses to do with his life. 

 
 

A counter argument to the quote in 7A uses the prima facie subprinciple number 5 to “avoid causing pain or suffering” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). If the citizen is untrained, then it is easy for the criminal to steal it from the owner and use the firearm against them. The absence of a gun will lower the chances of the criminal from obtaining a firearm. 

 
 

I disagree with the quote on 7A by using the moral principle of utilitarian slogan number two which states, “Each person counts for one and only one in calculating the maximum amount of happiness.” (Source: Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Cengage, 1996, Chapter 4). Many factors affect the outcomes of criminal confrontations. Firearm training is one of them; however people should choose whether or not they want to own a firearms for RF:self-defense. People get to choose whether or not to run or stand their ground. No matter what people choose, it maximizes the happiness in individuals because of the right to choose. Banning firearms will deprive a person of those choices.

 
 

I disagree with the quote on 7A by using the moral principle virtue number two that states “Honesty is a virtue and dishonesty is a vice.” The quote on 7A states that the are no reliable statistics. The quote also assumes that most police officials agree that citizens are more likely to be killed if they owned a firearm. The quote is unreliable based on those two statements. 

 
 

8. Conclusion: Why Gun Control Should Avoid Harming Innocent Gun Owners 

 
 

In this paper, I will argued that gun control in America is immoral by using the five moral principles in chapter four of Sterling Harwood’s book, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual.I argued that limiting the ownership of firearms poses a risk to those who use them for self defense. :In addition, I argued that the focus on gun control is to regulate the criminal use of firearms; however, there are flaws when it comes to controlling gun ownership. Additionally, I argued that gun control affects innocent gun owners as well as criminals. Furthermore, I argued that gun control fails to stop the illegal sales of firearms through the black market. 

 
 

For my arguments, I used the moral principle of egalitarianism to treat different cases differently. In addition, I used the prima facie principle of nonmaleficence to avoid pain and suffering to lawful gun owners. Also, I used the moral principle of virtue to show the unkindness towards gun owners. Furthermore, used utilitarianism principle to show equal representation to those opposing gun control. Finally, used the moral principle of libertarianism to maximize individual freedoms by limiting government control. 

 
 

In 2C, I argued that innocent people should not be taxed alongside criminals and that law-abiding citizens should keep the right to protect themselves with handguns. 3C, I also argued that innocent people should have the right to protect themselves. In 4C, I argued that guns are different from cigarettes and cars. In 5C, I argued that criminals will have an advantage against the innocent. In 6C, I argued that the government should have a limited role in gun ownership. Finally, in 7C, I argued that there are many different factors such as firearms training. In conclusion, gun control is counterproductive because it affects law abiding citizens more than it affects criminals. 


* * * FAQ12: HAVE DOZENS OF QUOTES BY OR ABOUT CONFUCIUS (551-479 BC)?


  

1. “To see what is right, and not do it, is want of courage, or of principle.” ~ Confucius, quoted in Donald O. Bolander, Dolores D. Varner, Gary B. Wright, and Stephanie H. Greene, eds., Instant Quotation Dictionary (New York: Dell Publishing, 1972), p. 227.
 

2. “Honeyed words and flattering looks seldom speak of love.” ~ Confucius, quoted in The Sayings of Confucius (Barnes and Noble, 1994), hereinafter abbreviated ‘SOC’, p. 1.
 

3. “Of a gentleman who is frivolous none stand in awe, nor can his learning be sound. Make faithfulness and truth thy masters: have no friends unlike thyself; be not ashamed to mend they faults.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 2. Compare: "Opposites attract" and "Birds of a feather flock together." Compare "Variety is the spice of life" & admiration for diversity & inclusion.
 

4. “A gentleman who is not a greedy eater, nor a lover of ease at home, who is earnest in deed and careful of speech who seeks the righteous and profits by them, may be called fond of learning.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 3.
 

5. “Not to be known should not grieve you; grieve that ye know not men.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 4. Compare the old saying: “It’s not what you know but who you know that counts.” Further, compare the counter-saying: “It’s not who you know that counts but who knows you.”
 

6. “Guide the people by law, subdue them by punishment; they may shun crime, but will be void of shame. Guide them by example, subdue them by courtesy; they will learn shame, and come to be good.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 5.
 

7. “At fifteen, I was bent on study; at thirty, I cold stand; at forty, doubts ceased; at fifty, I understood the laws of Heaven; at sixty, my ears obeyed me; at seventy, I could do as my heart lusted, and never swerve from right.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 5.
 

8. “If I talk all day to Hui [Confucius’s favorite disciple], like a dullard, he never stops me. But when he is gone, if I pry into his life, I find he can do what I say. No, Hui is no dullard.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 7.
 

9. “Look at a man’s acts; watch his motives; find out what pleases him; can the man evade you? Can the man evade you?” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 7.
 

10. “He [a gentleman] is broad and fair; the vulgar are biassed [sic, biased] and petty.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 7.
 

11. “Work on strange doctrines does harm.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 7.
 

12. “Listen much, keep silent when in doubt, and always take heed of the tongue; thou wilt make few mistakes. See much, beware of pitfalls, and always give heed to thy walk; thou wilt have little to rue. If thy words are seldom wrong, they deeds leave little to rue, pay will follow.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 8.
 

13. Confucius, to a questioner, on why he is not in power: “What does the book say of a good son? ‘An always dutiful son, who is a friend to his brothers, showeth the way to rule.’ This also is to rule. What need to be in power?” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, 1994), p. 8
 

14. “Without truth I know not how man can live. A cart without a crosspole, a carriage without harness, how could they be moved?” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 9.
 

15. Confucius, to the questioner Tzu-chang, on whether we can know what is to be ten generations hence: “The Yin inherited the manners of the Hsia; the harm and the good that they wrought them is known. The Chou inherited the manners of the Yin; the harm and the good that they wrought them is known. And we may know what is to be, even an hundred generations hence, when others follow Chou.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 9.
 

16. “A friend to love, a foe to evil, I have yet to meet. A friend to love will set nothing higher. In love’s service, a foe to evil will let no evil touch him. Were a man to give himself to love, but for one day, I have seen no one whose strength would fail him. Such men there may be, but I have not seen one.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 18.
 

17. “A scholar in search of truth who is ashamed of poor clothes and poor food it is idle talking to.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 18.
 

18. “The chase of gain is rich in hate.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 18.
 

19. “Be not concerned at want of place; be concerned that thou stand thyself. Sorrow not at being unknown, but seek to be worthy of note.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 19.
 

20. “One thread, Shen [a particular disciple of Confucius], runs through all my teaching.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 19.
 

21. “A gentleman considers what is right; the vulgar consider what will pay.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 19.
 

22. “Who contains himself goes seldom wrong.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 20.
 

23. “A gentleman wishes to be slow to speak and quick to act.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, 1994), p. 20.
 

24. “The Master’s teaching all hangs on faithfulness and fellow-feeling.” ~ Tseng-tzu, quoted in SOC, p. 19.


Privacy Policy coming soon

faq13: have a sample paper on ancient aliens?

***WARNING: SAMPLE PAPERS ARE IMPERFECT PAPERS. EVEN THOUGH DR. HARWOOD HAS SPENT SOME TIME IMPROVING THESE PAPERS, THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY ACTUAL PAPERS FROM ACTUAL STUDENTS THAT ACTUALLY MAKE ACTUAL MISTAKES. FOLLOW THE GOOD PARTS OF THEM & REFUSE TO FOLLOW THE BAD PARTS OF THEM. REFUSE TO FOLLOW THEM SLAVISHLY. TO TELL THE GOOD PARTS FROM THE BAD PARTS, SEE THE GUIDELINES A-Z COMING SOON TO THIS SITE AND THEN SEE DR. HARWOOD EARLY & OFTEN FOR MORE GUIDANCE AS YOU NEED IT.***

 
 

ANCIENT ALIEN THEORY IS TRUE: EXTRATERRESTRIALS HAVE VISITED EARTH

by an Anonymous Student

 
 

1. Introduction: Ancient aliens have visited earth in the past & have helped to shape our history 

 
 

In this paper, I will argue that ancient alien and astronaut theory is true and our ancestors have been visited by extraterrestrials from the past. Ancient alien theory is the hypothesis that at one time, extraterrestrial beings influenced our human culture, technology, and religion though being in contact with them.

GF Furthermore, I will argue that ancient aliens have once come down and have given us knowledge that our ancestors have used and replicated in the form of artifacts and relics. GF Also, I will argue our lore and legends of what we consider Gods were in fact in the image of these ancient aliens. I will be using the truth tips to help support the evidence and claims of the ancient alien theorist.

The counter-arguments in this paper will try to prove that ancient alien theory is invalid through the use of mockery, references to animals, impractical use of items, and experiments. However, I will argue that these counter-arguments are flawed due to the violation of the fallacies and the 7 truth tips I discuss below.

 
 

In 2C I will argue that humans are the cause for war rather than aliens. In 3C I will argue that the figurines of Tolima are depictions that aliens used flight to arrive to Earth. In 4C I will argue that the Nazca lines were a tribute for ancient astronauts to return. In 5C I will argue that the ancient astronauts are the Gods in our sacred text. In 6C I will argue that cave paintings and sculptures are depictions of ancient aliens. In 7C I will argue that ancient aliens have mapped our earth before humans. In 8C I will argue that ancient aliens created the Moai statues on Easter Island. In 9C I will argue that ancient astronauts were at the Egyptian sites where the pyramids were created. In 10C I will argue that astronomy was the gift given from humans to ancient astronauts. In 11C I will argue that Ancient aliens used the Bermuda triangle to as a star gate. 

 
 

2. Ancient aliens that visited the Earth are more friend than foe

 
 

2A. “Bramley’s thesis thus comes in two parts: First, the conspiracy to keep humankind enslaved. How? By continuously having us fight each other and making sure we are constantly either living in fear and/or slaves to something.” ~ Philip Coppens, The Ancient Alien Question, The Career Press Inc, 2012, p. 45.

 
 

2B. I disagree with this quote.

 
 

2C. William Bramley’s counter argument consists of there being a hidden hand that consistently is stirring the pot to create war. He argues there is one organization that is globally telling every group that they are superior to another. GF Furthermore, he proclaims that it's strange humans are divided through skin color and race when humans proclaim to have similar spiritual souls within.

 
 

War has been a part of humanity since the beginning of time. There are many reasons that humans will fight each other without the need of alien persuasion. Wars have been started over territory, economy, slavery, and even religion. War happens often whether it's organized or disorganized. In the case of the Parthian war, the need to pillage and take the spoils of war was more than enough of a reason to fight. “One can picture the Parthian invasion not as an organized campaign but as a multipronged swarm of steppe warriors year after year chopping a swath through the center of the former Persian Empire. After taking one town and absorbing its resources, they would soon move on to the next.”(Stephen Tanner, Afghanistan, Da Capo Press, 2002, p. 57).

 
 

There are so many sites around the world where alien intervention is the answer. Many wondrous places such as Egypt show that alien technology assisted in creating beautiful structures and monuments that were too heavy to complete in a short timeframe. Even pyramids of Mexico are placed in a sense that shows signs of knowledge in astrology at a time where the solar system was difficult to understand. The Moai statues in Easter Islands were carved at a time where completion would be difficult to achieve. Ancient aliens have assisted humankind of friendship rather than antagonism.

 
 

3. The Tolima figurines of Columbia are depictions of space jets

.

3A. "Don't you think that alien technology that is capable of travelling from another star would look more exotic than modern day fighter jets? In my mind, no matter how I look at it, the idea behind the Tolima fighter jets is just plain silly." ~ Vernon Macdonald, Ancient Aliens Exposed: Debunking UFO's, Ancient Astronauts and Other Unexplained Mysteries, CreateSpace publishing, 2013, p. 82.

 
 

3B. I disagree with this quote.

 
 

3C. Macdonald’s argument is invalid due to breaking truth tip 4. This states that any claims that are vague, ambiguous, or otherwise unclear require clarification before acceptance. The issue with his claim is that it’s based on pure speculation and lacks any evidence to back his statement. The use the word silly is just too vague. GF Furthermore, it is premature to assume that the jets and crafts of extraterrestrial would not look similar to human shuttles based on aliens being advanced lacks reason

.

Ancient alien theorists explain their reasoning in why the Tolima figurines resemble fighter jets. Giorgio Tsoukalos argues, "Many of those figurines looked like insects and fish. However, out of those 100s that they found, they also found about a dozen that are eerily reminiscent of modern-day fighter jets." (Giorgio Tsoukalos, Ancient Aliens: The Evidence, History Channel, April 20, 2010) These figures must resemble jets. The figurine contains a cockpit, wings, elevator, horizontal and vertical stabilizer. It is agreed upon ancient alien theorists that since many of these figurines are animals, the other dozen must be a figure of a flying aircraft considering that there is no insect or bird with a vertical wing such as a vertical stabilizer. This was the Colombian natives’ way of depicting how the ancient astronauts arrived on this planet.

Since birds and insects are ruled out, there is another animal that could have been replicated in this fashion. Ancient aliens debunker Chris White believes that this could be a portrayal of a fish. He argues that it is reminiscent of the a type of catfish. RU FIX THE REDLINING "One fish that the Tolima would have been familiar with is the sucker mouth catfish." (Chris White, Ancient Aliens Debunked, Independent film, 2012.) He claims that the characteristics of the catfish explain the fins and eyes. Furthermore, he also states that the Tolima had an artistic style, so many of the figurines are going to be a bit off in comparison to the animal it was inspired from. The counter argument to this claim is that the Tolima fish figurines all have a dorsal fin in common. Sucker mouth catfish have dorsal fins on their back. There is little reason that the natives would forget to add a dorsal fin to a figurine when they have done so to the others that resemble fish.

 
 

In an experiment, one of the Tolima figurines was created five times its size with a working motor to test its flight capabilities. The experiment was a success explaining that the creators of the figurines had some knowledge in aerodynamics. Likewise, across the world, a similar artifact found in Egypt also existed. The Saqqara bird was a sleek figurine with a rudder where a tail would normally fit. After testing, the conclusion was that the Saqqara bird was capable of flight. Algund Eenboom states, "Tests show that the Saqqara bird is a highly developed glider." (Dr. Algund Eenboom, Ancient Aliens: The Evidence, History Channel, April 20, 2010) In two different places, two models were shown with shapes of a modern jet, were capable of flight

.

4. The Nazca lines were created by Nazca people to catch the attention of ancient aliens, a way to navigate them, and even a way to land their crafts

 
 

4A. "Just because it looks like and airstrip doesn't mean it's an airstrip. This idea simply lacks any kind of common sense. Of course that's never stopped the Ancient Alien crew. They've built an entire show on it!" ~ Vernon Macdonald, Ancient Aliens Exposed: Debunking UFOs Ancient Astronauts And Other Unexplained Mysteries, CreateSpace Publishing, 2013, p. 66.

 
 

4B. I disagree with this quote.

 
 

4C. This argument is invalid and defective under the Ad Hominem Fallacy. Vernon Macdonald’s argument is unclear and vague in his statement while attacks the ancient alien theorist by commenting on their common sense. The Nazca line is a 200 square mile area that is dated in 500 BC. The lines consist of designs of animals, intricate mathematical diagrams as well as hundreds of straight runway lines that stretch for many miles. It is clear that these lines and designs are difficult to visually be seen when on the ground, but they become very clear displays when viewed from the air.

 
 

Flight has been an idea that eluded man for quite for centuries. The first hot air balloon was created by Joseph Michael and Jacques Etienne Montgolfier in 1783. Meanwhile, the Wright brothers success to flight was in the early 1900’s.

At the time of the Nazca natives, flight has yet to be invented. For a group of people to have created designs and that must be seen in full when in the air, one must conclude that the people of Nazca created the Nazca lines for someone with advanced technology. Ancient aliens theory fits this so well. The theory is that the ancient aliens landed in this area, been in contact with the Nazca, and returned to space. The Nazca people would then have seen the technology and even receive goods such as food and consider the extraterrestrial as Gods. In hope that they would return, the Nazca people created the Nazca lines not only as way to pay tribute, but also as a landmark, a navigational marker, and even a landing strip for the ancient aliens to see and land when they return in the area.

The counter argument to this theory is typically focused on the soil of the Nazca plateau. It is well known that the actual terrain is too soft to support landing from the wheels of an airplane. Furthermore, Chris White argues by stating that an advanced spacecraft would hardly need such long airstrips to take off. When referring to the 15 mile Nazca line he explains, "It would be a pretty ineffective spacecraft if it took 15 miles for it to take off, or in an alternate explanation, it would need to drag on the ground for 15 miles before it stopped." (Chris White, Ancient Aliens Debunked, Independent film, 2012.) This argument is only valid if the people of Nazca understood the laws of flight as well as the knowledge of landing a craft. However, as mentioned earlier, the success of flight was in the 1700’s well after the time of the Nazca line creation. The Nazca people would have witnessed a flying craft land and would assume they needed room to land, but was unable to understand how much room is needed. Furthermore, they must have seen the landing tracks in the same fashion as we see from the Mars rover tracks on Mars today. The Nazca natives used this example to build a mock runway. There have been similar experiences when humans from an advanced world of technology met another who were still fairly primitive away from civilization

.

There have been past experience that indeed explains this theory. During World War II, some American airbases were operated on Vanuatu, an island in the South Pacific Ocean. The Americans landed on the island where they would set up bases and in return for the use of land, they supplied crates of food to the natives of Tanna who lived there. They were shared with some of the natives who received their first glimpse of advanced technology. Some of the items were washer machines, radios, and treats such as candy. Being a pre-industrial colony, the only explanation the people of Tanna have come up with was that the American soldiers were gods. To see a group of people coming from an UFO makes perfect sense that they would be mistaken for a higher being. When the Americans departed, the natives decided built mock airplanes and airstrips as a way to appease and entice the gods so they can PU bring more goods to them. David Childress explains that this is how the cargo cult religion was created. “The islanders scratched their head and they all said to themselves 'wow wasn't it great when all these planes came out of the sky and gave us free cans of corn beef and stuff. We really liked that cargo.' Entire religions sprung up from this where priest actually said yes you know that was our dead ancestors sending us cargo.” (David Childress, Ancient Aliens: Chariots, Gods and Beyond, The History Channel, March 8, 2009.) The Nazca natives would react in a similar fashion when the ancient aliens landed. Here we have Ancient aliens coming down to Peru, meeting with the people of Nazca, showing them their technological advances, and then vanishing before their very eyes. Following the departure, the people of Nazca create airways to assist the Ancient aliens to land as well as designs of animals large enough to gather the attention of the aliens.

 
 

5. The Ancient aliens that visited the earth are the Gods that were written about throughout religious text and scriptures

5A. " Why is so absurd for aliens to come when it's completely acceptable for God to intervene in human history? The difference is Von Daniken's arguing that aliens came and gave technologies to people to advance those cultures. So basically they gave objects, they gave new ideas, and technologies and those cultures advanced because of that. Whereas, at least in the Bible it's not like God gave humankind a magic watch or a new missile that they can use to defeat their enemies. God gives instructions, at least the bible records, that god gives instructions on how to live but not how to build new devices that further or advance a specific culture." ~ Robert R. Cargill, Ancient Aliens: Chariots, Gods and Beyond, The History Channel, March 8, 2009.

 
 

5B. I disagree with this quote.

 
 

5C. Cargill’s argument breaks the fallacy of failing to follow Occam’s Razor. On one hand, the ancient alien theory states that humans on earth have learned or witnessed technology from extraterrestrial intervention. There are many cases to be made from the craftsmanship of the statues of Easter Island to the precision of the Saksaywaman walls that modern technology would struggle to replicate today. On the other hand, the theory of Bible states that God came down to give humans guidance to a way of life, the promise of the spirit to live for an eternity after death and spiritual gifts. When two theories are conflicting, Occam's Razor suggest to choose the simpler of the two theories. Ancient alien theory would be the simplest explanation considering there are physical evidence in comparison to just having faith in believing burning and snakes that speak.

 
 

In the Bible, the scriptures were based on what people have seen or witnessed. There would be claims that God came down to give his wisdom. In this case, they would witness an extraterrestrial descending down from the skies in a flying contraption and mistaken them as the gods of this planet. In the case of Ezekiel, the prophet saw beings coming down on a flying machine with the roars of thunder. For a time that would not have understood advanced technology, the roars of thunder or waterfall would describe the sound the main engine. Ezekiel talks about a wheel within a wheel which better describes advanced aerial technology in comparison to the super natural. In fact, Nasa created an omni wheel, a wheel that can drive and slide in multiple directions, that is patented by once Nasa employee J.F. Blumrich. This device was created based off the interpretation of the wheel within a wheel from Ezekiel's description.

 
 

Most religions have similar descriptions of how their god arrived. The Sanskrit of India also describe similar chariots in the air called Vimanas. The common descriptions of Vimanas are flying machines that are created out of metal. In two different religions, we have vehicles coming down from sky. Often they are written in a sense of arrival in a spectacular fashion, giving orders to the people on how to live, and vanishing into the skies while promising to return one day. If we take that concept in a literal sense, it’s apparent that ancient aliens came down and communicated with us before flying back to what many of would consider the heavens at that time.

 
 

One of the main counter arguments is that the context of the scriptures are taken too literal. Ilia Delio argues interpretation needs to be taken metaphorically. “The ancients use myth, metaphor, and images to describe their experience to God. I think what we don't want to want to fall to is a type of fundamental literalism.” (Sister Ilia Delio, Ancient Aliens: Chariots, Gods and Beyond, The History Channel, March 8, 2009.) This was at a time where writing was a new skill. The ancient people must have written down exactly they saw because of the importance of that moment. They would want to document what they saw knowing that it would be important to our history.

 
 

6. Ancient cave galleries and sculptures show aliens traveled to earth in similar astronaut suits that we use today.

 
 

6A. “There exist ‘rock art galleries’ in caves in Australia that contain pictographs of what appear to be humanoid beings dressed in garb that is very similar to modern spacesuits. More often than not, these beings are pictures with flying objects either above them or in the background.” ~ Vincenzo J. Macrino, Humanity -- The Alien Project: an Ancient Astronaut Theory, Bridger House Publishers, 2013, p. 254.

 
 

6B. I agree with this quote.

 
 

6C. Many artifacts that are considered as religious are often sculpted in the image of what the person saw. In the case of the rock gallery in Australia, the drawings of are creatures that look humanoid with a type of barrier around them that would symbolize a space suit. Furthermore, in Sego Canyon there are petroglyphs that show humanoid characters with helmets and even antennae attached. Also, there is one particular drawing of four humans looking up as one taller figure is ascending into the sky. In Italy, some drawings in cave show a person with a spherical object around their head depicting a space helmet as one is angled to be floating next to his fellow astronaut. In three different areas on the world, there very similar drawings of astronaut helmets of each other depicting other worldly beings.

There are sculptures around the world that are carved in what ancient astronaut theorists believe in the image of aliens in astronaut suits. One sculpture in Tikal, the ruins of Guatemala City is carved in a way that depicts a man in what appears to be a space suit. GF Furthermore, there is a helmet, controls near the hands and a breathing apparatus where the mouth would be. It is very compelling considering there are many other sculptures of what looks to be astronauts or space shuttles from different periods of time in countries that would have very little contact with each other hundreds of years ago.

 
 

One of the most famous sculptures Palenque is the sarcophagus of Lord Pakal. Many archeologists see this depicting King Pakal descending into the underworld. They also agree that the three main symbols being the vision serpent, celestial bird, and the world tree are depicted. My argument against this theory is the fact that the vision serpent in this case is depicted in a way that would be uncommon. The vision serpent is typically depicted as a creature with snake body and a human head. In fact, the human head often resembles the same face that was sculpted on Lord Pakal in this very carving. Lord Pakal’s face is on the opposite side of the theorized vision serpent.

 
 

Ancient astronaut theorist have another explanation in comparison to the underworld theory. Tsoukalos gives a description of this theory. "We have maintained for a very long time that the depiction here is king Pakal sitting in some kind of spacecraft. He is at an angle like modern-day astronauts upon lift-off" (Giorgio Tsoukalos, Ancient Aliens: Chariots, Gods and Beyond, The History Channel, March 8, 2009) When looking closely at the sarcophagus, one will see Pacal with a assisted breathing, both hands working the control board and the flames from the main engines in the back.

 
 

7. Ancient aliens have mapped the Earth 

 
 

7A. "A spaceship hovers high above Cairo and points its camera straight downward. When the film is developed, the following picture would emerge: Everything that is in a radius of about 5,000 miles of Cairo is reproduced correctly, because it lies directly below the lens." ~ Erich von Daniken, Chariots of the Gods, The Berkeley Publishing Group, 1999, pp. 18-19.)

 
 

7B. I agree with this quote.

 
 

7C. The famous Piri Reis map is unlike any other map of its time. In comparison the map is much more detailed in the way it looks as well as the land itself. In fact, there are land masses that have yet to be discovered. The Piri Reis map was compiled in 1513 where Antarctica was rumored to be first seen in the early 1800's. GF Furthermore, the coast of Antarctica on the map was illustrated of the actual land mass that is under the ice. In other words, the knowledge of the contents on the map must have been known at such a time before Antarctica contained ice. When cartographers laid the map onto modern maps, the illustration fit precisely enough to make them wonder how such an old map from centuries earlier could have mapped rivers and land formations before they were even discovered by any human.

 
 

8. Ancient Aliens created the Moai statues when stranded on Easter Island

 
 

8A. "A small group of intelligent beings was stranded on Easter Island owing to a technical hitch. The stranded group had a great store of knowledge, very advanced weapons, and a method of working stone unknown to us, of which there are many examples around the world." ~ Erich von Daniken, Gods From Outer Space, Bantam Books, 2000, p. 118.

 
 

8B. I agree with this quote.

.

8C. Easter Island is a Chilean Island that is very remote and for the most part uninhabited. Ancient alien theorists argue that a group of aliens were stranded and demonstrated to the indigenous group on creating structures. Once the aliens were saved, they left with just a few statues complete while the people of Easter Island tried to replicate and complete the unfinished statues only to fail due to the difficulty of transport of the stone.

 
 

Archeologist agree and counter argue with two main points. The first being the Moai were carved by man with simple tools. The second point being that the Moai were moved with wooden rollers and rope. In terms of the first point, stone carving tools have been discovered on Easter Island around the year 2012. Many of them were found in the quarry where the Moai were sculpted. I agree with this considering there is evidence of tools being near and capable of sculpting volcanic rock.

With the second point, it is accepted that the statues were moved to their location due to the volcanic rock used to create the Moai are in a different location of the island. Most archeologist accept the principle and counter argument that the people of Easter Island moved the Moai with wooden rollers and rope. The ancient alien counterargument is the Islanders had scarce food, resources, and the manpower to really move and create over eight hundred stones standing nearly thirty feet tall. Easter Island at one point had trees when archeologist comfirmed using pollen analysis. Chris white, an ancient alien debunk theorist, explains that replicated experiments have been successful. "It seems they are aware that there have been successful experiments moving Moai with wooden sleds and minimal workers. So, ancient aliens have to do what they do best, create a false dilemma." (Chris White, Ancient Aliens Debunked, Independent film, 2012.) While the first part of his statement is true, I would give the counter argument of the conditions of these experiments. In the example where ropes are tied to Moai, the people tug in a heave-ho rhythm that walks the statue forward on a perfectly flat dirt road. Likewise, the example of the wooden rollers, the wood lain upon a flat bed of rocks to help the wood glide when the heavy statue was placed upon them. Easter Island is quite the opposite. The terrain is quite rough with large rocks lain everywhere as well as many slopes due to the hills. The use of this method would be rather difficult to use for the wooden rollers to travel through tall grass, rocks, and uneven dirt. The heave-ho technique would have been proven useless on anything but flat land.

 
 

In terms of Daniken's theory, the scenario would play out this this fashion. A group of ancient aliens were stranded on Easter Island. There they meet the natives and show them their technological advances by creating Moai and moving them to the outskirts of the island. Once rescued, the aliens left with their knowledge and tools. The natives try to replicate this and even carve out a few stones, but failed during the transport. On the Island there are Moai that have been destroyed completely or simply broken at the neck. This would be due to the attempt to transport them with wooden rollers.

 
 

9. The Egyptians received a hand in ancient astronaut technology to build the pyramids

 
 

9A. "The pyramids were also built in a rock quarry for the likely purpose of cutting down on the distance the stones had to be moved. The evidence for anti-gravity beams or other such exotic technology being used is zero." ~ Vernon Macdonald, Ancient Aliens Exposed: Debunking UFOs Ancient Astronauts And Other Unexplained Mysteries, CreateSpace Publishing, 2013, p. 49.

 
 

9B. I disagree with this quote.

 
 

9C. Macdonald breaks truth tip 5. The truth tip states claims using extreme words, such as zero, without a qualifying word is likely false. Macdonald claims that anti-gravity or other advanced techniques were absent, but the math and statistics support that it would have taken much longer than twenty two years to complete by primitive tactics. In terms of creating the Pyramid of Giza in 22 years, Giorgio Tsoukalos supports this theory that the Egyptians would have had to work at an amazing pace. "Logistically speaking you would have to cut, transport and put into place one stone every nine seconds." (Giorgio Tsoukalos, Ancient Aliens: Chariots, Gods and Beyond, The History Channel, March 8, 2009). It is common belief among the archeologist that the pyramids were either created in or near a quarry. This is due to the efficiency of working near the source material being so close thus removing the harsh effort of moving heavy stones to great distances. That much is agreed upon. French scientist, Jason Davidovits, who through chemical analysis has discovered that many parts of the pyramids in Egypt are actually unnatural geopolymer. In fact, when studying three pyramids (that is, Cheops, Teti, and Sneferu) the quarry samples shown a difference in material. The Sneferu samples were roughly 96% calcite while the Teti and Cheops were composed of 85%. Furthermore, many of the stones that are assumed to be geopolymer consisted of Opal CT and silico-aluminate while the natural quarries failed to contain such material.

 
 

If the quarry are of different composition, why do archeologist believe it to be of same material as the natural stone? Advanced alchemy must have played a role through higher technology. If natural stone was quarried and placed with other materials, there would be a chemical reaction that would create what we would consider a type of mortar. With this, it would create a geopolymer with the physical consistency of natural quarry. Furthermore, this mortar has proven to be more superior than modern cement. The cement used to restore Egyptian monuments which had already started to degrade only after half of a century. This also explains how accurate each stone is placed upon each other so precise where there is little to no space in between one placed stone onto another

.

10. Ancient aliens gave humans Knowledge of Early Astronomy

 
 

10A "It was a known fact back then already that the Sun was the center of our solar system which western science did not find out until much much later." ~ Giorgio Tsoukalos, Ancient Aliens: Chariots, Gods and Beyond, The History Channel, March 8, 2009. 

 
 

10B. I agree with quote.

 
 

10C. There are common sites around the world that have structures that align with the model of our solar system. In the Teotihuacan avenue of the dead in Mexico, the pyramids align in perfectly modeling the orbit of our solar system. Furthermore, the temple of Sun is positioned in a way that represents the Sun. The smaller pyramids are modeling the orbit around the temple of the Sun. Likewise at Stonehenge, one would see that they line up in perfect orbiting circles when seen from an aerial view. Those circles also represent the orbit with the planets in our solar system. The main counter argument is simply it's just a coincidence, but there are other sites that have similar evidence that these structures were built with a purpose in astronomy. The stone temples of Tikal have a layout that is in the shape of the Pleiades portion in the Orion constellation. Also a cluster of land on mars is in the same pattern.

11. Extraterrestrials are using the Bermuda triangle as a gateway.

 
 

11A. “Anytime you have energy generated at all especially from a higher plane a higher dimension, it’s going to be rotation by spin that allows that energy through, so by definition such energy emissions are going to be vortexes. So vortex and gateway are the same thing.” (Michael Bara, Ancient Aliens: Mysterious Places, History Channel, October 28 2010). 

 
 

11B. I agree with this quote.

 
 

11C. On earth we have areas where earth’s magnetic field are higher than average. The Bermuda triangle is the area that covers within the three points of Miami, Puerto Rico, and Bermuda. From planes mysteriously disappearing to the compass of Christopher Columbus, the Bermuda triangle is an area that interferes with our technology. Many planes and crew members have been reported missing, but one pilot that experienced such technical difficulties lived to tell his story. Pilot Bruce Gernon was piloting through the Bermuda when his plane started to malfunction. He claims going through a vortex of fog and strange lights. "The tunnel was huge at first but then it started getting smaller rapidly. When I penetrated through the tunnel and incredible thing happened. These lines instantly formed. It was like looking through a rifle barrel." (Bruce Gernon, Ancient aliens: Mysterious Places, History Channel, October 28th, 2010) Furthermore, when he exited the vortex and contact Miami air traffic control, they could not locate his plane on the radar until three minutes later. Gernon arrived from the Bahamas to Florida in thirty minutes when the average flight is about one hour. In terms of Einstein's theory of relativity, bending space to create a wormhole to decrease the time of travel. This would be the ideal choice for extraterrestrials.

In Mexico, the zone of silence is an area where technology tends to fail. Strange occurrences happen here. David Childress argues it is an abnormal place. "It's completely bizarre. There's strange rocks everywhere, there's strange animals living in the area. You feel a strange tingling when you're there." (David Childress Ancient Aliens: Mysterious Places, History Channel, October 28 2010) Pilot Francisco Sarabia first discovered the abnormalities when flying over and his radio malfunctioned. This area has also attracted a missile from Utah that was meant to hit another part of Mexico. In this practice launch, the missile overflew its target and landed into the zone of silence. This zone has some relation with the Bermuda triangle and its magnetism. Furthermore, it's also considered Mexico's Bermuda triangle since it shares the same latitude plane as certain portions of the Bermuda triangle.

 
 

12. Conclusion: Ancient alien theory is true

In conclusion, there are numerous reasons to believe that ancient astronauts have come down to Earth at one point in our time. I have provided evidence that supports the ancient astronaut theory. I have used the fallacies and truth tips to counter argue those who continue to attempt to debunk ancient alien theory. Ancient astronauts have come down to Earth and have had an impact in our technology. Furthermore, they have shaped our religious beliefs in many lands to where they are today. There will always be skeptics ready to disprove with evidence and even sometimes slander and insults, but the truth is out there to see. With ancient alien theory, the world makes a bit more sense to understand.


* * * FAQ14: HAVE QUOTES BY OR ABOUT ARISTOTLE? * * *


For more, see the very powerful quotes about Aristotle (& Plato) from Carl Sagan’s book Cosmos, around page 100.


1. “[I]n everything natural there is something marvelous.” ~ Aristotle, quoted in Creating Foundations, History International Channel (HINT), first aired 12/27/2007.


2. "We will have an economy that works for you. Let us declare that we will call upon bold thinking to address the disparity of income in America, which is at the root of the crisis of confidence felt by so many Americans. As Justice Brandeis said: ‘We may have democracy or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, but we cannot have both.’ We must end that injustice and restore the public’s faith in a better future for themselves and their children. We must be champions of the middle class, and all those who aspire to it, because the middle class is the backbone of our democracy. It has been since the birth … It has been since the birth of our democracy. Aristotle said: ‘It is manifest that the best political community is formed by citizens of the middle class in which the middle class is large and stronger than any of the other classes.’ We must fight for the middle class that is fair and fiscally sound, protecting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security." ~ Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, 1/3/19.


3. “All would acknowledge, then, that the inferior class should be slaves of the superior.” ~ Aristotle, quoted in Creating Foundations, History International Channel (HINT), first aired 12/27/2007.


4. "For Aristotle, life with Philip's Pages may not have been so harmonious.  He later wrote penetratingly on the trusting and emotional nature of the young, who prefer the noble to the useful.  'Their errors are on the grand scale, born of excess ... unlike the old they think they know it all [al]ready.'  Equally, they 'do not keep quiet of their own accord,' wrote Aristotle, but 'education serves as a rattle to distract the older children.'...” ~ Robin Lane Fox, The Search for Alexander (Little, Brown and Company, 1980), pp. 66-68.


5. “The riddle [of where birds go in winter] has befuddled some of the world’s greatest minds for hundreds of years. In the fourth century BC, Aristotle, the famous Greek philosopher and scientist, hypothesized that birds transformed from one species to another.” ~ Don Wildman, Narrator and Host, “Arrow Stork, Terror in the Sky and Feuding Astors,” Mysteries at the Museum, Travel Channel (TRAV), first aired 7/22/2016.

faq15: dr. harwood on rocket science & a moon hoax?

  Last Revised 7/20/19


For the record, Dr. Harwood thinks Neil Armstrong probably landed on the moon but that this is getting less likely with each passing year in which: 1) there is no US postage stamp honoring Neil Armstrong with either his name or face on it; and 2) in an age of rapidly progressing technology and massive amounts of lying, there is no one else who even dares to claim he or she landed on the moon after December 1972, almost 47 years ago.  Dr. Harwood knows that, by law, only the dead may be honored on a US postage stamp.  But he also knows that Neil Armstrong joined the ranks of the dead on August 25, 2012, more than 7 years ago.


THE MOON LANDING HOAX? NIXON’S THE ONE 


Sterling Harwood, J.D., Ph.D., Evergreen Valley College


“We are the nation that dug out the Panama Canal, won two World Wars, put a man on the Moon, and defeated Communism. We can do anything.”

—President Donald Trump, campaign speech, Phoenix, Arizona, 22 August 2017.


“Don’t let anyone tell you we’re going to get on rocket ships and live on Mars. We couldn’t even evacuate the city of New Orleans. This [Earth] is our home.”

—Former Vice President Al Gore, “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power” (2017).


I. Introduction: 20% of Americans Doubt the U.S. Landed Men on the Moon


Time magazine reports that 6% of Americans believe the U.S. never landed men on the Moon and another 5% of Americans have enough doubts that they are undecided on the issue.

(http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1860871_1860876_1860992,00.html, Time, 2009, last retrieved 26 October 2014.)


That’s a total of 11% of Americans, essentially one in every nine. So, with an average jury of our peers, you would be unable to get a unanimous jury of 12 to oppose the conspiracy theory that the Moon landings were faked. 

MythBusters, a famous television show on the Discovery and Science channels, reported in their show entirely devoted to the subject that 20% of Americans doubt the U.S. landed men on the Moon.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz7cUP4o-ZQ, “NASA Moon Landing Hoax,” first aired 27 August 2008; posted 27 November 2011; MythBusters, last retrieved 7 February 2015.)


Assuming Americans are less likely to doubt American achievement than others are, what are we to make of this fifth of humanity who doubts the American achievement of the Moon landings? Have all these people, over one billion of them, taken leave of their senses?


What is the weirdest thing that just might surprise us by turning out to be true? It would be that at least some of the Moon landings, especially Apollo 11, were hoaxes. What is the most unlikely conspiracy theory that still has a surprising amount of evidence for its bizarre claims? It is the theory that no human has ever landed on the Moon. There are at least 27 reasons to question President Richard Nixon’s claim that all six landings of men on the Moon in history occurred from July 1969 to December 1972 during the first term of his abbreviated presidency. I will detail all 27 reasons below.

Why should we start to have any doubt at all about President Nixon’s claim that he is the only person in history who has commanded men who landed on the Moon? The short answer is that some reasonable doubt, some healthy skepticism, about even our most fundamental beliefs is logically required by critical thinking. Critical thinking in philosophy requires us to question, and question seriously, even our most fundamental beliefs, such as whether the God billions of us believe in even exists, whether there really is any kind of afterlife at all, and whether we really have the freedom of action that we all feel we have. Given how deep philosophers and critical thinkers are used to questioning, questioning the claims of a notorious politician, the only President and Commander in Chief to resign in American history, is really not a stretch.


It is much easier to question the Moon landings now than it was in 1969, when the first Moon landing allegedly occurred. For the last 50 years or so have seen President Kennedy’s assassination and the deeply unconvincing governmental explanations of how he was murdered, the lies of thePentagon Papers exposed about the conduct of the Vietnam War, the governmental lies about Watergate exposed (including the classic governmental statement that all previous statements about the Watergate crimes were now inoperative), the lies of the Iran-Contra scandal of trading arms to terrorists, the sexual lies of President Clinton leading up to his impeachment, and the lies about 9/11, weapons of mass destruction, and how war would go, all leading us to war in Iraq. [See, generally, Alterman (2004)]


True, by July of 1969, the month of the first alleged Moon landing, we had years of experience with lies about President Kennedy’s assassination, but the Pentagon Papers became public knowledge only in 1971. [Sheehan, Smith, Kenworthy, Butterfield & Ellsberg (1971)] But it is still easier now to disbelieve government than it was in 1969 to disbelieve government. The U.S. had yet to lose the Vietnam War; it had yet to see an American president resign, yet to see an American president impeached in the 20th century, etc. Let’s turn to the 27 reasons for some healthy skepticism about Nixon’s claim, undeterred by the fact that we are flying in the face of public opinion. After all, billions believe in God, and yet it is completely legitimate to ask whether God exists and how we could know such a fundamental truth. Philosophers, logicians, and critical thinkers are familiar with the argumentum ad populum fallacy, which says it is a logical mistake to assume that what most people believe—or even what everyone believes—must therefore be true.


We proceed with an open mind. It should be a “slam dunk” to show that America landed men on the Moon. But even National Basketball Association players sometimes miss slam dunks and we’ve heard Central Intelligence Agency directors falsely tell our leaders that it is was a slam dunk that weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq when America invaded under President George W. Bush. Nixon and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have some things in common. Some of its critics joke that “NASA” doesn’t stand for “National Aeronautics and Space Administration” but instead stands for “Never A Straight Answer.” That reputation fits with Nixon’s reputation as “Tricky Dick.” So here are the 27 questions I would like answered to eliminate reasonable doubts that Nixon landed men on the Moon six times. After all, we want to have an open mind, but not a mind so open our brains fall out. We should question authority and demand answers, answers that are well-supported enough by evidence to withstand rational, critical scrutiny.


II.  26 Reasons to Start to Doubt that Men Ever Landed on the Moon


1. Is it likely that the only six alleged Moon landings in human history all happened during the shortened presidency of Richard “Tricky Dick” Nixon, who was so dishonest and corrupt that he’s the only President of the United States ever to resign from the office? What was on the 18-minute gap of tape that was supposedly accidentally erased? Did the tape contain secrets of Watergate? Did the tape have secrets of President Kennedy’s assassination? Did the tape include secrets of the lunar landings? We will probably never know the contents of the 18-minute gap. It does seem statistically unlikely, given a random distribution of technology and ego/ambition that all the right stuff for a Moon landing would wind up only in America and only from 1969 to 1972. That’s a suspiciously narrow range in history headed by a known crook who infamously needed to say from the President’s bully pulpit, “I am not a crook!” before having to resign anyway. What a disgrace!


2. Is it likely that no other nation would land on the Moon for more than 44 years if the technology to do so existed as early as 1969? The Soviets landed some laser reflectors on the Moon many years ago. [Ranen (2005)] Some Apollo missions supposedly orbited the Moon before Apollo 11. The Chinese, Japanese, Germans, British, French and others have technological prowess that could be turned to manned lunar landings. Even North Korea has nuclear technology and serious rocket technology. It is hard to believe that not a single dictator or other leader would try to distract or bolster his or her countrymen and women with a manned Moon shot to the lunar surface, especially given how lobbyists would love to pressure the leaders to fund such adventures. [Kaiser (2010) and Leech (2013)] It was an uncharacteristically egregious error for the MythBusters to close their discussion in 2008 with the argument that we must have landed men on the Moon because there is an American laser reflector there. This show, “NASA Moon Landing Hoax,” simply ignores Aron Ranen’s film from about three years before, which documented that the Soviets had landed a laser reflector on the Moon, yet the Soviets have never claimed to have landed a man on the Moon. Indeed, some scientists were reflecting lasers back from the Moon—with or without man-made laser reflectors—as early as 1962. Thomas Meloy wrote:


Four years ago, a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available shot a series of pulses at the Moon, 240,000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter and were reflected back to Earth with enough strength to be measured by ultrasensitive electronic equipment.[Meloy (1966), p. 876, comma added after ‘ago.’]


3. Is it likely that the United States would never return to the Moon, especially now when more than 44 years of technological improvement has made it cheaper, easier and safer to go? I find this one of the most convincing considerations moving me closer to doubting Nixon. Lobbyists and military pressures to put a base on the Moon would seem to be irresistible over time. A 44-year record of consecutive failure to lobby for a return to the Moon is just statistically unlikely.


4. Why were no animals sent to the Moon before humans, given that animals were sent into earth orbit before humans were? I doubt this step was omitted on behalf of the animals. Possible explanations are that it would have undermined morale and support for NASA if the anticlimactic step were taken of sending a man to the Moon after a chimp or a dog were sent months before.


5. Was our technology in 1969 good enough to go? Just look at all those crashes and even the crashes today, yet no Apollo Moon landing mission had a crash or a fatality. Apollo 13 did have an explosion but no crash or fatality. The official story seems just a little too rosy to believe. The crash of the lunar lander piloted by Neil Armstrong on Earth in a trial that ended with him parachuting out makes me doubt whether 1969 technology was up to the task. Is it possible that Apollo 11 was a hoax but that the other Moon shots really did land men on the Moon? This would be a compromise position, which still involves a serious conspiracy.


6. Was Apollo 13 “made dangerous” to renew interest and prevent the ho-hum attitude after Apollo 11 and 12 landed so well; or did Apollo 13 show no Moon landing could be done with technology at the time?This conspiracy theory suggested in this question has a hoax within a hoax. As such, “Occam’s Razor,” named after excommunicated Franciscan Friar William of Occam (also known as Ockham), discourages us from accepting this scenario, since it appears to be more complex than the data requires. We ought to expect imperfections in the Apollo program. There are a lot of moving parts traveling at high speed over many miles with fallible humans in command.


7. Why are virtually no stars seen in lunar photos even though the Moon has no atmosphere to block their light? It would be hard to create a fake yet realistic pattern of stars and easy to detect such fakery. Is that the reason NASA astronauts, failing to live up to their name as astronauts (‘astro’meaning star, of course), failed to show any interest in the stars and did not set up a telescope to take pictures of stars almost a quarter million miles closer to them than any telescope on earth?


Some claim that stars are too faint to be captured with the shorter exposure settings the astronauts used, but that invites the question of why the astronauts used such short settings rather than longer ones readily available in the first place. Some answer that the brightness of the lunar surface would make photographing stars too hard anyway, but that begs the question of why NASA failed to use flanges to block out the surface light or develop another camera that could photograph stars better. Some photos do show at least one star, but billions ought to have been visible.


8. Are the lunar photos too high in quality given the difficulty of photographing with a helmet and thick gloves in a vacuum? Possible explanations include the level of training and the level of editing the photos released. Crummy photos, of course, could have been discarded or simply not released. But it would make more sense—some would say, much more sense—if they had been staged and framed instead, especially since the cameras were positioned on the front of their space suits and could not be focused or precisely framed.


9. How did the flag allegedly planted on the Moon wave without an atmosphere or wind? The official story is that the astronauts brushed up against the flagpole or flag and that this motion caused the flag to wave more than one would expect because there was no drag from air pressure to slow down the flag. One must look at each instance and decide for themselves if there was an astronaut brushing up against the flagpole or the flag every time a flag waves. I have seen some of the flags wave when this alleged brushing by an astronaut is unclear. It does have plausible deniability, though. I doubt this is among the strongest factors against manned lunar landings. MythBusters does its best trying to explain away the waving flag—but many of us remain unconvinced.


10. Did Apollo astronauts die mysteriously in single-vehicle accidents—and three others die on the launch-pad of Apollo 1—to keep them quiet? Apollo 1’s accident (1967) happened only two years before Apollo 11 (1969). There were no Moon landings of humans or animals in between the fatal accident of Apollo 1 and the supposedly successful Apollo 11 Moon landing. I lack the inside information to allege murder or a cover-up. But these deaths are certainly suspicious. [On Apollo whistleblowers generally, see Bennett and Percy (2001), but even they admit from the start: “Yes, our claims in this book do border on the incredible.” p. 1]


11. Why are the Apollo astronauts so tight-lipped when we need them as role models for young scientists and when they could make so much money telling their story? Neil Armstrong cooperated with an authorized biography called First Man. Note that it is not entitled, First Man on the Moon. In fact, I have never seen any press conference or speech in which Neil Armstrong introduces himself or allows himself to be introduced as the first man on the Moon. He butchered his first line allegedly delivered from the Moon: “That’s one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.” Under the Jesuit doctrine of mental reservation, “One giant leap for mankind” could easily be intended as an incomplete sentence, lacking a verb, and so commits the speaker to no lie or false claim, since it lacks any claim at all. Further, is the leap Neil Armstrong refers to in that famous line merely a leap of faith? The most eerie part of a press conference he gave was where he refused to take any credit for being the first man on the Moon and instead admitted at his speech at the White House: “We have only completed a beginning. We leave you much that is undone. There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of Truth’s protective layers.” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1vFEwAJZQY, posted 20 June 1994, last retrieved 7 February 2015.)


12. Why did astronaut Buzz Aldrin, the second man to set foot on the Moon, punch a guy who just asked him to explain some photos? Buzz is not the first celebrity to have an altercation with the paparazzi or fans, so I am inclined to put this consideration among the weakest of the reasons to deny manned lunar landings. One can see the incident on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU) and decide for oneself how seriously to take the affair. I avoid taking it seriously. He was called, to his face, a liar and a coward. People have fought over far less provocation. I once saw a fight in a bar start when one guy said to another, “Your mother sleeps with sailors for nickels.”


13. What should be made of the Fox News Channel video, “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon,” showing images of Earth that were doctored shots out a porthole of the command module? This is hard for me to assess without access to the original film to search for signs of doctoring or editing. Still, that a mainstream news channel would question whether we landed men on the Moon must count as somewhat serious evidence against the veracity of the lunar landings. Undermining confidence in government is something in line with the political beliefs of those who founded, own and manage Fox News, however. On that basis we might discount this evidence somewhat. But it would be the fallacy of ad hominem argument to dismiss this evidence entirely because of purported political or anti-government bias at Fox.


14. Is it human nature or American nature to explore a new land and then never return for more than 44 years? I suspect not, but possible explanations include that manned Moon landings are inefficient. Machines can do more with less. I doubt this explanation, since lobbyists and ego of foreign leaders to match our accomplishment would probably send at least one manned probe to the lunar surface in 44 years, especially given the improvements in technology that have subsequently taken place.


15. Was too much dust left undisturbed by the supposed lunar landing? Would a genuine lunar landing have disturbed much more of the lunar surface? Some videos show a vacuum cleaner disturbing more dust than the dust disturbed when the Eagle landed. Does the lunar dust, which scientists call regolith have special properties? I have yet to see a definitive debate by the experts. It is suspicious in the meantime. But one possible explanation is that meteorites and micrometeorites slam into the lunar surface with such speed and frequency that dust is vaporized, kicked out into space, or melted together into the regolith that covers the lunar surface. But if there was enough dust to make boot prints, there should have been displacement when the lander landed.


16. Does the letter “C” on a rock show that the Moon rock was a mere prop on a stage rather than on the Moon? Some explain this away by saying the “C” is really just a small, curly hair and they produce another version of the photograph without the “C” to try to prove this. It is common enough for hairs to creep into prints. If one believes the “good enough for government” work ethic, then it is easier to believe that a hair did creep in on one photo out of all the many photos. Further, the famous magicians and entertainers Penn and Teller did a television show on conspiracy theories and discussed this “C” rock. They simply asked their prop man if he had ever heard of a prop being labeled with a letter and he emphatically answered in the negative, using profanity to emphasize his denial. Did Penn and Teller show that their prop man was a representative sample of prop men? No, so we should avoid the fallacy of hasty generalization by overreliance on this one piece of testimonial evidence. But it was an expert opinion—and probably true. We should avoid appealing to the authority of one prop man, regardless of how experienced and knowledgeable he is. But where is the systematic survey of prop men and women that would shed more light on this point? Still, I find the “C” rock to be one of the least persuasive bits of evidence against the manned Moon landings.


17. Is slow-motion to half-speed the real explanation for the purported 1/6 gravity effects in the motion of the astronauts in “the lunar videos”? The film, Conspiracy Theory: Did we land on the Moon? does a good job with this. But MythBusters (2008) have argued that the match is not precise enough to be the best explanation of the 1/6 gravity effects seen in the lunar videos. So this factor stands, for now, as at best a minor reason to doubt the lunar landings.


18. Is it likely that NASA would pass up using a telescope on the Moon with no atmosphere to block it and with the furthest reach for a starting point for telescopic investigation? I find it extremely difficult to believe that NASA would send six pairs of men to the Moon and none of them would set up a telescope. Possible explanations are the “optics” that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin discussed in a press conference when describing looking at the stars from the Moon. Perhaps these “optics” were telescopes of some sort. But this explanation is vague and in the next paragraph we shall see that no telescopes were left behind on the moon. But why is there no photograph from them or better description of the optics? Were they just glorified binoculars or filters on lenses of cameras? Another possible explanation is that even the existence of the telescopes is classified for national security, though I see no serious reason to keep the mere existence of telescopes classified.


As I noted above, there should be a premium for putting telescopes on the moon, since the Moon lacks an atmosphere, so the conditions for observing the stars would be ideal in that respect. One needn’t take my word for it. Consider this excellent observation that NASA astrophysicist Kimberly Ennico Smith recently made: “Actually, having a telescope on the moon in general would be wonderful because we don’t have the atmosphere in the way. And the atmosphere prevents us from seeing a lot of light. In fact, telescopes on the ground are really restricted to two wavelengths, the visible that our eyes can see and also the radio that can transmit through our atmosphere.  And having a telescope anywhere on the moon would allow us to see a whole range of light. Now if you were in the permanently shadowed part, you would have to, you know, deal with the technicalities of how you keep everything warm because it is also very cold there. And from using a telescope to look at things in the universe, you just have to stay away from having when the moon comes into your, sorry, when the earth comes into your field of view. It’s a nice, bright reflective ball because of the sunlight reflecting off the earth. And, of course, you don’t want to look at the sun.  But you can look at the universe from there or anywhere on the moon.” [NASA TV Programming, NASA Channel, recorded Sunday, October 22, 2018 at 630pm PT., also available at www.twitch.tv/nasa and available on demand on NASA TV.]

Others have also sung the praises of starting to put telescopes of various types on the moon. For example, “But the fact that the moon’s far side is well-shielded from earth makes it a good location for a large radio telescope. It would also be favorable to an array of optical telescopes because the moon has no atmosphere.” (David O’Brien, Narrator, “New Race to the Moon,” Space’s Deepest Secrets, Science Channel (SCI), first aired Tuesday 6/19/2018.)  Further, consider the view that “If you go to the far side of the moon, you have the advantage [that] you are in the shadow of the moon concerning our radiation coming from the earth. You can, you have a stable surface, so you can build a huge installation using moon materials and then you can have a deep view to the universe. And, therefore, to go on the far side of the moon with a radio telescope is for scientists already a very impressive and inspiring activity.” (Johann-Dietrich Worner, Director General of the European Space Agency, “New Race to the Moon,” Space’s Deepest Secrets, Science Channel (SCI), first aired 6/19/2018.) The improbability that NASA would pass up such impressive and inspiring activities on six trips to the moon raises the probability that NASA was never in position during any of the six alleged manned lunar landings to engage in such activities in the first place. The same holds true for Apollo 8, Apollo 9, and Apollo 10, since each of those NASA missions to the moon failed even to try to place any telescope on the moon.


19. Are oddly timed resignations of some NASA leaders right before Apollo 11’s blastoff a cover-up or whistleblowers protesting of deception? I have no inside information but the point is raised by Bennett and Percy (2001). Of course, coincidences do occur all the time; however, as Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously observed, “In politics, there are no coincidences.” And the Moon landing project was overwhelmingly political.


20. Isn’t NASA contradicting the official story of the Moon flights by admitting only recently that it has no way to dispose of any astronaut’s poop? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/11/29/can-help-nasa-solve-space-poop-problem)


21. Wouldn’t lobbyists pressure us back to the Moon to make money for corporations, if we could go to the Moon? More people could track a Moon shot today than could track one before 1973 (the last landing was in December 1972), which means it would be harder to fake today. I give this argument considerable credence, since the weight of the influence of lobbying firms on K Street in Washington, D.C. is immense. [Kaiser (2010) and Leech (2013)]


22. NASA keeps destroying evidence as if it is trying to cover up some fraud. (http://newstarget.com/2017-07-27-why-did-nasa-just-destroy-apollo-tape-recordings-found-in-a-basement.html) And Mission Control itself, which should be a museum, is deliberately being allowed to disintegrate as time marches on, to the point where it is now a basket case and a charity case. Houston, we have a financial problem! (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4726452/NASA-Kickstarter-restore-Apollo-Mission-control.html)


23. Is the most “rock-solid” evidence, the so-called Moon rocks themselves, real, and if they are, were they transported by Apollo spacecraft or were they retrieved from Antarctica, which Wernher von Braun visited just two years before Apollo 11? The Moon rocks the astronauts allegedly collected are “amazingly similar” to Earth rocks. “Between 1969 and 1972 six [sic, seven, since Apollo 13 blasted off, too] missions blasted off to the Moon. Only 12 humans have ever walked on the Moon. But these astronauts did more than just rewrite history. They also returned with samples of lunar rock. These Moon rocks are amazingly similar to earth rocks. But they contain far less iron. This seemingly small difference offers a huge clue as to how the Moon was created.” (Narrator, Moon Mysteries, National Geographic Channel, first aired 19 December 2005).  Astronomer Michelle Thaller states: “One of the intriguing things about moon rocks is how similar they are chemically to rocks on earth.” (“Riddles of Our Solar System,” The Planets and Beyond, Season 2, Episode 22, Science Channel, first aired August 27, 2018.) Further, “Our moon forms in under a year. Its crust is almost chemically identical to earth because they share a common origin.” (Erik Todd Dellums, Narrator, “The Moon: Earth’s Guardian Angel,” The Planets, Science Channel (SCI), first aired 10 October 2017.) The only difference National Geographic noted between the Moon rocks and Earth rocks was what it called a “seemingly small” difference that the Moon rocks contained far less iron.  The Narrator of the Science program “Riddles of Our Solar System” gives more details: “The moon is identical to material from earth, except it is missing heavy elements, iron and nickel found in earth’s core. Instead, it mainly contains lighter, rocky elements found in earth’s crust and mantle.” So even the missing elements are replaced by elements found on earth. Erik Asphaug, a planetary scientist interviewed on the same program, emphasizes: “It [moon rock] has the same geochemical fingerprints, the oxygen isotopes of the earth, and all the other chemical isotopes of the earth. It looks just like earth rock … It looks like you took a blob of the earth’s mantle and just put it into space around the earth.” This great similarity between moon rock and earth rock makes it too unconvincing or impossible to show – based only on the chemical composition of a rock – that it came from the moon rather than from some part or other of the earth. 


But even if moon rocks and earth rocks were clearly distinct chemically, which the previous paragraph denies, NASA could have obtained moon rocks without landing anyone on the moon. The head of NASA, Wernher von Braun, traveled to Antarctica in 1967, well before the launch of Apollo 11 on July 16, 1969, and when it was known that Antarctica was one of the best sites to find Moon rocks on Earth. (Ranen (2005).)  I know no other reason for the head of NASA to have traveled to faraway Antarctica before the first of the Moon landings (in July 1969). Moreover, unmanned vehicles could also have brought back the Moon rocks, so all Moon rocks—whatever their level of iron or whatever their composition—are compatible with there never having been any human on the Moon. The best evidence of the Moon landings thus turns out to be weak evidence and no evidence at all for manned Moon landings compared to the rival theory of unmanned vehicles returning to earth with Moon rocks.


24. Wouldn’t having twelve astronauts on the lunar surface for so long probably have involved some hazardous incident, though no such incident was recorded? Consider: “[Underground] Lava tubes on the moon would offer protection from the severe hazards of the lunar surface – frequent meteorite impacts, cosmic radiation and extreme temperature variations.” (David O’Brien, Narrator, “New Race to the Moon,” Space’s Deepest Secrets, Science Channel (SCI), first aired 6/19/2018.) Further, consider: “If you’re on the surface, you’re exposed to solar-particle radiation, which is dangerous for our physiology, the temperature extremes which can be 300 degrees Centigrade between the dark and the light, and you also have micrometeorites, which are much faster – much faster – than speeding bullets – and they shower.” (Madhu Thangavelu, Professor of Astronautical Engineering, University of Southern California, “New Race to the Moon,” Space’s Deepest Secrets, Science Channel (SCI), first aired 6/19/2018.)


25. Wouldn’t the lunar dust, made of charged regolith, have prevented astronauts from exploring the lunar surface within just a few minutes on the lunar surface? It seems so. Consider: “Lunar dust is very, very difficult. Lunar dust is microns in diameters made over billions of years of of these micrometeorite impacts on the moon that geologists call ‘gardening.’ It’s called ‘gardening.’ It’s a geological phenomenon. And so, when this powder is charged by the solar wind, it becomes electrostatically active. So, when you wear a nice, astronaut garment and step out on the lunar soil, the dust climbs up into your body. It goes between the seals of your gloves and it scratches your visors. And just a few minutes after any kind of work on the lunar surface, your suit is completely smudged, the thermodynamics is completely messed up. You start to have problems because you cannot see. And so, dust is a problem. NASA knows this because of Apollo.” (Madhu Thangavelu, Professor of Astronautical Engineering, University of Southern California, “New Race to the Moon,” Space’s Deepest Secrets, Science Channel (SCI), first aired 6/19/2018.)


26. Isn’t NASA’s contradiction about the Van Allen radiation belts being a barrier to space flight fatal to NASA’s claim to have landed on the Moon six times and returning all six sets of astronauts, 18 in total, safely to Earth? The astronomer for whom the belt is named says that it is no barrier. However, it would be a fallacious appeal to authority simply to take Dr. Van Allen’s word for it. He may have been subjected to political pressure to support the official story for all we know. And insulating the capsule with lead or water would seem to make the craft dangerously heavy for liftoff. Fatal for NASA, remarkably, is its recent admission that the Van Allen radiation belts, the same belts Apollo astronauts NASA says passed through unharmed, are a bar to space travel. (https://ronabbass.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/Moon-landing-hoax-nasa-unwittingly-reveals-van-allen-radiation-belts-prohibit-human-spaceflight-2min-vid-incl). Further, the danger of radiation persists even if the astronauts somehow get beyond the Van Allen radiation belts. Consider: “If we want to have astronauts over there [on the lunar surface], then we have to do something for radiation shielding.” (Johann-Dietrich Worner, Director General of the European Space Agency, “New Race to the Moon,” Space’s Deepest Secrets, Science Channel (SCI), first aired 6/19/2018.) 


III. Astrophysicists Led by L. J. Wilcox: Insufficient Lift Prevented the Moon Flights


My 27th and final argument comes from the most remarkable publication I have read that denies the Moon landings. It was authored by Professor L. J. Wilcox, an astrophysicist. This publication is remarkable for appearing so soon after Apollo 11 returned to Earth on 24 July 1969. Wilcox’s article denying the Moon landing appeared on 14 November 1969 in the Los Angeles Free Press, a radical newspaper unafraid to think outside the box.


That means Wilcox’s article, titled “The Moon Flights Never Happened,” appeared only 113 days after Apollo 11’s splashdown in the Pacific Ocean. Wilcox’s publication is “an outline of a paper presented to last week’s meeting of the Society of American Physicists, Western Division, at Salt Lake City, by Professor L. J. Wilcox of the Department of Astrophysics, University of Colorado.” So, remarkably, this is a mainstream astrophysicist who claims to have discovered early on that the Moon flights were hoaxes.

What is Wilcox’s substantive argument? Wilcox himself explains: “the Apollo 11 craft was unable to overcome the Earth—Moon potential barrier and therefore, on energetic grounds alone, the flight could not have taken place.” [Wilcox (1969), p. 4, emphasis in original] In simpler terms, Apollo 11 had insufficient lift to reach the Moon. Wilcox explains his point with about half a column of formal equations and three scientific diagrams. The bottom line for Wilcox is that Apollo 11 was unable to reach escape velocity, since it lacked the energy for thrust that would make the craft speedy enough.


Wilcox is, remarkably again, joined by several other mainstream scientists who formed a committee to state their case in layman’s terms. Wilcox’s publication gives a press release by “the Special Committee on Lunar Flights, an emergency committee of the International Institute for Space Studies at Berne, Switzerland.” Here is the first part of the press release:

Meeting in emergency sessions over the past two weeks, the Committee—on reviewing the recent work of Professor L. J. Wilcox of the University of Colorado, Professor S. S. Alpert of the University of Sidney, Dr. M. R. Kotowsky of the Lick Observatory, and Professor H. Bundel of the Belgian Academy of Sciences—is of the opinion that, given the present propulsion capacities of the two nations, the American and Soviet lunar flights during the last year and a half were not physically possible. [Wilcox (1969), p. 5]


The rest of the press release states that the committee transmitted its findings to “the governments of both nations and is now awaiting their” respective responses. [Wilcox (1969), p. 5] The release states, most impressively, that:


the survey performed by teams of researchers under the direction of the above scientists was begun more than a year ago, when preliminary investigations revealed remarkable discrepancies between elementary theoretical considerations and the highly dubious empirical data emanating from both the Soviet and American agencies responsible for space exploration. [Wilcox (1969), p. 5]


As far as I have seen in the literature, we are all still awaiting any response to the survey in question that denies the Moon flights based on insufficient speed from the propulsion used. 


IV. Conclusion: No Critical Thinker Can Accept NASA’s Contradictory Story


Perhaps I am overly influenced by my patriotic feelings for America, but I have yet to reach a final conclusion that humans never landed on the Moon. I must also guard against my personal and political dislike and distrust of President Richard M. Nixon. To make his mere involvement decisive, no matter how tricky, criminal, dishonest or disgusting Nixon was, would be to commit the ad hominem fallacy and hence would simply be too illogical to accept.  Still, I would expect more whistleblowers to have come forward, especially former Soviet astronomers or spies who monitored the American space program from 1969 to 1972. I am intellectually offended and dissatisfied by the current state of affairs, however, and believe that with each passing day without a 21st century landing of humans on the Moon, the case against a 1969 Moon landing by Apollo 11 gets stronger. The case against the manned lunar landings gets stronger every day.


There was a strong motive, even a patriotic one, to lie about Apollo 11. America wanted to win the famous space race. America doubted itself after all of the losses in the Tet Offensive in the year before the Apollo 11 Moon landing. How could over 1,000 cities and towns in Vietnam be overrun by the enemy and how could the enemy have kept such a massive operation so secret for so long? Landing men on the Moon would certainly be expected to boost America’s morale. The claim we landed men on the Moon as early as 1969 strikes me as being somewhat like the claims that Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and Chupacabra exist and even more like the much more prevalent belief in the Second Coming of Jesus, a claim that more than a billion believe.

Don’t these claims get less convincing with each passing day or year when no further evidence arrives to convince us? Won’t the case for Bigfoot, Nessie and Chupacabra be weaker 100 years from now if there is no better evidence than what we have now? Won’t it be harder to convert intellectually a nonbeliever in the year 3014 to believe in the Second Coming of Christ if there is no better evidence for that then than we have now? How about in 5014 or 10,014 or 100,014 or even further in the future? Isn’t it just a matter of time before the argument and evidence for the reappearance of a mysterious creature or Christ wear too thin, stretch too far into the future to have enough credence to convince an open-minded agnostic?


Analogously, if we had the technology in 1969 to land men on the Moon, where are the technologies of other nations to go there or go even further than the Moon, on to Mars, for example? Technology seems to proceed rapidly generally but, suspiciously, not when it comes to the technology to take a human to the Moon. My patriotic faith in America being the first and only nation to land men on the Moon is fading with each passing day of inactivity of humans returning to the Moon, however great my patriotic faith in America remains in all other respects. As a critical thinker, I require more evidence to support my patriotic feelings that America would of course be the first nation to land men on the Moon. I want to avoid the illogic of simply relying on patriotic faith when it comes to a matter of science and technology such as landing men on the Moon.


I have no doubt that both Americans and the Soviets had and used the technology to land machines on the Moon in the 1960s and 1970s; for even conspiracy theorists such as Aron Ranen have documented on film the placement of American and Soviet technology on the Moon. But if manned Moon landings occurred, we should by now have much more evidence for them than we do. For example, Ranen’s film documents how the telemetry for Apollo 11 is simply missing! It is a scandal that an achievement so momentous is so poorly documented and the science so poorly replicated.

If we are serious about taking credit for landing men on the Moon, it is strange that America has never issued any stamp, any coin or any currency with the image and name of Neil Armstrong on it. I therefore call for the issuing of these tributes to Neil Armstrong, since he is by all official evidence the greatest explorer in history. The government needs to get its story straight and to honor the greatest American explorer of all time, Neil Armstrong. Until then, it is somewhat reasonable—more reasonable than it should be—to join President Bill Clinton in wondering whether those who doubt the authenticity of the Moon landings are ahead of their time. [Bill Clinton (2004), p. 156.] Indeed, especially damaging are recent developments such as NASA admitting the problem with the Van Allen radiation belts, the poop problem, and the continued erasing of historic tapes and eroding of Mission Control into a charity case. It has been enough time without the U.S. government honoring the late Neil Armstrong by name as the first man on the Moon, without anyone returning to the Moon, and most notably with the emergence of NASA contradicting itself on the Van Allen radiation belts, etc., that any critical thinker—including me—must reject NASA’s story as self-contradictory. It simply is irrational to believe in a contradiction and NASA has contradicted itself. If NASA one day changes its story to avoid all self-contradiction, then we may reconsider the question in light of some later consistent story NASA wants us to believe. The ball is in NASA’s court.


My thanks go to Dr. James Fetzer for his appearance on my KLIV (1590 AM) radio show “Spirit to Spirit” in San Jose, California to discuss this controversial subject with me. I also gladly extend my thanks to Asher P. Robertson for our many discussions, for his brief YouTube film on this subject, and for his recommendation to me of the many MoonFaker films of Jarrah White. Any errors of omission or commission are entirely my responsibility. I dedicate this essay to my oldest daughter, Heather, given her admiration for science which has led her to become a Corpsman in the United States Navy.


Selected Bibliography


Alterman, Eric, When Presidents Lie: A History of Official Deception and Its Consequences (Penguin, 23 September 2004).

Bartlett, John & O’Brien, Geoffrey, Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, 18th edition (Little, Brown & Co., 6 November 2012).

Bennett, Mary & Percy, David, Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers (Adventures Unlimited Press, 2 April 2001).

Clinton, Bill, My Life, (Knopf, 22 June 2004), 1008pp.

Harwood, Sterling, Spirit to Spirit, Interview of Dr. Jim Fetzer, KLIV 1590AM radio, first aired 2 May 2013, http://kliv.gotdns.com/kliv/paid/2013_05_02_SpirtToSpirt.mp3, last retrieved 26 October 2014.

Hoagland, Richard C. & Mike Bara, Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA, revised edition (Feral House, 1 September 2009), 680pp.

Kaiser, Robert G., So Damn Much Money: The Triumph of Lobbying and the Corrosion of American Government (Vintage, 9 February 2010), 432pp.

Kaysing, Bill & Randy Reid, We Never Went to the Moon(Mokelumne Hill Press, June 1976), 87pp.

Leech, Beth L., Lobbyists at Work (Apress, 24 April 2013).

Lovegood, Xenophilius, http://www.xenophilia.com/zb0003u.htm, last retrieved 7 February 2015.

Meloy, Thomas, “The Laser’s Bright Magic,” National Geographic, December 1966, p. 876.

National Geographic, Moon Mysteries, National Geographic Channel, original air date 19 December 2005.

Penn & Teller, Bullshit!, “Conspiracy Theories,” Episode 3 of Season 3 (Showtime, originally aired 9 May 2005); http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0672525, last retrieved 7 February 2015.

Plait, Philip C., Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, from Astrology to the Moon Landing “Hoax,” (Wiley, 1 March 2002), 288pp.

Ranen, Aron, Did We Go?, documentary film (2005).

Redfern, Nick, The NASA Conspiracies: The Truth Behind the Moon Landings, Censored Photos, and the Face on Mars (December 20, 2010), 240pp.

Rene, Ralph, NASA Mooned America (self-published, 1994), 176pp.

Savage, Adam & Hyneman, Jamie, MythBusters, episode 104, “NASA Moon Landing Hoax,” first aired 27 August 2008; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz7cUP4o-ZQ, posted November 28, 2011; last retrieved 7 February 2015.)

Sheehan, Neil, Smith, Hedrick, Kenworthy, E.W., Butterfield, Fox & Ellsberg, Daniel, eds., The Pentagon Papers: The Secret History of the Vietnam War (Bantam Books, 1 July 1971), 678pp.

Sibrel, Bart, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, documentary film (18 January 2001), 47 minutes.

Thomas, Steven, The Moon Landing Hoax: The Eagle that Never Landed (Swordworks Publishing, 9 June 2010), 120pp.

weneverwenttotheMoon.com, last retrieved 7 February 2015.

White, Jarrah, 126 YouTube videos listed under the series MoonFaker, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qjRP_w2rhk&list=PLC643B524ED1DC46B), starting from 2008, last retrieved 7 February 2015.

Wilcox, L. J., “The Moon Flights Never Happened,” Los Angeles Free Press, Volume 6, Issue #278, 14 November 1969, pp. 4-5.

Wisnewski, Gerhard, One Small Step? The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space (Clairview Books, 15 January 2008), 390pp.


Note: see the published version of this essay in James Fetzer & Mike Palecek, eds., And I Suppose We Didn't Go to the Moon, Either? (Moon Rock Books, 2015) for some photos of some US postage stamps and coins snubbing Neil Armstrong and for diagrams and equations by Prof. Wilcox published in November of 1969.

FAQ16: quotes to ponder on gun control

  

1. “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” ~ Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President, National Rifle Association, speech, Washington, DC, televised live, CNN, December 21, 2012.


2. “The best way to get shot is to have a gun.” ~ Charles Grodin, actor, from the film 11 Harrowhouse (1974).


3. “The best way to shoot yourself is to have a gun.” ~ Charles Grodin, actor, from the film 11 Harrowhouse (1974).


4. “You are 10 times more likely to die from gun violence in the United States than in any other industrialized country. You are more likely to die from gun violence in the United States than in Venezuela, Colombia, Honduras or even in Syria. Other countries do not have this problem. Other countries do have mental health issues. Other countries do have video games. They do not have gun violence on the scale that the United States does. And in countries that have had mass shootings, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, where they have had mass shootings, they have taken action to restrict access to guns. And in the United Kingdom and Australia it has been very successful in stopping mass shootings. It’s simply about guns, and access to guns and gun culture.” ~ Katty Kay, BBC World News America Washington Anchor, Kasie DC, MSNBC, 8/4/2019.


5. "Gun control proponents, intent on disarming the American people, ignore history that reveals the greatest crimes against humanity occur when ruthless governments disarm and then kill powerless civilians." Wayne R. LaPierre, Guns, Crime, and Freedom (Regnery Publishing, 1994), p. 167.


6. “He [Billionaire Presidential Candidate Ross Perot of Texas] was for gun control, as all, most military – real military – people are who know about guns.” ~ Jim Lehrer, PBS NewsHour, PBS, first aired 7/9/2019. Harwood’s Helpful Hint: when you evaluate this quote, consider The No True Scotsman fallacy, which philosopher Antony Flew recognized and developed as a fallacy recognized by many others as a form of flawed reasoning. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman


7. "[G]un ownership among the law-abiding poses no direct risk of crime or violence in the community. Thus the only justification for disarming the majority of the population is for the sake of denying violence prone persons easy access (presumably mostly through theft) to firearms owned by the law-abiding. In effect, the justification runs this way: we must deny guns to 99 percent of the population who will never commit a serious act of violence in their lives in order to produce some marginal reduction in the ease of access to guns among the 1 percent who will commit such an act." Gary Kleck, "The Relationship Between Gun Ownership Levels and Rates of Violence in the United States," in Lee Nisbet, ed., The Gun Control Debate (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 128.


8. "Burglary is the most common type of intrusion of the home and causes the greatest property loss, but it rarely threatens the homeowner's life. The burglar typically seeks to commit his crime without being discovered, if possible by entering a home that is not occupied. Consequently, he is more likely to steal the home-defense firearm than be driven off by it." Matthew G. Yeager with Joseph D. Alviani and Nancy Loving, "How Well Does the Handgun Protect You and Your Family?" in Lee Nisbet, ed., The Gun Control Debate, 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 216.


9. "With some 20,000 firearms regulations now on the books, why does the clamor continue for even more laws? The answer is obvious: none of the laws so far enacted has significantly reduced the rate of criminal violence." James D. Wright, "Second Thoughts About Gun Control," in Lee Nisbet, ed., The Gun Control Debate, 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 96. Do not quote the following in any A-section. Note: Test the validity of this argument by asking if you can imagine a case where the premises are true but the conclusion is false. Can you imagine how there can be 20,000 firearms regulations, clamor for more gun control, and yet at least some of the firearms regulations have significantly reduced the rate of criminal violence? Even if this argument is invalid, is it strong? When we clamor for more of something we already have much of, do we imply that it is probably undesirable? 


10. "Most of the published estimates are produced by the advocates, and thus are not to be trusted." James D. Wright, "Second Thoughts About Gun Control," in Lee Nisbet, ed., The Gun Control Debate, 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 96. 


11. "As long as there are any handguns around (and even 'ban handguns' advocates make an exception for police or military handguns) they will obviously be available to anyone at some price. Given Cook's data, the average street thug would come out ahead even if he spent several hundred -- perhaps even a few thousand -- on a suitable weapon. At those prices, demand will always create its own supply just as there will always be cocaine available to anyone willing to pay a thousand dollars to obtain [it]." James D. Wright, "Second Thoughts About Gun Control," in Lee Nisbet, ed., The Gun Control Debate, 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 99. Do not quote the following in any A-section. Is cocaine always available to anyone willing to pay a thousand dollars for it? What about someone locked in the best brig the U.S. Marines have? Does this quote commit the fallacy of false dilemma?


12. "Most of the gun-owning felons in our sample grew up around guns, were introduced to guns at an early stage, and had owned and used guns ever since." James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, "The Great American Gun War: Some Policy Implications of the Felon Study," in Lee Nisbet, ed., The Gun Control Debate, 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 118. Do not quote the following in your A-section. Does 'Most' help make this a strong argument?


13. "If robbers were deprived of guns, there would be a reduction in robberies against commercial places and other well-defended victims. In general, a reduction in gun availability would change the distribution of violent crimes, with greater concentration on vulnerable victims." Philip J. Cook, "The Effect of Gun Availability on Violent Crime Patterns," in Lee Nisbet, ed., The Gun Control Debate, 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 138. Do not quote the following in any A-section. Does this argument commit the fallacy of appealing to pity? Does this argument pose a false dilemma, since even if robbers were not deprived of guns, they would prefer a more vulnerable victim to a less vulnerable victim (all else being equal at least)?


14."Defining 'well regulated'[:] Bill Traill (Letters, June 23) argues that since newspaper licensing would not be allowed under the First Amendment, gun licensing should not be allowed under the Second. That would be a valid argument only if the First Amendment read, "A well regulated media, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the press, shall not be infringed. "It is not by happenstance that the term 'well regulated' appears at the start of this amendment and that the Second Amendment is [the] only place in the Bill of Rights where that phrase appears. The founding fathers carefully deliberated and debated over every single word. Justifiably, they were just as afraid of an armed citizenry as they were of an armed government.” ~ Mark Maslowski of Ben Lomond, CA, from The San Jose Mercury News, June 26, 2001, p.7B.


15. "The availability of a handgun and the taking of a self-defense measure during an aggravated assault dramatically increased the likelihood of a fatality." Matthew G. Yeager with Joseph D. Alviani and Nancy Loving, "How Well Does the Handgun Protect You and Your Family?" in Lee Nisbet, ed., The Gun Control Debate, 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 215. Do not quote the following in any A-section. Is this an enthymeme with the unstated premise "Fatalities are bad"?


16."'Schoolyard Killing' [:] I was appalled but not surprised that your May 5 [1999] account of a murderous attack on children in Costa Mesa was relegated to Page 3B. Can you deny that if the man had used a firearm in his attack on children that it would have been front page news? I would like an explanation of why an attack on innocent children with a car as the weapon is less important than a similar attack with a firearm.Given the fact that there are millions of cars and firearms, and that cars are readily available, it would appear that the threats of cars and firearms are equivalent. I suspect that you chose not to publicize the Costa Mesa attack because it demonstrates that our problem is not with any particular piece of technology, but rather the fact that our society produces people who think that committing murder is an appropriate way to express their frustrations with life. This is a much more ocmplex and important issue than your usual reflexive call for more 'gun control,' and you are doing your readers a disservice by not addressing it." ~ Chris Copeland, Cupertino, CA. San Jose Mercury News, May 7, 1999, p. 7B.


17. "Gun control has proved to be a grievous failure, a means of disarming honest citizens without limiting firepower available t those who prey on the law-abiding. Attempting to use the legal system to punish the weapon rather than the person misusing the weapon is similarly doomed to fail." Wayne R. LaPierre, Guns, Crime, and Freedom (Regnery Publishing, 1994), p. 102.


18. "This is not a law enforcement issue; this is a fundamental human rights issue. Law-abiding people carrying firearms have never been a threat to law enforcement; and there is overwhelming evidence to support the positive results of carrying concealed firearms." Wayne R. LaPierre, Guns, Crime, and Freedom (Regnery Publishing, 1994), p. 32. Do not quote the following in any A-section. Does this commit the fallacy of false dilemma or false dichotomy in assuming such a sharp distinction between the law-abiding and those who violate the law? Isn't it obvious upon reflection that every person who ever violated the law was at one time a law-abiding person?


19."The public has a right to ask tough questions of parole boards that release violent criminals before they have served 85 percent of their sentence. Where else would a failure rate of this magnitude -- which sometimes results in the death, rape, or injury of the innocent -- be tolerated? Would the Federal Aviation Administration allow airplanes to fly with critical parts that failed 29 percent of the time? Would the Federal Drug Administration allow drugs on the market that either killed or caused crippling side effects 18 percent of the time? Yet the American Bar Association's soft-on-crime stance would put more criminals back on the streets, while attacking the fundamental right of self-defense, and, indeed, the Second Amendment itself." Wayne R. LaPierre, Guns, Crime, and Freedom (Regnery Publishing, 1994), p. 101. Note: Does this argument fallaciously appeal to authority, the legal authority of the Second Amendment? Does this argument commit the fallacy of false analogy in asking questions about different government agencies and different failure rates? Does this argument commit the fallacy of red herring or evading the issue by raising the issue of releasing violent criminals rather than focusing more on the ABA's arguments for gun control (its alleged attack on the right to self-defense and the Second Amendment)?


20. "Most burglaries occur when homes are vacant, so the handgun in the drawer is no deterrent. It would also probably be the first item stolen." Josh Sugarmann, "The NRA is Right; But We Still Need to Ban Handguns," in Richard C. Monk, ed., Taking Sides (Dushkin Publishing Group, 1991), p. 268.


21. "One tenet of the National Rifle Association's [NRA's] faith has always been that handgun control does little to stop criminals from obtaining handguns. For once, the NRA is right and America's leading handgun control organization is wrong. Criminals don't buy handguns in gun stores." Josh Sugarmann, "The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns," in Richard C. Monk, ed., Taking Sides (Dushkin Publishing Group, 1991), p. 226.


22. "Public health campaigns have changed the way Americans look at cigarette smoking and drunk driving and can do the same for handguns." Josh Sugarmann, "The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns," in Richard C. Monk, ed., Taking Sides (Dushkin Publishing Group, 1991), p. 270.


23. "How often are guns used merely to wound or scare away intruders? No reliable statistics are available, but most police officials agree that in a criminal confrontation on the street, the handgun-toting civilian is far more likely to be killed or lose his handgun to a criminal than successfully use the weapon in self-defense." Josh Sugarmann, "The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns," in Richard C. Monk, ed., Taking Sides (Dushkin publishing Group, 1991), p. 268.


24. "The NRA maintains the gun laws don't work because they can't work." James D. Wright "Second Thoughts About Gun Control," in Richard C. Monk, ed., Taking Sides (Dushkin Publishing Group, 1991), p. 275.


25. "More women own or have access to handguns. Between 1970 and 1978 the suicide rate for young women rose 60 percent, primarily due to increased use of handguns." Josh Sugarmann, "The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns," in Richard C. Monk, ed., Taking Sides (Dushkin Publishing Group, 1991), p. 267.


26. "More women own or have access to handguns. Between 1970 and 1978 the suicide rate for young women rose 60 percent, primarily due to increased use of handguns." Josh Sugarmann, "The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns," in Richard C. Monk, ed., Taking Sides (Dushkin Publishing Group, 1991), p. 267.


27. "As public health professionals, if we are faced with a disease that is carried by some type of vehicle/vector like a mosquito, our initial response would be to control the vector. There is no reason why if the vehicle/vector is a handgun, we should not be interested in controlling the handgun." Josh Sugarmann, "The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns," in Richard C. Monk, ed., Taking Sides (Dushkin Publishing Group, 1991), p. 268. Do not quote the following in the A-section of your paper. Harwood's helpful hint: Does this argument commit the fallacy known as false analogy?


28. "The very increase of violent crime is what spurs thousands of people to buy handguns for self-defense. Furthermore, many of these new gun-owners lack the training to use their weapons effectively. The very increase of violent crime is what spurs thousands of people to buy handguns. No one can challenge the sincerity of their concerns. Still, the very accessibility of these weapon creates a problem." Pete Shield, Guns Don't Die, People Do, (Arbor House Publishing Co., 1981), p. 343. Do not quote the following in any A-section. Can we fairly fix up this argument to the following? If there is an increase in crime, then there is a significant increase in new gun owners. If there is a significant increase in new gun owners, then there are many untrained and ineffective gun-users. If there are many untrained and ineffective gun-users, then there is a life and death problem. So, if gun control prevents an increase in new gun owners, then gun control will prevent at least one source of a life and death problem.


29. "A totalitarian society, and particularly a totalitarian society occupying a country against its will, simply cannot permit the private possession of weapons to any great extent, except by those who have proven their loyalty." ~ The Legislative Reference Service, quoted in Robert J. Kukla, Gun Control (Harrisburg, PA, Stackpole Books, 1973), p. 440.


30. “If somebody wants to kill somebody, they’re going to find a way to do it.” ~ Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), on MTP Daily, MSNBC, 11/6/17.


31. “… I will immodestly state that among professors in the United States, I am almost certainly one of the best shooters. But I would never bring a weapon into a classroom. The presence of a firearm is always an invitation to violence. Weapons have no place in a learning environment.” ~ Anthony Swofford, former U.S. Marine and author of Jarhead, “I Was a Marine. I Don’t Want a Gun in My Classroom.,” The New York Times, circa 2/26/18. Note the presence of an A-claim and 2 E-claims, too.


32. “Common sense gun legislation: I think we should return to an assault weapons ban. I know the word is that that would never pass. But the stats are clear: more weapons means more dead people, more dead children. The FBI did a, did a study of mass shootings and active shooter situations from 2000 to 2013. From 2000 to 2007 there were about 6.5 a year. Now after 2007 that number almost tripled to 16.5. And I know there is no cause and effect here between the repeal of the assault weapons ban. But I feel like if you’re a country where the ethos is that anyone over the age of 18 can purchase this weapon that is intended to kill many, many people, that that’s an ethos that that says it’s OK to have that kind of weaponry around.” ~ Anthony Swofford, author of Jarhead, interviewed on MSNBC Live with Katy Tur, MSNBC, first aired 2/26/2018.


33. “[Anthony Swofford:] To fortify buildings is probably helpful to, to make sure there are ways in which students and teachers can escape buildings.    You know, the, the classroom that I mentioned that I was in that morning [of the school shooting] the door opened out not in, so there would have been no way for me to block a door if there was an attacker. The windows, unfortunately, didn’t even open. So, so my students would have been in totally in peril. And there would have been no way to escape that kind of classroom. So I think there needs to be a systematic kind of thinking about what campus safety looks like and what kind of actions students and teachers should take – but not with firearms.

[Katy Tur:] I don’t know about you, it’s remarkable we live in a time when we have to … I don’t know about you but I think it’s remarkable that we live in a time that we have to think about which way the doors open up into our classrooms because we think maybe we’ll need to protect our students from a man with a gun. Crazy times, Anthony Swofford.

[Swofford]: It’s scary. Super crazy times.

[Tur:] Super crazy.” ~ Exchange between anchor Katy Tur and interviewee Anthony Swofford, author of Jarhead, interviewed on MSNBC Live with Katy Tur, MSNBC, first aired 2/26/2018.


34. “We talk about the Saturday Night Special and I’m for outlawing those things, if we can. But I also remember that the first murder was done by Cain, who didn’t have a Saturday Night Special.” ~ Billy Graham, interviewed by Tom Brokaw on Today, 4/1/1981, rebroadcast on Morning Joe, MSNBC, 3/2/18.


35. "One tempting way to intervene between the manufacturer and the criminal end-user is to raise the price of weapons entering the market, perhaps by taxing handguns heavily." James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, "The Great American Gun War: Some Policy Implications of the Felon Study," in Lee Nisbet, ed., The Gun Control Debate, 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 113.

faq17: have affirmative action quotes?

Last revised 3/10/19


Note: *** = incomplete citation


1. “I do not buy the concept, popular in the ‘60s, which said, ‘We have suppressed the black man for 300 years and the white man is now far ahead in the race for everything our society offers. In order to even the score, we must now give the black man a head start, or even hold the white man back, to even the race.’” ~ Joseph Biden, quoted by Matt Viser, from a Delaware-based weekly newspaper, The People Paper, 10/2/1975, “Biden’s tough talk on 1970s school desegregation plan could get new scrutiny in today’s Democratic Party,” The Washington Post, 3/7/2019.


2. “The College Board, the folks who administer the SAT, the Scholastic Aptitude Test, have just announced that there will be what’s being referred to as an adversity score in addition to a numerical valuation of math and verbal skills. …  [Others refer to this as] context data. … Consideration will be given to 15 factors, including the quality of the student’s high school and the poverty level of the student’s neighborhood. Race will not be considered. Students will not get to see the score. While I think the intent to level the playing field is noble, I have questions as to the approach.  … But to elevate a numerical value of circumstance alongside achievement in math and verbal scores is not the appropriate way that I think we should be doing it. I worry that it will have undue influence upon those more objective scores. … I worry that this punishes a student in an advantaged neighborhood, maybe a white middle-class student, who still gains admission the old-fashioned way, by working hard.” ~ Michael Smerconish, host, Smerconish, CNN, first aired 5/18/2019.


3. "There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to -- to get them into the University of Texas where they do do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less -- a slower-track school where they do well. On of -- One of the briefs pointed out that -- that most of the most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they're -- that they're being pushed ahead in -- in classes that are too -- too fast for them." ~ Justice Antonin Scalia, Fisher v. University of Texas, oral arguments, 12/9/2015, quoted by MSNBC Live 12/11/2015.


4.  "These ideas that he [Justice Antonin Scalia] pronounced yesterday [the mismatch theory] are racist in application if not intent. I don't know about his intent. But it is deeply disturbing to hear a Supreme Court Justice endorse racist ideas from the bench of the nation's highest court." ~ Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), from MSNBC Live with Kate Snow, first aired 12/11/2016.


5. "You know who else thinks Affirmative Action is a good idea? The U.S. Military. They've gone so far as to issue friend of the court briefs saying we want to be able to consider diversity, gender, race when we build up our officer corps and our leadership. We think it helps the national security of the United States. And we want leadership that looks like America. That's what a lot of schools say. That's what a lot of Fortune 100 companies say."~ Ari Melber, MSNBC Chief Legal Correspondent, from MSNBC Live with Kate Snow, first aired 12/11/2016.


6. “Your article on altering SAT scores touches on a most sensible approach for selecting disadvantaged students for a college education. Eight criteria are listed, with the first seven being race/ethnicity blind, relating only to a truly disadvantaged background, as it should be. However, the last criterion explicitly addresses race and ethnicity. I doubt that there is a single person in our nation who would object to supporting the higher education of a child from a poor school with impoverished parents who has shown he/she can be successful in college. But what does race or ethnicity have to do with that child’s achievement? Ironically, if only the first seven criteria are used, all black, brown or red strivers would still be identified. As it is, by making race and ethnicity a criterion, we taint those legitimate black, brown and red strivers as ‘affirmative action’ ringers. How embarrassing that must be for them. And how disappointing it will be for impoverished strivers who will miss out of college because they are not the right race or ethnicity.” William D. Allen Sr., Placentia, CA, Letter to the Editor, The Wall Street Journal, September 14, 1999, p. A23.


7. "Conversely, affirmative action laws should be relaxed or eliminated. This is because affirmative action at some level is causing more problems than good or than it is solving." quoted in San Jose Mercury News, Dec. 29, 1996.


8. "Everyone deserves to be treated equally because we are all created by the same God. Therefore, affirmative action should not be abolished in our society, even though the white man claims that it does not favor him." quoted in Vincent Barry & William Harry Shaw, eds., Moral Issues in Business, 5th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1995), p. 432.


9. "The white man sees himself to be superior to the minority group and would say to himself that he has nothing to do with the minority group because of a superiority complex over the black man. Thus, he views blacks as outcasts, lazy, irresponsible, poor, unworthy, and uneducated..." quoted in Vincent Barry & William Harry Shaw, eds., Moral Issues in Business, 5th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1995).


10. "However, apart from the fact that we keep talking about healing the racial rifts in our country, affirmative action programs make everybody more racially conscious. They cause resentment and frustration among white men. Many black people and women also resent being advanced on grounds other than merit. Finally, if one hires and promotes people faster and further put them on merit, one is asking for problems, isn't one?" quoted in Vincent Barry and William Harry Shaw, eds., Moral Issues in Business, 5th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.), p. 432.


11. "After all, the Civil Rights Act was established to provide equal opportunity for all citizens of the country, and so affirmative action in employment is one sound way to do this." quoted in Vincent Barry & William Harry Shaw, eds., Moral Issues in Business, 5th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.), p. 436.


12. “Thank you for mentioning my work in your article on adjustments to test scores in college admission. I would make only one slight revision. My proposal is actually twofold. First, I propose that colleges use a race-blind merit index of their own creation. As stated in the article, this could indeed include the extent to which a student’s test score exceeds his/her average high school test score. But, second, along with use of its own merit index, I also propose that institutions use a new, multistage admissions model specifically designed to minimize the risk of legal and political attack. Adopting a flexible, non-‘holistic’ model that uses data on race and ethnicity only where necessary is really more important than the particular merit index the college chooses. If colleges adopt what I refer to as a ‘merit-aware’ approach – both a merit index and a multistage process – the tables will be turned on those who would eliminate affirmative action in selective college admissions. That is, it will be possible to admit more disadvantaged students of color (who are qualified) with, on average, lower test scores even at the most selective colleges, with legal and political impunity.” Bill Goggin, Alexandria, VA, Letter to the Editor, The Wall Street Journal, September 14, 1999, p. A23.


13. "Social mores, expectations and attitudes have changed dramatically for the past 30 years, especially with regard to woman’s roles. Hence, racial and ethnic identities are changing, too, which brings peace of mind." San Jose Mercury News, Dec. 29, 1996. Note: Affirmative action began in 1961 by an executive order of President John F. Kennedy.


14. "Discrimination is failing to treat relevantly like cases alike and relevantly different cases differently. So-called reverse discrimination [affirmative action] does not fit that definition, since there is a relevant difference between blacks and whites [for example], namely, that only blacks have been victims of such severe and systematic racist discrimination. Only blacks deserve so much compensation. There is less, or nothing, to compensate whites for." -- Sterling Harwood, in "Introduction: The Pros and Cons of Affirmative Action," in Sterling Harwood, ed., Business as Ethical and Business as Usual (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996), p. 94.


15. “Affirmative action greatly promotes diversity in education and employment.” ~ Sterling Harwood, Sterling Harwood, “The Pros & Cons of Affirmative Action,” Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1996, p. ???.)***


16. “The policies were originally developed to correct decades of discrimination and to give disadvantaged minorities a boost.” ~ Joe Messerli, http://www.balancedpolitics.org/affirmative_action.htm, website last updated 2/17/2008.


17. “One may also object that AA [Affirmative Action] hurts or punishes innocent whites for the sins of their fathers, which is unfair.” ~ Sterling Harwood, describing a Con of Affirmative Action, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc., 1996, p. 94).


18. “Students/workers who are put into a position through affirmative action often are not fully ready for the task. Not only is this not good for the university/company, but it is also not good for these students/workers as well because it lowers self-esteem.” Author unknown. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jesan20l/classweb/arguments.html, last visited 5/15/06.


19. “I doubt that there is a single person in our nation who would object to supporting the higher education of a child from a poor school with impoverished parents who has shown he/she can be successful in college. But what does race or ethnicity have to do with that child’s achievement?” ~ Author Unknown, Citation unknown. Note: This quote is ineligible for students to use in an A-section of an ABC set, but students may use this quote anywhere else in their papers.


20. “Minorities gave decades of unpaid labor, [and] had land taken from them.” ~ Joe Messerli, http://www.balancedpolitics.org/affirmative_action.htm, Webpage Last Updated: 02/17/2008. Note: This quote is ineligible for students to use in any A-section of any ABC set, but it is eligible for use elsewhere in term papers.


21. “Simply having people of different races or ethnicity's in the workplace/university does not necessarily mean diversity of opinion. People with the same skin color are not necessarily the same in opinion or even culture.” ~ Author unknown, http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jesan20l/classweb/index.html, This page was last edited on 5/15/06. Note: This quote is ineligible for use in any A-section of any ABC set but is eligible for students to use elsewhere in term papers.


22. “Part of the education process is learning to interact with other races and nationalities.” ~ Joe Messerli, http://www.balancedpolitics.org/affirmative_action.htm, Webpage Last Updated: 02/17/2008. Note: This quote is ineligible for students to use in any A-section of any ABC set but is eligible for students to use elsewhere in term papers.


23. “What right does the Educational Testing Service [ETS] have to judge a family breadwinner’s occupation? According to the chart, the ETS feels free to play God by assigning a child’s family to the socio-economic group based on parents’ education, occupation and income.” ~ Author Unknown, Citation Unknown. Note: This quote is ineligible for students to use in any A-section of any ABC sets but is eligible for students to use elsewhere in term papers.

Faq18: Have any quotes by or about confucius?

image4


1. “To see what is right, and not do it, is want of courage, or of principle.” ~ Confucius, quoted in Donald O. Bolander, Dolores D. Varner, Gary B. Wright, and Stephanie H. Greene, eds., Instant Quotation Dictionary (New York: Dell Publishing, 1972), p. 227.
 

2. “Honeyed words and flattering looks seldom speak of love.” ~ Confucius, quoted in The Sayings of Confucius(Barnes and Noble, 1994), hereinafter abbreviated ‘SOC’, p. 1.
 

3. “Of a gentleman who is frivolous none stand in awe, nor can his learning be sound. Make faithfulness and truth thy masters: have no friends unlike thyself; be not ashamed to mend they faults.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 2. Compare: "Opposites attract" and "Birds of a feather flock together." Compare "Variety is the spice of life" & admiration for diversity & inclusion.
 

4. “A gentleman who is not a greedy eater, nor a lover of ease at home, who is earnest in deed and careful of speech who seeks the righteous and profits by them, may be called fond of learning.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 3.
 

5. “Not to be known should not grieve you; grieve that ye know not men.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 4. Compare the old saying: “It’s not what you know but who you know that counts.” Further, compare the counter-saying: “It’s not who you know that counts but who knows you.”
 

6. “Guide the people by law, subdue them by punishment; they may shun crime, but will be void of shame. Guide them by example, subdue them by courtesy; they will learn shame, and come to be good.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 5.
 

7. “At fifteen, I was bent on study; at thirty, I cold stand; at forty, doubts ceased; at fifty, I understood the laws of Heaven; at sixty, my ears obeyed me; at seventy, I could do as my heart lusted, and never swerve from right.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 5.
 

8. “If I talk all day to Hui [Confucius’s favorite disciple], like a dullard, he never stops me. But when he is gone, if I pry into his life, I find he can do what I say. No, Hui is no dullard.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 7.
 

9. “Look at a man’s acts; watch his motives; find out what pleases him; can the man evade you? Can the man evade you?” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 7.
 

10. “He [a gentleman] is broad and fair; the vulgar are biassed [sic, biased] and petty.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 7.
 

11. “Work on strange doctrines does harm.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 7.
 

12. “Listen much, keep silent when in doubt, and always take heed of the tongue; thou wilt make few mistakes. See much, beware of pitfalls, and always give heed to thy walk; thou wilt have little to rue. If thy words are seldom wrong, they deeds leave little to rue, pay will follow.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 8.
 

13. Confucius, to a questioner, on why he is not in power: “What does the book say of a good son? ‘An always dutiful son, who is a friend to his brothers, showeth the way to rule.’ This also is to rule. What need to be in power?” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, 1994), p. 8
 

14. “Without truth I know not how man can live. A cart without a crosspole, a carriage without harness, how could they be moved?” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 9.
 

15. Confucius, to the questioner Tzu-chang, on whether we can know what is to be ten generations hence: “The Yin inherited the manners of the Hsia; the harm and the good that they wrought them is known. The Chou inherited the manners of the Yin; the harm and the good that they wrought them is known. And we may know what is to be, even an hundred generations hence, when others follow Chou.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 9.
 

16. “A friend to love, a foe to evil, I have yet to meet. A friend to love will set nothing higher. In love’s service, a foe to evil will let no evil touch him. Were a man to give himself to love, but for one day, I have seen no one whose strength would fail him. Such men there may be, but I have not seen one.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 18.
 

17. “A scholar in search of truth who is ashamed of poor clothes and poor food it is idle talking to.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 18.
 

18. “The chase of gain is rich in hate.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 18.
 

19. “Be not concerned at want of place; be concerned that thou stand thyself. Sorrow not at being unknown, but seek to be worthy of note.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 19.
 

20. “One thread, Shen [a particular disciple of Confucius], runs through all my teaching.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 19.
 

21. “A gentleman considers what is right; the vulgar consider what will pay.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 19.
 

22. “Who contains himself goes seldom wrong.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, p. 20.
 

23. “A gentleman wishes to be slow to speak and quick to act.” ~ Confucius, quoted in SOC, 1994), p. 20.
 

24. “The Master’s teaching all hangs on faithfulness and fellow-feeling.” ~ Tseng-tzu, quoted in SOC, p. 19.

faq19: have QUOTES ON ANCIENT ALIENS?

  

58 Quotes on Ancient Aliens: What ancient astronauts theorists say, believe, suggest, contend or conjecture


Last revised 7/5/19


All are from ancient aliens series on history channel unless otherwise noted

.

 *** = doublecheck the wording of the quotation or the details of the citation


1. "Why is the creature known as Bigfoot so difficult to capture or kill?  Could it be, as ancient astronaut theorists contend, that the creature's ghost-like abilities are the result of its other-worldly origin?" ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, "Aliens and Bigfoot," Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 3/23/2012, at about 6 minutes. Note: Two questions and a contention do not evidence make.


2. “Is the government’s increasing use of outside agencies and contractors designed to throw UFO investigators and ancient astronaut theorists off – and if so, does that mean that infamous top-secret sites, like Area 51 and its alleged underground network of covert laboratories and military installations, will soon be obsolete? Ancient astronaut theorists say ‘no.’ And they insist that, if anything, there are now more government sites engaged in extraterrestrial research than ever and that this research is no longer being confined to areas within the United States or even on planet earth.” ~ Robert Clotworthy, narrator, “Area 52,” Ancient Aliens, Season 13, Episode 6, History Channel, first aired 6/1/2018.


3. “There are some who believe these experiments [by the U.S. military] even involved human subjects as part of a highly controversial research program known as The Montauk Project.” ~ Robert Clotworthy, narrator, “Area 52,” Ancient Aliens, Season 13, Episode 6, History Channel, first aired 6/1/2018. Note: This is an I-claim.


4. “If Bigfoot creatures are allied with extraterrestrial beings, as ancient astronaut theorists believe, what might be their purpose on this planet?” ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, "Aliens and Bigfoot," Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 3/23/2012, at about 27 minutes. Note: a belief of ancient astronaut theorists is embedded in the middle of the question.

5. “Might extraterrestrials really have posed as false gods in order to keep humans under their control. And if so, could they have appeared to Marshal Applewhite and manipulated him and his followers into committing a horrific, ritual suicide. Ancient astronaut theorists believe the answer is a chilling ‘Yes’ and for further evidence, they point to a series of shallow graves and a Mexican drug lord believed to have supernatural powers.” ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, “Aliens and Deadly Cults,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 10/12/2011, at about 10 minutes. Note: ‘Might’ and ‘could’ are weasel words in the quote above. Group all quotes with weasel words together as mere suggestions of possibilities.


6. “If UFOs really are here, it’s absolutely logical to think that they’ve probably been here for thousands of years.” ~ John Greenewald, UFO Researcher, TheBlackVault.com, interviewed on UFOs: The Lost Evidence, Season 1, Episode 4, “Ancient Alien Visitors,” TRAV (Travel Channel).first aired Sunday April 16, 2017.


7. “This item is tied to a controversy that some believe could rewrite the history of our planet. [Interviewee:] ‘The artefact is tied to an alien race that may have lived in ancient times.’ Across the globe, among the relics left behind by history’s greatest civilizations, are mysterious artefacts that seem to suggest we are not alone in the universe. Within the pyramids of ancient Egypt, archeologists have uncovered strange hieroglyphs that seem to resemble images of spaceships. In the deserts of Mesopotamia, are a series of pictograms carved in clay that appear to show beings descending from the sky. And on a 1500-year-old stone tablet, found in Mexico, a replica of which is on display in the International UFO Museum and Research Center, is a depiction of a solitary figure apparently caught in the beam of an interstellar craft. These objects, and more, have led some to conclude that planet earth has been visited in the past by alien beings from other worlds.” ~ Don Widman, host & narrator, “Ancient Alien, Killer’s Curse and Ground Zero Ship,” Mysteries at the Museum, Season 17, Episode 30, Travel Channel (TRAV), first aired 11/21/2018.


8. “Beyond Roswell,” 7m; “… suggest …”***


9. “Might the Amitabha Buddha actually have been an otherworldly visitor and, if so, might the three saints of Pure Land Buddhism not just guide the dead to an afterlife but physically change them into higher-functioning beings, beings with extraterrestrial capabilities? Ancient astronaut theorists say yes, and believe further proof can be found in the story of another mythic trio, one that undertook an epic journey – not to a divine land after death but towards a divine life here on planet earth.” ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, “The Power of Three,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 9/30/2013, at about 45m. Note: I like the spooky/profound/pensive music around 46m here.


10.“Essentially the number three is the key to our DNA language. And this was revolutionary for its time because the ancient alient theory has always suggested that the ultimate proof of extraterrestrial tempering in our past will not come in the form of a crashed spaceship or some type of tools, but the actual proof will come from within our own DNA.” ~ Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, Narrator, “The Power of Three,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 9/30/2013, at about 57m.


11. “Could preconceived notions concerning mankind’s origins be causing scientists to overlook valuable data? Ancient astronaut theorists say ‘yes,’ and suggest that the scientific community has been too quick to find answers when they should be asking more questions.” ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, “The Science Wars,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 6/2/2017, at about 59 minutes of 60 minutes.


12. "Somebody built something on the moon a long, long time ago.  And I don't think it was earthlings." ~ George Noory, from "Space Station Moon," Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 7/29/2016.


13. "Only 300 kilometers away from where Apollo 11 ended up landing this area has undeniable architecture that looks like what you would see from obelisks." ~ David Wilcock, from "Space Station Moon," Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 7/29/2016.


14. "My question is: Who built the moon?" ~ Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, Publisher of Legendary Times magazine, from "Space Station Moon," Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 7/29/2016. 


15. “According to Egyptian texts, their gods were extraterrestrial beings that came to earth and taught our ancestors the secrets of metalwork. If true, might this be why we find isolated examples of advanced and sacred metallurgy occurring long mankind was known to have grasped such technology. Ancient astronaut theorists say ‘yes’ and suggest that hidden away in the storage area of a small museum in Eastern Europe is even more astounding evidence – the remnants of what might be an extraterrestrial spacecraft.”~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, in "Forged by the Gods," Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 5/5/2017, at minute 30.


16. “There are many theories about the black-eyed children. But some ancient astronaut theorists believe their appearance and mannerisms reveal an extraterrestrial origin.” ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, “The Star Children,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 2/7/2014, at about 47 minutes into the program, discussing children who allegedly have eyes with black irises and who have black instead of the whites of their eyes.


17. “Could the black-eyed kids actually be extraterrestrials in a limbo state between dimensions? And might these child-like beings be part of a much larger other-worldly agenda. Ancient astronaut theorists say ‘yes.’” ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, “The Star Children,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 2/7/2014, at about 48 minutes into the program, discussing children who allegedly have eyes with black irises and who have black instead of the whites of their eyes.


18. “Could it really be that these round monoliths were placed throughout the world to create a greater cosmic energy grid, as some researchers believe?” ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, “The Monoliths,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 4/19/2013.


19. "According to Ancient Astronaut theorists, discoveries like the metal ingots found off the coast of Sicily provide evidence that extraterrestrials have been fostering mankind's technological evolution for thousands of years.  And they suggest that even more compelling evidence can be found by examining a mysterious artifact discovered in the tomb of King Tut." ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, in "Forged by the Gods," Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 5/5/2017, at minute 30.


20. "Ancient Astronaut Theory says that the legends of these Greek gods are not just mythological, but they're actually rooted in actual events." ~ David Wilcock, author of The Ascension Mysteries, in "Forged by the Gods," Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 5/5/2017, at minute 30.


21. “Might extraterrestrials really have built caves and tunnel systems to hide the legendary creature known as Bigfoot, as some ancient astronaut theorists believe. “~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, "Aliens and Bigfoot," Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 3/23/2012, at 37 minutes.


22. “Could the intermingling of human and alien beings have resulted in this strange, hybrid creature [Bigfoot], as ancient astronaut theorists contend?” ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, "Aliens and Bigfoot," Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 3/23/2012, at 38 minutes into the program.


23. “If the creature known as Bigfoot really was created by aliens to mine precious metals thousands of years ago, as ancient astronaut theorists believe, why would it still be around today?” ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, "Aliens and Bigfoot," Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 3/23/2012, at 47 minutes.


24. “Could it be, as some ancient astronaut theorists contend, that the U.S. military was successful in construction of a military base on the surface of the moon.” ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, "The Alien Hunters," Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 4/28/2017.


25. "Ancient astronaut theorists suggest that world governments have wrapped up the hunt for extraterrestrial life because they already know it exists." ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, "The Alien Hunters," Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 4/28/2017.


26. "Throughout history, many of the world's greatest thinkers have credited their genius to otherworldly sources." ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, from "Aliens and Geniuses," Ancient Aliens: Declassified, History Channel, first aired 4/21/2017, at 1 minute.


27.  "These people [geniuses] are being influenced by higher beings who are guiding humankind." ~ David Childress, from "Aliens and Geniuses," Ancient Aliens: Declassified, History Channel, first aired 4/21/2017. at about 1 minute into the program.


28. “And you’ve got to conclude that we are not alone and that we’ve been visited [by ancient aliens] and we continue to be visited.” ~ George Noory, from “The New Evidence,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 5/27/2016.


29.   “Ancient Astronaut Theorists believe an elaborate secret repository is located under the Sphinx’s paws, known as the Hall of Records. It dates back to the fall of Atlantis, which according to ancient texts is said to have occurred nearly 12,000 years ago. They also claim that there were extraterrestrials living in Atlantis and that they needed a repository to house all of their accumulated knowledge.” ~ Robert Clotworthy?, Narrator, “Aliens and Temples of Gold,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 8/18/2011, at about 58 minutes into the program and another at about 34 minutes into the program.***


30.  “Did the Maya really conduct these elaborate and bloody rituals to honor a mythical deity or might they have been, as ancient astronaut theorists contend, commemorating an actual visitation by extraterrestrial beings?” ~ Robert Clotworthy?, Narrator, “Aliens and Mysterious Rituals,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 8/25/2011. Note: 2 other weasel sentences surround this near 6 minutes into the program, for example, David Childress: “All over the world, ancient people and modern people are using the rituals to connect them with gods. Yet these gods may well be ancient aliens.”***


31.  “Might Leonardo Da Vince have been aware of these early UFO sightings. Ancient astronauts theorists believe the answer is a profound ‘yes’ and point to even greater evidence that can be found by studying the works of other Renaissance artists.” ~ Robert Clotworthy?, Narrator, “The Da Vinci Conspiracy,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 4/6/2012. Note the weasel word ‘might’ leading off the sentence.***

32.  “[M]ost ancient astronaut theorists believe that the Egyptian gods were in reality extraterrestrial visitors …” ~ Robert Clotworthy?, Narrator, “Aliens and Robots,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 8/7/2015, at about 8 minutes into the program.***


33.  “Is it possible that our ancestors encountered highly sophisticated extraterrestrial robots in the ancient past and, if so, might there be some tangible evidence? Ancient astronaut theorists say ‘yes,’ and believe the evidence was recovered deep beneath the sea and dates back more than 2,000 years.” ~ Robert Clotworthy?, Narrator, “Aliens and Robots,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 8/7/2015, at about 11 minutes into the program.


34. “Could the Antikythera mechanism be proof that the ancient Greeks had technology far in advance of the time in which they lived, and might this be evidence that there really were functioning robots on the island of Rhodes? Ancient astronaut theorists say ‘yes’ and claim there is also evidence that advanced robots existed 300 miles to the north on another Greek island, Lemnos.” ~ Robert Clotworthy?, Narrator, “Aliens and Robots,” first aired 8/7/2015, at about 19 minutes into the program. Note the weasel word ‘Could’ leading off the quote. Weasel words make the quotes less interesting for analysis, since concerning contingent matters of fact – as philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) catergorizes the factual claims here – almost anything is possible in the sense of being logically possible (not involving a logical contradiction). The more interesting question is whether these are realistic possibilities or merely remote possibilities for which there is far too little evidence to warrant belief that the possibilities have been actualized.


35.   “Might the ancient engineers of Ollantatambo really have used tools acquired from otherworldly sources, as ancient astronaut theorists contend?” ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, The quoted question above parses into this claim: Ancient astronaut theories contend that the ancient engineers of Ollantatambo might really have used tools acquired from otherworldly sources. Note the weasel word ‘might’ kicking off the quotation.


36. “Could the Mitchell-Hedges skull really be an ancient, extraterrestrial relic, as ancient astronaut theorists suggest?” This implies: “Ancient astronaut theorists suggest that the Mitchell-Hedges skull could really be an ancient extraterrestrial relic.” ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, “The Crystal Skulls,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 10/7/2013.  Note: it fails to name them or quantify them. I think it includes another with “as many ancient astronaut theorists suggest.” @ 44m: “According to ancient alien theorists, the Atlantians also used objects made of crystal, not only as a means of harnessing energy, but as a means to store important information, much like a computer.”


37.   “But could, as ancient astronaut theorists believe, these strange Dogu figures really be a primitive interpretation of a pressurized space suit or diving apparel?” ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, “Underwater Worlds,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 11/11/2010 at about 36 minutes into the program. This question implies: As ancient astronaut theorists believe, these strange Dogu figures really are a primitive interpretation of a pressurized space suit or diving apparel.


38. “… as Ancient Astronaut theorists believe.” ~ Robert Clotworthy?, “The Time Travelers,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 4/27/2012, at about 25 minutes into the program.***


39.  “… Ancient Astronaut theorists believe …” ~ Robert Clotworthy?, Narrator, “Aliens and Stargates,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 1/24/2014, at about 6 minutes into the program


40. “… Ancient Astronaut theorists believe …” ~ Robert Clotworthy?, Narrator, “Aliens and Stargates,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 1/24/2014, at about 35 minutes into the program.


41.“According to ancient astronaut theory, we are talking about physical craft that, at some point, were misinterpreted as living creatures.” ~ Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, Publisher of Legendary Times magazine, “The New Evidence,” Ancient Aliens, first aired 5/27/2016, at about 26 minutes into the program. Note that the program note states: “Satellite images, ground-penetrating radar and thermal scanning leads to new evidence that appears to substantiate the belief held by millions of people that Earth has been visited in the past by extraterrestrial beings.”


42. “Is it possible, as ancient astronaut theorists suggest, that these monoliths were created by mankind to pay homage to actual otherworldly beings who visited Earth in the distant past?” ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator; “The Monoliths,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired ?, at about 46 minutes into the program. ***


43. “[E]very story has a core of truth.” ~ Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, Publisher of Legendary Times magazine, “The Monoliths,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired ?, at about 36 minutes into the program. ***


44. “[some] ancient astronaut theorists say ‘yes’.” ~ Robert Clotworthy?, Narrator, “The Monoliths,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired ?, at about 39 minutes into the program.***


45. “Might there actually be evidence of an ancient extraterrestrial civilization buried under the ice of Antarctica. Ancient astronaut theorists say ‘yes’ and believe that this long history of an alien presence there is precisely what brought another occupying force to its frozen shores – The Nazis.” ~ Robert Clotworthy?, Narrator, “Pyramids of Antarctica,” first aired 5/6/2016, at about 32 minutes into the program. Note: the program description states: “Satellite imagery reveals what appears to be the tops of manmade pyramids in Antarctica; ancient astronaut theorists conjecture that extraterrestrials may have colonized an ice-free Antarctica before a global catastrophe plunged it into an ice age.”


46. "Every decade we [humans] are getting smarter and smarter and smarter." ~ David Wilcock, author of The Synchronicity Key, from "The Star Children," Ancient Aliens, first aired 2/7/2014.


47. "Throughout human history there have been children who stand out for their advanced knowledge and incredible abilities." ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, from "The Star Children," Ancient Aliens, first aired 2/7/2014.


48. "Today, there is evidence that a higher number of unusually gifted children are being born than ever before." ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, "The Star Children," Ancient Aliens, The History Channel, first aired 2/7/2014.


49. "There's genetic evidence to prove that humans are evolving at a rapid rate of speed." ~ David Wilcock, author of The Synchronicity Key, from "The Star Children," Ancient Aliens, The History Channel, first aired 2/7/2014.


50. "Some Ancient Astronaut Theorists believe there are children born here on earth that have a connection to beings from beyond our world." ~ Robert Clotworthy, Narrator, from "The Star Children," Ancient Aliens, The History Channel, first aired 2/7/2014.


51. "Some of the Star Children have very high energy." ~ Nikki Pattillo, author of A Spiritual Evolution, from "The Star Children," Ancient Aliens, The History Channel, first aired 2/7/2014.


52.  “I mean, after a while even coincidence no longer makes sense.” ~ Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, Publisher of Legendary Timesmagazine, “The Evidence,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 4/20/2010, at about 10 minutes into the program.


53. “ … ancient astronaut theorists believe …” ~ Robert Clotworthy?, Narrator, “The Mystery of Puma Punku,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 4/20/2010, at about 6 minutes into the program.


54. “ … ancient astronaut theorists suggest …” ~ Robert Clotworthy?, Narrator, “Destination Orion,” Ancient Aliens, History Channel, first aired 4/20/2010, at about 5 minutes into the program.


55. "The U.S. Government has no evidence that any life exists outside our planet or that an extraterrestrial presence has contacted or engaged any member of the human race..." ~ The Obama Administration, quoted in "Alien Encyclopedia," Unsealed: Alien Files, first aired 9/17/2012.


56. "In addition, there is no credible information to suggest that any evidence [about exraterrestrials] is being hidden from the public's eye." ~ The Obama Administration, quoted in "Alien Encyclopedia," Unsealed: Alien Files, first aired 9/17/2012.


57. "This business of Erich von Daniken and other people like him hypothesizing that anything interesting or complex from antiquity was brought by aliens is just ridiculous. You've substituted a more complex hypothesis, these aliens for which there's really no other evidence, for a less complex hypothesis, which is: ancient people were smart and hard-working. Why not go with the simpler hypothesis [aka, Occam's Razor]?" ~ Paul Keyser, Historian of Ancient Science and Greek Technology, "Star Clock BC," Naked Science, National Geographic Channel (NGC 276), first aired 1/20/2011.


58. "Everything about this planet [earth] defies logic and probability." ~ George Noory, Coast to Coast AM, radio, 12/15/15, interviewing James Rollins, author of The Bone Labyrinth.

FAQ20: Have 26 Guidelines for Writing & Grading Term Papers?

26 guidelines A-z

Dr. Harwood will use these 26 guidelines in grading your papers and presentations. So, learn all the guidelines thoroughly. The first letter in a comment like 'AF' refers to the guideline I am relying on to comment on your paper and the second letter will be 'F' (meaning 'followed') or 'U' (meaning 'unfollowed'). So, for example, 'AF' means guideline A was followed. 'AU' means guideline A was unfollowed. 'BF' means guideline B was followed and 'BU' means guideline B was unfollowed. Don't worry, 'FU' means only that guideline F was unfollowed. ;o) Avoid being confused by 'UU,' which means only that guideline U was unfollowed. Call me at my cell @ 408-687-8199 if you want any more help with understanding my comments on your graded work, my guidelines A-Z, or any other part of our course together. When writing your first draft, concentrate primarily on guidelines A through F, but follow all 26 guidelines A-Z before submitting your paper. Guidelines with an asterisk (*) are especially important. The alphabetical order is no indicator of importance.


GUIDELINE A*. Always avoid attachments when emailing your term paper to me. You must successfully deliver your term paper to me by emailing it to me, without any attachments, to svharwood1@aol.com. Failure to do so counts as failing to submit your paper at all. You will get an ‘F’ on the paper if you submit it only as an attachment by the deadline, which is 1159pm PT the same day as the final exam (our last class). To copy & paste (and avoid attachments and avoid links to googledocs, etc.) simply use Control + A to highlight all of your text, then Control + C to copy all of your highlighted text onto the clipboard, then Control + V to paste all of your highlighted text on the clipboard into the empty message field of a new email addressed to me. Then send.


GUIDELINE B* Begin your paper with “In this paper I will argue that ____” and then fill in the blank to announce at the outset the main purpose of your paper. Be sure to fill in that blank with the same position you stated in your title (see guideline T) and in your heading for your introduction (see guideline U). The quotations in your A-sections must always be controversial and published.  Clearly identify which arguments are yours. Take a stand on the main issues early on, and continue to take stands on issues throughout your paper. Announce in your first paragraph of your introduction what conclusion you will argue for in your paper and, if your paper is about a moral issue, what moral principles you will use to support your conclusion. If you are morally evaluating a case, then state your moral evaluations of each morally questionable action in your case clearly and early in your first paragraph on p.1 of your paper. When writing on a moral question, you must argue from at least one moral principle. But the more moral principles you show to be on your side, the better your paper will be.  The last paragraph of your Introduction must look like this, with the blanks filled in of course to summarize your paper:


In 2C I will argue that ___.  In 3C I will argue that ___.  In 4C I will argue that _____.  In 5C I will argue that _____.  In 6C I will argue that _____.  In 7C I will argue that _____. Section 8 concludes my essay.

Go beyond 7C if you have more than the minimum of 6 ABC sets in your term paper, as you should try to do, following guideline E.  The blanks will be filled in with a summary of your C section that is similar to the heading you will use atop your C-section, following guideline U.


GUIDELINE C.* Anticipate and fully present all significant counterarguments to your views, and respond to these counterarguments. You may respond by modifying your position or by arguing against the counterarguments. If you are writing on a moral question, then in your first paragraph on page 1 announce what moral principles your opponents will use. You will find counterarguments in the assigned readings. The better the argument, whether it favors your side or not, the more space you should devote to it in your paper.
 

GUIDELINE D. Guideline 'D' is about 'doubt.' Avoid extreme relativism and skepticism, unless that is your approved paper topic. Extreme moral relativism states that no argument is any better than any other argument. Extreme moral skepticism is the view that no moral knowledge exists.
 

GUIDELINE E. * Extra effort exhibits excellence. More is better. Show that you have read and mastered all the assigned readings. You must always use citations. See guideline O below. Carefully present and evaluate ALL the assigned readings that are relevant to your paper topic. Avoid viewing the paper as a mere exercise or chore that you must complete. Instead, view the paper as one of the few chances you will have to show what you know. View the paper as a great opportunity to show all of the relevant information that you know. Your paper should be an analytical paper rather than a research paper. You might find some outside research helpful after mastering and analyzing the readings assigned. You must however document any factual claims you make that fail to be obvious. If you have any doubt about whether your factual claims are obvious, document them. See guideline M below. Philosophy papers are not history or psychology papers. Philosophy papers frequently morally evaluate and argue rather than just describe.  In moral topics (the topics on the syllabus that start with "Based on the 5 moral principles ..."), you must apply all 5 moral principles in every C-section.  Avoid "one and done," which occurs when a student applies only 1 of the 5 moral principles in a C-section and then moves on to another ABC set.  If you apply only 1 or 2 of the 5 moral principles in a C-section, then that is only 20% or 40%, which is an F level of quality.  The 3 most important moral principles to apply are utilitarianism, libertarianism, and egalitarianism, but if you apply only those 3 of the 5, then you can get at most only 60% credit, which is a D- level of quality.  If you apply only 4 of the 5 moral principles in a C-section, then the most credit you can get is 80%, which is a B- level of quality.  To repeat for emphasis: apply all 5 moral principles in every C-section if you write about a moral topic (for example, abortion, affirmative action, euthanasia, gay marriage, gays in the military, gay adoption, stem cell research, cloning, gun control, capital punishment, or any other topic that is listed on the syllabus on in my email approving the topic starting with "Based on the 5 moral principles ...").
 

GUIDELINE F.* Give the FULL and COMPLETE definition of any principle or concept when you first use it, which will most probably be in 2C (section 1 is your introduction). Never define two concepts (moral principles, truth tips or fallacies) in a row. Apply the first concept only after you give the definition of the that concept. Apply the first concept in a separate paragraph (following guideline M) immediately after the paragraph defining the first concept. Finish the application of the first moral principle defined before you move on to define the second moral principle. The definition and application of the same moral principle should appear in two separate paragraphs (see guideline M below). After you have given the full and complete definition, usually in section 2C of your paper, you should – starting in section 3C -- just repeat a short version of the key element in the definition that you intend to apply to evaluate an action in your case. Since my courses often involve applying principles and concepts, define your terms and then SHOW HOW they APPLY to the case or argument or issue or quote in question. In writing on moral questions, show, BY ARGUMENT, that the moral principles make the facts of the case morally relevant. Argue that the facts favor one side rather than the other(s). The more principles you use (without distorting the principles or the facts of your case) to support your evaluations or analysis, the better your paper will be.
 

GUIDELINE G. Use topic sentences. Use words to show the relationships between sentences in your arguments (for example, "In other words," "That is," "For example," "However," "Still," "Besides," "Indeed," "So," “Hence,” “Thus,” “Ergo,” "Therefore," "Further," "Furthermore," "Moreover," "Similarly," "Likewise," "Contrariwise," "On the contrary," "Rather," "Instead," "In sum," "Finally," and "In conclusion,"). Use 'Further' or 'Additionally' rather than 'And' to start a sentence. Use 'However' or "On the other hand" rather than 'But' to start a sentence. Use ‘Alternatvely’ rather than ‘Or’ to start a sentence. 'And,' 'But' and 'Or' are a bit too informal for your scholarly papers.
 

GUIDELINE H. Minimize assumptions, especially key, controversial, or unstated assumptions. Clearly and explicitly argue for every evaluation or conclusion or analysis that you make. In moral writing, morally evaluate every morally questionable action in your case. The number of morally questionable actions will vary from case to case. Accepting an assumption without critical thinking is giving someone a free pass and in philosophy and critical thinking there are no free passes.
 

GUIDELINE I.* Be specific. In the words of The Beatles' album "Sgt. Pepper": "Indicate precisely what you mean to say."
 

GUIDELINE J.* Use extreme words (also called ‘watchwords,’ for example, 'any,' 'all,' 'always,' 'whenever,' 'whatever,' 'never,' 'no,' 'none,' 'every,' 'solely,' 'only,' 'completely,' 'fully,' 'lone,' ‘necessary,’ 'must,' 'absolutely,' 'unquestionable,' 'impossible,' ‘inconceivable,’ 'undeniably') only with extreme caution, since extreme words used without qualifying words (e.g., 'almost,' 'usually,' 'typically,' 'often,' 'frequently,' 'not') often lead to overstatement and falsehood. Avoid hyperbole (that is, exaggeration for rhetorical effect). Avoid overstating arguments & using slanted rhetoric.
 

GUIDELINE K. Avoid using rhetorical questions as substitutes for arguments. Try to answer any questions you pose in your paper and do so immediately after you ask them. So that means you should never pose two questions in a row. Consider the following exchange from Lincoln, a novel by one of my favorite writers, Gore Vidal:
Seward: "Never end a speech with a question."
Lincoln smiled, "For fear you'll get the wrong answer?"
Seward nodded, "People are perverse."
Compare this to the ad populum fallacy.
 

GUIDELINE L. Be brief. As Shakespeare wrote (in "Hamlet"), brevity is the soul of wit. Eliminate unnecessary words by using the active voice instead of the passive voice. Further, almost always delete 'actually' and 'really.' Balance guidelines L and E. See guideline W on the passive voice. Here's an example of the active voice: "The bat hit the ball." Here's an example of the passive voice: "The ball was hit by the bat." The active voice is briefer than the passive voice.
 

GUIDELINE M. Use a separate paragraph every time you start a significantly new event in your paper. For example, defining a moral principle is one significant event but then applying that definition to a quote is a new event deserving a new (separate) paragraph. Further, if a paragraph consists of only one or two brief sentences, check to see whether the paragraph is best incorporated into another paragraph of your paper. If a paragraph runs for much over a page, check that you are neither rambling, merely drifting down a stream of consciousness, nor being verbose.
 

GUIDELINE N. Avoid using scare-quotes (that is, inverted commas). For example, avoid saying "This seems 'right'" or "You are 'wrong'."
 

GUIDELINE O. *  No Internet-only citations are permitted in the A-sections, except for The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and www.sterlingharwood.com (the quotes I say on this site that you can use in A-sections).  See the 5 required pieces of info in the next paragraph.  You must cite a named, individual, non-fictitious person (or set of such persons as co-authors). The name must be sufficiently recognizable to allow identification.  Remember, only information attributable to a named individual nonfictitious person is eligible for citation in your term paper. Read and think about whatever you like, but Dr. Harwood wants your term paper to focus on real info from real people rather than waste time or distract by you citing in your term paper, for example, just some actor or imposter or fictitious person like "lonely girl" on the Internet. Whenever you use someone else's idea(s), use a citation immediately following it (at the end of the sentence, in parentheses) to give 5 pieces of key information: For a book, give: 1) author; 2) title; 3) publisher; 4) year; and 5) page (or pages if the quote runs from one page to another);

For a periodical (magazine, newspaper, scholarly journal, newsletter, etc.), give: 1) author; 2) title of the article; 3) title of the publication (magazine, etc.); 4) date (month, day and year), and page (or pages if the quote runs from one page to another);

For a film, give: 1) the person's name (actor's real name, see IMDB.com or the film's credits); 2) title of film; 3) film company (see IMDB.com or the film's credits); and 4) year film was first released (see IMDB.com);

For a TV show, give: 1) the person's name (actor's real name, see IMDB.com or the show's credits); 2) the name of the TV show; 3) the network the show was broadcast on originally (see IMDB.com or the show's credits); and 4) the first air date (see IMDB.com)

For a radio show, give: 1) the person's name who spoke the quoted statement; 2) the name of the radio show; 3) the call letters (such as KLIV or WBAL) of the radio station that aired the show; and 4) the date on which you heard the show;

For the Internet, use in an A-section only if it is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or www.sterlingharwood.com, but you can cite any Internet source in any part of your paper that is NOT an A-section, and give whenever you cite the Internet: 1) the name of the person who wrote or spoke the quoted statement; 2) the Internet URL (website address, such as sterlingharwood.com); and 3) the date you last successfully visited the Internet site and saw the quoted statement.

Avoid quote-quilting (that is, overusing others' arguments and merely weaving them together into a position). If you use the exact words of another, then you must use quotation marks around all of those exact words. Failure to quote exact words and failure to credit others with a citation when you use their ideas is plagiarism, which is unethical and sometimes illegal. Dr. Harwood punishes plagiarism by giving an F for the course to any student who plagiarizes. If you have any doubt or ignorance about what plagiarism means, then before you submit any work carefully read the definition of plagiarism at www.dictionary.com -- and other dictionaries -- and consult a school counselor about our college's rules concerning plagiarism and academic honesty and integrity.
 

GUIDELINE P. Avoid understating your point. One of the most important things you will learn in college is how to give your points just the right level of emphasis, avoiding overemphasis and under-emphasis. On overemphasis, see guideline J above. On under-emphasis, probabilities are usually crucial. Showing a mere possibility is helpful only when rebutting a claim that something is impossible. Lawyers rightly ridicule arguments trying to show some possible, horrible consequence to a law or ruling, calling such arguments "possible horrible arguments." Avoid making such arguments. Avoid weasel words, which tend to water down and understate your point. Weasel words include, but are hardly limited to: ‘maybe’, ‘may’, ‘perhaps’, ‘might’, ‘could’, ‘would’, ‘possible’, ‘possibly’, ‘conceivable’, ‘conceivably’, and ‘can’.
 

GUIDELINE Q. * Expose the commission of any fallacies others commit, but avoid oversimplifying or distorting others' views or the definitions of the fallacies just to rebut your opponents. Avoid committing any fallacies yourself. See sterlingharwood.com for the definitions of fallacies.
 

GUIDELINE R. Proofread your paper carefully! Bad proofreading is the fastest way to lose credibility with your readers. Imagine if you wrote paper on Microsoft and kept calling it Macrosoft or Macrosift all the way through your paper. Your readers would infer that since you fail to know even how to spell your subject, you do not know what you are talking about. At best, typographical or grammatical errors distract your reader; and dividing your reader's attention risks misinterpretation of your views. At worst, such errors obscure thoughts you wish to communicate, and convince your reader that his or her wisdom is no match for your ignorance. Here are some words that are often misspelled or misused: 1) 'argument' is right; 'arguement' is wrong; 2) "it's" means "it is"; 'its' is the possessive of 'it'; 3) 'criterion' is singular and 'criteria' is plural; 4) 'solely' is right; 'soley' and 'soly' are wrong; 5) 'occurrence' is right; 'occurence' is wrong; 6) 'likelihood' is right; 'likelyhood' is wrong; 7) 'judgment' is best in America; 'judgement' is the British spelling; and 8) 'lose' (not 'loose') is the opposite of 'win', and 'losing' (not 'loosing')is the opposite of 'winning'; 9) 'loose' is the opposite of 'tight'.
 

GUIDELINE S. Put points positively, which makes your writing less evasive and more forceful and clear. Use these words to help you avoid 'not': 'lack', 'without,' 'refrain,' 'shun,' 'fail,' 'scarcely,' 'hardly,' 'refuse,' 'refrain,' 'reject,' 'avoid,' 'doubt,' "decide against," and "rather than” ; “instead of." Avoid using negative terms such as 'not' and 'never.' Avoid using contractions (for example, "don't" and "ain't" and "I'll") in formal writings such as your paper. This guideline prevents you from using double negatives and from mincing words (e.g., "not without")
 

GUIDELINE T: The title for your paper must clearly TAKE A STAND on your approved paper topic and clearly IDENTIFY YOUR PAPER TOPIC. This means that if you use a question for your title, be sure to answer that question in your title (or a subtitle). Here's an example of a title with a subtitle: "Is Abortion Moral?: No". 'No' is the subtitle. "Is Abortion Moral?: Yes" would be an equally excellent title for a paper on abortion. Here are examples of bad titles that fail to follow guideline A: “Paper,” “Term Paper” “Philosophy Paper”; “Philosophy Term Paper”; "Affirmative Action"; "Abortion"; “Death Penalty,” “Executions,” “Capital Punishment,” Euthanasia"; "Gun Control"; "Surrogate Motherhood." Here are examples of good titles that follow guideline A: "Say 'Affirmative' to Affirmative Action"; "Affirmative Action is Reverse Discrimination & Wrong," "Kill Euthanasia: It's Wrong," “Put Mercy Killing out of its Misery: It’s Wrong,” "Euthanasia: We Have a Moral Right to Death with Dignity," "Abort Abortion: It's Wrong," "Abortion: Women Should Have the Right to Choose," "Gun Down Gun Control: It's Wrong," "Gun Control is So Good It Saves Lives."


GUIDELINE U.* Use numbered headings (see the sample papers on this site to see how the headings look) to show your readers where you are heading. The heading is like a headline and thus the heading for your introduction, for example, should thus appear on a separate line above the first paragraph of your introduction. Pity your reader. He or she must take thousands of tiny stains (letters) and use interpretation to make from these stains a philosophy or a position. Avoid passing up opportunities to use headings to let your reader know what your conclusions will be (where you are heading) and how you will get there. Headngs are useful signposts. Use a summary of your C section (found in your Intro & Conclusion) as a heading for the entire ABC set.
 

GUIDELINE V. Use complete sentences. That is, avoid "sentence fragments."
 

GUIDELINE W. Work to be clear and literal. Avoid sarcasm, metaphors and figurative language. Use the active voice to promote clarity. Passive voice is good for politeness, suspense and evasion of responsibility (for example, President Reagan's "Mistakes were made" on the Iran/Contra scandal). Your scholarly papers put a premium on other values such as clarity and brevity, which are much better served by the active voice. The passive voice often uses forms of the verb "to be", often uses the past participle of a verb, and often uses 'by.' For example, the active voice of "Plato argued for this conclusion" is better than "This conclusion was argued for by Plato."

GUIDELINE X. Avoid splitting infinitives. Infinitives involve verbs. Examples of infinitives: 1) "to go" is the infinitive of 'go'; 2) "to die" is the infinitive of 'die'. Here's an example of a split infinitive: "Its 5-year mission is to boldly go where no one has gone before."
 

GUIDELINE Y. Avoid ending sentences with prepositions. Winston Churchill jokingly said that this error is a mistake up with which he will not put. ;o) Examples of propositions include: at, under, over, of, for, in. Examples of sentences ending with prepositions include: 1) "Where's the library at?"; 2) "Check to see if the mail is in"; and 3) "You are the one I came for."
Another joke concerning this guideline is:
Freshman: “Where’s the library at?”
Professor: “Here at Cornell we simply do not end our sentences with prepositions.”
Freshman: “OK, then where’s the library at – scumbag!”
 

GUIDELINE Z. Avoid contractions, which are too informal for the scholarly writing you do. Examples of contractions include: "I'm," "Don't," and "I'll." Further, avoid starting sentences with 'And,' 'But,' or 'Or' since these are also too informal.

faq21 THE MOST LOGICAL EXPLANATION OF BIGFOOT SIGHTINGS?

Quotes & Stats on Bigfoot


Important Note: The quote at the very end with an asterisk (‘*’) next to the start of it is ineligible for A-sections in your ABC sets. All the other quotes are eligible for you to use as A-section quotes in ABC sets. Any Source of Info is Allowed in any of your C-sections of any of your ABC sets, your Intro, and/or your Conclusion. There are no restrictions on where you get your info for any part of your paper except the A-section quotes in your ABC sets. Those quotes must be quotes of controversial, published claims, and must include citations following Guideline O.


1. “Well, there are reports of Bigfoot all across the United States. There’s absolutely no doubt that the vast majority of the reports come from the Pacific Northwest. If you look at the terrain, it’s filled with mountains, vast forests that just go on for thousands of square miles. Now, if Bigfoot exists, which I believe he does, then the best places for these creatures to exist in a fashion that would not see them killed by us would be in the deep forests and in the mountains.” ~ Nick Redfern, author and cryptozoologist, interviewed in “Bigfoot,” Season 1, Episode 1 of In Search of Monsters, Travel Channel (TRAV), first aired 4/3/2019.


2. “We tend to assume that we have explored all of the places on our planet – that between satellites and google earth and all of our modern technology that we’ve seen every square inch of our planet. And the reality is that we absolutely haven’t.” ~ Lynne McNeill, Ph.D., Professor of Folklore, Utah State University, interviewed in “Bigfoot,” Season 1, Episode 1 of In Search of Monsters, Travel Channel (TRAV), first aired 4/3/2019.


3. “As a folklorist, I go back to the idea that legends [like Bigfoot] do not exist for no reason. Bigfoot speaks to a lot of truths. And it is worthwhile to consider what those truths are.” ~ Lynne McNeill, Ph.D., Professor of Folklore, Utah State University, interviewed in “Bigfoot,” Season 1, Episode 1 of In Search of Monsters, Travel Channel (TRAV), first aired 4/3/2019.


4. “As far as scientists and anthropologists are concerned, myths and legends are no substitute for cold, hard evidence.  And they believe that footprints, like the one found near Willow Creek [in October of 1958 along a 30-mile area of Bluff Creek in California] may offer some of the strongest scientific evidence we have that Bigfoot really exists.” ~ Narrator, “Bigfoot,” Season 1, Episode 1 of In Search of Monsters, Travel Channel (TRAV), first aired 4/3/2019.


5. “That first footprint [the Willow Creek print of October 1958] has become an iconic image. Since then, the practice has proliferated and now I have over 300 footprint casts in my laboratory, and probably one of the most extensive collections of that type of data. And from that has emerged a remarkable and compelling body of evidence that there really is a species of creature as yet unrecognized by science living here in North America.” ~ Jeff Meldrum, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, Idaho State University, “Bigfoot,” Season 1, Episode 1 of In Search of Monsters, Travel Channel (TRAV), first aired 4/3/2019.


6. “[Josh Gates, explorer & TV host:] What do you say to people who are hardened skeptics who say that there can’t be anything like the Yeti out of the Himalayas?

[Dr. Jeff Meldrum:] Well, skepticism is an important part of science. However, even in science you never say ‘never.’ Based on the evidence that I’m familiar with, I can see no other way to account for it than to acknowledge the possibility – and in fact the probability – that there is an unrecognized species of primate in the Himalayas.”  ~ from “Unmasking the Myth,” Expedition Unknown: Hunt for the Yeti, Travel Channel, first aired 10/26/2016. Note: Double-check the spelling of Dr. Meldrum’s name.


7. “My hunt for the Yeti led me to the edge of the inhabitable world. In Nepal, I learned that my own Yeti experience all those years ago is part of a mass tapestry of stories. I met dozens of witnesses, held venerated artifacts, and experienced the sheer power of belief. And then, in Bhutan, the shy jewel of the Himalayas, I came away with a new piece of evidence. We recovered a clue that a bear species once thought to be extinct here could still be alive and well. In the end, my journey revealed two different, but I think complementary answers to the Yeti legend. On the one hand, the near-religious status of the Yeti, and the lack of compelling DNA evidence, leads me to believe that it is rooted in folklore, a Himalayan myth for the ages, a proxy for the holy mountains. But I also think that every eyewitness I met was sincere in his belief. The footprint from Bhutan reveals how little we really know about what’s living in the Himalayas. To me, there’s little doubt that bears make up the vast majority of reported Yeti sightings. But questions do remain. The footprint impression I found years ago, the print we saw in Monjo, and the depressions in the snow on [Mount] Everest and in Bhutan, none of those match bear prints at all. And cold 100% of eyewitnesses really be mistaken? The answer is, I’m not sure. There will always be a part of me, a wishful part, that says the Yeti could be out there waiting in the frosted unknown. And I raise my glass to the intrepid explorers who continue to search for answers, and to the people of the Himalayas who continue to pay respect to the Yeti and who share its legend with the world.” ~ Josh Gates, “Unmasking the Myth,” Expedition Unknown: Hunt for the Yeti, Travel Channel, first aired 10/26/2016.


8. “This is an absolute case that we have not got the cut and dried evidence, we got no skull, no bones and you have to admit we should have that if we want to believe that Bigfoot is real.” ~ Dr. Bill Sellers, Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide, History Channel, first aired: 2/2/2011, Time: 1:26:15-1:26:28, Directed by Virginia Quinn. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1947972/), (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyBGsTDMRHw), last visited 2/24/19. 


9. “There is no way to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that there’s such an animal without having a body on the dissecting table we have to ask the question if there is a Bigfoot out there why haven’t we found it.” ~ Dr. David Daegling, Bigfoot: Is It Real, National Geographic, first aired 6/23/2005, Time: 41:35-41:50, Directed by Noel Dockstader, available on amazon prime, (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0860046/), (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOPrdBbdZms), last visited 2/24/19.


10. “After doing a recreation using the same exact camcorder as the original video there’s no doubt in my mind that it was either one of his friends or another camper, there’s no way that’s a sasquatch it’s clearly a person.” ~ Ranae Holland, “Finding Bigfoot” (2011– 2015) 8:16-8:30, Season 2, Episode 9, Holy Cow! It’s Bigfoot, Air date: 3/11/2012, Keith Hoffman, for the Animal Planet Channel, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyA2UMIIztE), (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1948830/?ref_=nv_sr_1), last visited 2/24/19.


11. “We just happened to look in the field and we saw him as soon as soon as the light from the spotlight hit him he was gone” Shawana Ward, Finding Bigfoot (2011– 2015), 4:22-4:34, Season 3, Episode 6, “Bigfoot and Wolverines,” Air date: 12/16/2012, Keith Hoffman, for the Animal Planet Channel, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcTi4c8WSlk, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1948830/?ref_=nv_sr_1, last visited 2/24/19.


12. “Even though it was night time we did see the eye glow, depending on how high those eyes where that’s going to give us a good assumption of how big this Sasquatch was.” ~ Cliff Barackman, Finding Bigfoot (2011– 2015), 5:18-5:25, Season 3, Episode 6, Bigfoot and Wolverines, Air date: 12/16/2012, Keith Hoffman, for Animal Planet Channel, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcTi4c8WSlk), http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1948830/?ref_=nv_sr_1, last visited 2/24/19.


13. “There’s a lot of things in this story that just don’t make sense, why would a Sasquatch throw a log at a car if it’s a creature that wants to be undetected and even though he’s a hunter the sighting was at night I can’t rule out an identification”. Ranae Holland, Finding Bigfoot (2011– 2015), 6:33-6:50, Season 3, Episode 6, “Bigfoot and Wolverines,” Air date: 12/16/2012, Keith Hoffman, for Animal Planet, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcTi4c8WSlk, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1948830/?ref_=nv_sr_1, last visited 2/24/19.


14.“I originally got into logging because I wanted to see a Sasquatch. I’ve never seen one logging yet but I’ve met plenty of loggers that claim to have seen the [Sasquatch].” ~ James Fay, 12:58-13:05, Season 3, Episode 6, “Bigfoot and Wolverines,” Air date: 12/16/2012, Keith Hoffman, for Animal Planet Channel, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcTi4c8WSlk), (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1948830/?ref_=nv_sr_1, last visited 2/24/19.


15. “I saw a glimpse, an outline of a shadowy figure that was covered in hair the witness doesn’t even know what he saw, without him knowing and without providing hard evidence I can’t say that was a Sasquatch”. Ranae Holland, 22:30-22:45, Season 3, Episode 6, “Bigfoot and Wolverines,” Air date: 12/16/2012, Keith Hoffman (for Animal Planet Channel, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcTi4c8WSlk, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1948830/?ref_=nv_sr_1, last visited 2/24/19.


16.“All I saw where these orange eyes just staring right at me it didn’t look away, I re-aimed my riffle at him but as soon as I did that the Sasquatch took before I could shoot.” ~ Stuart Kunkle, 23:50-24:10, Season 3, Episode 6, Bigfoot and Wolverines, Air date: December 16, 2012, Keith Hoffman, for Animal Planet Channel, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcTi4c8WSlk, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1948830/?ref_=nv_sr_1, last visited 2/24/19.


17. “The deer skeletons lead me to believe the Bigfoot reports around here are true, I think Sasquatches do live in this are but this area is so large we need to narrow our focus.” ~ Matt Moneymaker, 31:30-31:50, Season 3, Episode 6, Bigfoot and Wolverines, Air date: 12/16/2012, Keith Hoffman, for Animal Planet Channel, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcTi4c8WSlk, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1948830/?ref_=nv_sr_1, last visited 2/24/19.


18. “Me and a buddy of mine where raccoon hunting when saw something that was a big dark figure that was lurking in the woods, there’s no doubt in my mind it wasn’t a human.” ~ Shane Mitchell, 6:05-6:20, Season 3, Episode 10, “Bacon for Bigfoot,” Air date: 1/13/2013, Keith Hoffman (for Animal Planet), (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPKIcc1wfb0), (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1948830/?ref_=nv_sr_1).


19.“To me it pops right out, right of the back it’s a lot bigger than I am this thing is significantly bigger than me it’s at least seven feet tall it’s not a human – it’s a Sasquatch”. James Fay, 7:31-7:42, Season 3, Episode 7, “Bobo Marks His Turf,” Air date: December 23, 2012, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wCr8s4Vox4), (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1948830/?ref_=nv_sr_1).


20. “I looked through my window because I heard rustling in the bushes, I saw this black figure standing on its back legs it looked at me and then ran away.” ~ Joe Cocca, 16:25-16:50, Season 3, Episode 7, “Bobo Marks His Turf,” Air date: December 23, 2012, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wCr8s4Vox4), (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1948830/?ref_=nv_sr_1).


21. “Bigfoot obviously has reproductive systems just like humans that’s why there’s so many Bigfoot's roaming around in the wild.” ~  Matt Moneymaker, 21”19-21:27, Season 3, Episode 7, “Bobo Marks His Turf,” Air date: 12/23/2012, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wCr8s4Vox4), (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1948830/?ref_=nv_sr_1), last visited 2/24/19.


22. “I’m confident in saying that we have three Sasquatches around us, due to all the eye witnesses’ accounts and their evidence”. James Fay, 40:50-41:02, Season 3, Episode 6, “Bigfoot and Wolverines,” Air date: December 16, 2012, Keith Hoffman (for Animal Planet), (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcTi4c8WSlk), (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1948830/?ref_=nv_sr_1), last visited 2/24/19.


23. “What happens a lot of the time is that somebody has what you might call a ‘Bigfoot experience,’” he said. “They hear one howling, or throwing stones at them, or something like that. Then they see a clump of hair caught in a bush, and say ‘Aha, that’s come from the Bigfoot.’” ~ James Owen, Weird & Wild, National Geographic, July 1, 2014, Page 1 (http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/07/01/yeti-bigfoot-dna-hair-study-science-animals-himalaya/, last visited 2/24/19.


24. "There are places where you can see territorial markings and snaps that the creature has made in the trees. There are even canopies and bows made of trees for him to sleep under, according to Gilbert. "It looks like a tombstone almost," Gilbert said. "You can see the outlines of the creature's eyes, head and his teeth." ~ James Owen, Weird & Wild, National Geographic, July 1, 2014, Page 1 (http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/07/01/yeti-bigfoot-dna-hair-study-science-animals-himalaya/.


25. “Now that the Patterson film has been debunked what do you really have? [Mere] [s]tories and footprints.” ~ Sean Reynolds, Bigfoot: The Lost Coast Tapes. New Breed Entertainment (26 October 2012), Director: Corey Grant, Time: 13:46-13:53. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j9k5GNWGhw), (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1740725/?ref_=nv_sr_4.), last visited 2/24/19.


26. “It’s rare to find a carcass of a grizzly bear in the wild. While that's true, grizzlies have not escaped photographic documentation.” Stefan Lovgren, National Geographic News on October 23, 2003, Page 2 of 2. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1023_031023_bigfoot_2.html), last visited 2/24/19.


27. “Eyewitness testimonies notoriously inaccurate especially when people are frightened, there is recent research that suggest in the conditions of stress and fear as you would expect in Bigfoot sighting. The brain actually does an even worse job of remembering what it sees.” ~ Benjamin Radford, Bigfoot: Is It Real?, National Geographic, (23 Jun. 2005) Time: 4:40-5:02, Directed by Noel Dockstader, (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0860046/), (https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOPrdBbdZms), last visited 2/24/19.


28. “Eyewitness testimony is not reliable, police detectives know this, lawyers know this, and physiologists know this, there’s nothing shocking about it. The problem is when you apply that to Bigfoot sightings it’s even less reliable.” ~ Benjamin Radford, Bigfoot: Is It Real?, National Geographic, (23 Jun. 2005), Time: 5:07-5:22, Directed by Noel Dockstader. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0860046/), (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOPrdBbdZms), last visited 2/24/19.


29. “I believe very much in what local people and if local people tell me something is there, I have a suspicion that it may be true even if I haven’t seen it.” ~ Dr. Anna Nekaris, Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide, Handel Productions, February 2, 2011, Time: 12:07-12:14 Directed by Virginia Quinn, (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1947972/), (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyBGsTDMRHw), last visited 2/24/19.


30. “All the scientists have are tantalizing clues, hair samples that don’t register as any know species, recorded calls in the middle of the night and most crucial of all thousands of eye witness reports.” Alan Handel, Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide, History Channel, February 2, 2011 Time: 1:23:40-1:23:56, Directed by Virginia Quinn, (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1947972/), (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyBGsTDMRHw), last visited 2/24/19.


31. “How come there are no remains when these creatures die? Can't you show us one teensy-weensy bone? How about a tooth? Not even a toe-nail?” ~ from: "Sasquatch - Bigfoot Believers vs Skeptics - Krantz." Bigfoot Encounters. 21 May 2009, http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/believers.htm, last visited 2/24/19.


32. “The most common characteristic of bigfoot pictures is that they exist in the absence of hard physical evidence that the creature was really there.” ~ from: “Sasquatch: Best Evidence - Page One," Paranormal Phenomena. 21 May 2009, http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa112999a.htm, last visited 2/24/19. Note: Avoid using this in any A-section of any ABC set but you may use it in any C-section where the quote helps.

 

33. “A good example of this, is the case of Terry Reems, who in 1975, along with dozens of other witnesses saw a Bigfoot stranded on the median of Interstate 84.” ~ from “Sasquatch: Best Evidence - Page One," Paranormal Phenomena. 21 May 2009 <http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa112999a.htm>.)
Note: Avoid using this in any A-section of any ABC set but you may use it in any C-section where the quote helps.


34. “There have been more than 700 footprints attributed to Bigfoot collected over the years, having an average length of 15.6 inches.” ~ from: “Sasquatch: Best Evidence - Page One." Paranormal Phenomena. 21 May 2009, http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa112999a.htm, last visited 2/24/19. Note: Since the claim quoted is unpublished, avoid using it in any A-section of any ABC set. But you may use this quotation in any other part of your paper except the title and the B sections.


35. “It's a fact that for more than 400 years people have reported seeing large, hair-covered, man-like animals in the wilderness areas of North America.” ~ from: Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization. 21 May 2009, http://www.bfro.net/, last visited 2/24/19.
Note: Since this quote is unpublished, avoid using it in any A-section of any ABC set. But you may use this quote in any other part of your paper except the title and the B sections.


36. “It is a fact that sightings of these animals continue today. Real or not, these reports are often made by people of unimpeachable character.” ~ from: Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, 5/21/2009, http://www.bfro.net/, last visited 2/24/19. Note: avoid using this in any A-section of any ABC set but you may use it in any Intro, Conclusion, or C-section.

37. “How about all those hunters? Why haven't they brought one down yet?” ~ from: "Sasquatch - Bigfoot Believers vs Skeptics – Krantz," Bigfoot Encounters, first aired 5/21/2009, http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/believers.htm, last visited 2/24/19.


38. “The good news for Bigfootologists and enthusiasts who are looking forward to proving and identifying what they’ve been after for years is that there is now a way of doing that, which there never was before.” ~ James Owen, “Weird and Wild,” National Geographic, 7/1/2014, p. 1, http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/07/01/yeti-bigfoot-dna-hair-study-science-animals-himalaya/, last visited 2/24/19. Note: Since the quoted claim is uncontroversial, avoid using it in any A-section of any ABC set. But you may use this quote in any other part of your paper except the title and the B sections.


39. "Given the scientific evidence that I have examined, I'm convinced there's a creature out there that is yet to be identified.” ~ Prof. Jeff Meldrum, a professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University, “Weird and Wild,” National Geographic, 7/1/2014, p. 1, http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/07/01/yeti-bigfoot-dna-hair-study-science-animals-himalaya/, last visited 2/24/19. Note: Double-check the accuracy of this citation. It may be from another work by National Geographic.


40. “In 1988, wildlife biologist John Bindernagel of Vancouver Island found massive footprints in the snow and heard a "whoo-whoo whooop" call in the woods.” ~ from: “Sasquatch: Best Evidence - Page One." Paranormal Phenomena, first aired 5/21/2009, http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa112999a.htm, last visited 2/24/19. Note: Since this quote fails to count as published, because the citation is only to an Internet source that fails to appear in Guideline O, avoid using this quote in any A-section of any ABC set but you may use it anywhere else in your paper except the title or in a B section.


41.*“Only days after Georgia residents Matt Whitton and Rick Dyer told reporters at a press conference on Friday that they had a dead Bigfoot body, their evidence has been exposed as a rubber ape costume.” ~ from: "Bigfoot Hoax: ‘Body’ Is Rubber Suit," Daily Nature and Science News and Headlines, National Geographic News, first aired 5/21/2009, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080820-bigfoot-body.html, last visited 2/24/19.


Stats & Other Facts About Alleged Bigfoot Sightings


1. Stat: 36 seconds: length of The Patterson-Gimlin film. Source: Alex Saunders, “Humanoid Monsters from Another Dimension,” Search Magazine, November 1968, pp. 61-64, p. 62.


2. Fact: The Patterson-Gimlin film was taken by Roger Patterson of Yakima, Washington in Pine Bluff, CA, which is northeast of Eureka, CA. Source: Alex Saunders, “Humanoid Monsters from Another Dimension,” Search Magazine, November 1968, pp. 61-64, p. 61.


3. Fact: The Patterson-Gimlin film was a color film taken in 1967. Source: [coming soon]


4. Stat: 14.5 inches: length of some footprints attributed to Bigfoot. Source: Roger Patterson of Yakima, Washington, cited in Saunders, “Humanoid Monsters from Another Dimension,” Search Magazine, November 1968, pp. 61-64, p. 62.


5. Stat: 41 inches: Distance apart of some footprints tentatively attributed to Bigfoot. Source: Roger Patterson, cited in Alex Saunders, “Humanoid Monsters from Another Dimension,” Search Magazine, November 1968, pp. 61-64, p. 62.

6. 74 inches: height of D


7. Stat: 81 inches: one estimate of the height of Bigfoot. Source: Dr. Ian McTaggart Cowan, Dean of Graduate Studies, University of British Columbia, who estimated the height of the Bigfoot leaving those footprints at 6’ 9” based on the measurement of alleged Bigfoot footprints of 14.5 inches, cited in Alex Saunders, “Humanoid Monsters from Another Dimension,” Search Magazine, November 1968, pp. 61-64, p. 62.


Bibliography


1. “The Sasquatch Returns,” Weekend Magazine, January 13, 1968.

2. Alex Saunders, “Humanoid Monsters from Another Dimension,” Search Magazine, November 1968, pp. 61-64.

image5

FAQ22 HAVE QUOTES ON THE LOCH NESS MONSTER?

Quotes About the Alleged Loch Ness Monster


Last revised: 11/2/19


What is the most logical explanation for the many sightings of and other evidence for the alleged Loch Ness Monster in Loch Ness, Scotland? Note: some of these quotes are uncontroversial and all quotes used in the A-sections of ABC sets must be controversial. I identify below which quotes I find uncontroversial, but I cordially welcome you to talk me out of my classification and to stir up controversy. “Dr. H” = “Dr. Sterling Harwood.”


1. “[This show is a] thrill ride to the depths of the world’s greatest mystery.” ~ Rick Robles, Narrator, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019. This is controversial, so you may use it in an A-section, C-section, Intro and/or Conclusion.


2. “Scientists think ‘Nessie’ [The Loch Ness Monster] is a giant eel, an eons old sea serpent, or … an ocean mammal of the Sirenian order.” ~ Mary Fiore, “Searching for the Loch Ness Monster,” Boys’ Life, July 1972.


3.  “Exactly what is Nessie [The Loch Ness Monster]? There are several theories.

Bob Love believes that Nessie probably is a very large eel. Eels can fold up like an accordion, which could account for the sightings of camel-like humps. They breed by laying eggs, which hatch out into three-inch larva. But a six-foot-log larva has been found, and is on display in Copenhagen, Denmark. An eel growing from such a larva would be 90 feet long.” ~ Mary Fiore, “Searching for the Loch Ness Monster,” Boys’ Life, July 1972.


4. “Another theory is that Nessie [The Loch Ness Monster] is a carnivorous, sea-going mammal of the Sirenian order.” ~ Mary Fiore, “Searching for the Loch Ness Monster,” Boys’ Life, July 1972.


5. “A third theory says Nessie [The Loch Ness Monster] is a plesiosaur, a large fish-eating reptile. ‘Plesiosaurs flourished I the Cretaceous period about 65 million years ago,’ says Jack Ullrich. ‘So they should be as extinct as all the other dinosaurs.’ But, he adds, a living coelacanth (a large fossil fish going back to the same period), was discovered in 1947.” ~ Mary Fiore, “Searching for the Loch Ness Monster,” Boys’ Life, July 1972.


6. “And why hasn’t anyone found Nessie [The Loch Ness Monster] yet? One reason is the reluctance of science to accept her existence.

A second drawback [that is, reason] is money. Because of a lack of funds, Bob Love and the [Loch Ness Investigation] Bureau have had to use ingenuity in place of dollars, to improvise inexpensive underwater flash cameras and other equipment.

But the money shortage may be ending. Last November, scientists from London University said they had seen a family of similar monsters in Loch Morar, the deepest loch in Britain. Shortly after the Morar sightings, the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau received more grants, and will be searching with better equipment.” ~ Mary Fiore, “Searching for the Loch Ness Monster,” Boys’ Life, July 1972.


7. “Nessie [The Loch Ness Monster] may help in solving the mystery. A new power plant at the village of Foyers has forced Nessie to abandon her favorite spot in the loch. She now frequents Urquhart Bay, where she has been surfacing more often than ever. 

So chances of solving the centuries-old mystery are better than ever. All who have participated in the search, know there is something in Loch Ness. We would love to be there when it is finally found.” ~ Mary Fiore, “Searching for the Loch Ness Monster,” Boys’ Life, July 1972.


8. “It [Amelia Earhart’s Lockheed Electra 10E plane] exists. It’s not the Loch Ness Monster. It’s not Bigfoot. That plane exists, which means you can find it.” ~ Robert Ballard, Explorer, Expedition Amelia, National Geographic Channel, first aired 10/20/2019.

9. “Our experience [in our TV program] tonight shows just how difficult the search for the Loch Ness Monster can be. Despite years of research and months of planning, all we could get was a fleeting encounter. And yet, that might be closer than anyone else has ever come. At the very least, we’ve identified a new approach in finding the beast based on scientific logic. As many as 18,000 new species are discovered every year. That means 4 new ones might have been found in the time you’ve been watching this [1-hour] program. There’s a chance we’ve identified something new tonight. We mayhave even seen it. No matter what, we’ve certainly added to the rich history of this legendary creature. From St. Columba in the year 565 [A.D./CE] to Alex Campbell in 1933 to Gordon Holmes in 2007 to us here today, one thing is clear. Something is out there. There’s only one way to find out what the Loch Ness Monster truly is and that’s to keep looking. The search continues.” ~ Zachary Quinto, “The Loch Ness Monster, Part 2,” In Search Of, Season 2, Episode 2, first aired 10/11/2019.


10. “One of the world’s greatest mysteries is on the cusp of being solved by a Kiwi [New Zealand] scientist [Neil Gemmell, University of Otago, New Zealand].” ~ Anonymous News Anchor, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019. This seems controversial, so try to use it in an A-section or in any relevant C-section, Intro, and/or Conclusion. Dr. H makes a rare exception here to allow you to use an anonymous quote in an A-section, given that the anonymous anchor makes the statement on screen and is very recognizable in this program from a generally reliable source.


11. “I think there’s something down there [in Loch Ness]. … Yes, I do.” ~ Al Roker, when asked if he believes in the Loch Ness Monster, Today Show, NBC, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019. This is controversial, so try to use it in an A-section or any relevant C-section, Intro and/or Conclusion.


12. “For more than a millennium, thousands of eyewitnesses say they’ve seen a massive creature slithering through these depths [of Loch Ness], but once spotted, it slowly disappears beneath the surface, eluding capture or explanation.” ~ Rick Robles, Narrator, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019.


13. “The thing about Loch Ness is that it is in a sense a lost world. It is quite big. You could put every human being on earth into it three times over. It’s dark, so it’s hostile.” ~ Adrian Shine, Naturalist – Loch Ness Project, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019.


14.“It’s the largest loch in the British Isles. It’s mysterious. We probably know more about the rocks on the moon than we know about rocks on the bottom of Loch Ness.” Eric Verspoor, University of the Highlands and Islands, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019.


15. “It [Loch Ness] is the sort of place where it would be difficult to prove that there was nothing there.” ~ Adrian Shine, Naturalist – Loch Ness Project, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019.


16.“We think there is a rational thought or explanation for most of the sightings but we’re open to the idea that we are wrong.” ~ Neil Gemmell, scientist who led an expedition to Loch Ness searching for DNA from the Loch Ness Monster, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019. This is controversial, so you may use it in an A-section, a C-section, your Intro, and/or your Conclusion.


17. “The eyewitness accounts are compelling evidence that there’s a monster in Loch Ness.” ~ Rick Robles, Narrator, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019. This is controversial, so you may use this in an A-section, C-section, Intro and/or Conclusion.


18. “Scientists have been searching for the legendary Loch Ness Monster since the first recorded sighting more than fifteen hundred years ago.” ~ Rick Robles, Narrator, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019. This seems uncontroversial, so use it only in a C-section, Intro, and/or Conclusion but not in any A-section.


19.“Loch Ness is nearly 800 feet deep.” ~ Rick Robles, Narrator, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019. This seems uncontroversial, so use this in any relevant C-section, Intro, and/or Conclusion but avoid using it in any A-section.


20. “There are over nineteen hundred reports [of witnessing the Loch Ness Monster] from Loch Ness from about sixteen hundred individual events. So, some events have multiple witnesses. And those are probably the best reports. Those are the ones where we have the most trust in what was actually seen.” ~ Charles Paxton, University of St. Andrews, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019. This seems uncontroversial, so use this in any relevant C-section, Intro, and/or Conclusion but avoid using this quote in any A-section.


21. “In my view, eyewitnesses [of the alleged Loch Ness Monster] are honest and accurate in what they see.” ~ Adrian Shine, Naturalist – Loch Ness Project, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019. This is controversial, so try to use it in an A-section and/or in any relevant C-section, Intro and/or Conclusion.


22. “What we’ve got here is a weight of evidence that says there have been some real things that have been observed at here Loch Ness that, I think, are really hard to explain. There is still plenty of space for science and belief [in the existence of the Loch Ness Monster] to co-exist here because we have not been able to definitely say that there is a creature and it looks like this. There’s still this other element of uncertainty which allows for those who want to believe in the [Loch Ness] Monster to continue to believe in the [Loch Ness] Monster.” ~ Neil Gemmell, University of Otago, New Zealand, scientist who led an expedition to Loch Ness searching for DNA from the Loch Ness Monster, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019. This is controversial, so try to use it in an A-section and/or in any relevant C-section, Intro or Conclusion.


23. “Since the completion of Neil Gemmell’s expedition [to try to find DNA evidence of the Loch Ness Monster], there have been more than two dozen new sightings of the Loch Ness Monster.” ~ Graphic, Loch Ness Monster: New Evidence, Travel Channel (TRAV), © 2019 Scripps Networks, LLC, aired 9/15/2019. This is uncontradicted and from a reliable source, so it seems uncontroversial; so use this in any relevant C-section, Intro and/or Conclusion but avoid using it in any A-section.

FAQ23: What's a student's paper on affirmative action often look like?

  

WARNING: SAMPLE PAPERS ARE IMPERFECT PAPERS. FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES A-Z, (coming soon to this site) WHICH ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE SAMPLE PAPERS. CONTACT DR. HARWOOD EARLY & OFTEN TO GET ALL THE HELP YOU NEED TO DO YOUR BEST.

Hi Hugh,

GRADE = Incomplete, BUT A GOOD START. YOU SHOULD NUMBER SECTIONS 1 THROUGH 14, WITH SECTION 1 FOR THE INTRO AND SECTION 14 FOR THE CONCLUSION. YOU DID WELL ON APPLYING THE MORAL PRINCIPLES BUT RU & OU ON THE QUOTATIONS AND THE CITATIONS. SOME OF YOUR C SECTIONS ARE INCOMPLETE BECAUSE THEY USE ‘…’ RATHER THAN APPLY ALL 5 MORAL PRINCIPLES TO THE QUOTE IN THE A SECTION.

DR. H

Hugh Blind/Phil 60

Term paper/Due: May 28, 2018


Affirmative Action is Moral

by Hugh Blind (pseudonym)


1. Introduction: I Support Affirmative Action to Promote Equal Opportunity for All

In this paper I will argue that Affirmative Action is morally correct because it helps to equalize numbers of achievers from different national origins, genders, disabled groups and promotes educational and employment opportunities in equalizing these numbers. If you have one ethnic group such as the Anglo-Saxon and all of one gender of just males than it will be all one sided and not a diversity in it. To have equal number of race, size in addition to gender, national origin whether an employment opportunity and or educational advantage. If you have just ethic group like the Anglo Saxon and all one gender of male dominate than it will be all one sided and not a divers in size of ethnicity by doing this kind of method it will be just how it was when the Anglo Saxon first came to the land of America, in enforcing the true people of the land which were the Native Americans some case or should I say most cases taking away their heritage that in today bringing back some of their ways their ancestry did their traditions, languages and ceremonies. Enforcing their way of living in bringing their superior race of what they seem to have brought to us America in which it is today it was not until the early 1960’s from which then President Kennedy responding to pressure from the civil rights movement.


Given, the opportunity to different ethnicity of the Black man, Native American, Latino, Asian and so forth, male and female, social economic statues as well as one gender the opportunity to achieve in which other way they will not have the opportunity. Where would our county be diversity I say it was what America was built on. The land of opportunity to achieve one self and the assistance for them to achieve. their fullest in their employment opportunity if you have a board room with only male gender and these business men all happened to be all white men with no other race in that board room will you call it affirmative action? No that will be Egalitarianism 2. Discrimination (e.g., racism and sexism) is wrong. Discrimination is failing to treat relevantly similar cases similar or failing to treat relevantly different cases differently. (See, Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual Text, Readings and Cases, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc., 1996, p. 24.)


Affirmative Action began as a plan to equalize the educational, employment, and contracting opportunities for minorities and women with opportunities given to their white, male counterparts, (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1970.html). Actually, President Lyndon Baines Johnson followed up on the Executive Order of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, who created Affirmative Action in 1961 but was assassinated on November 22, 1963. They got the ball rolling. President Lyndon B. Johnson’s executive order 11246, and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1970.html).  The success over Affirmative Action’s 57-year history, we still use Affirmative Action in America today.

In 2C I will argue … In 3C I will argue … In 4C I will argue … In 5C I will argue … In 6C I will argue … In 7C I will argue … In 8C I will argue … In 9C I will argue … In 10C I will argue … In 11C I will argue … In 12C I will argue … In 13C I will argue … IU CU BU COMPLETE THESE SENTENCES BY REPLACING THE ELLIPSES (…); VU


2. Affirmative Action Greatly Promotes Diversity in Education & Employment

2A) “Affirmative action greatly promotes diversity in education and employment.” ~ Sterling Harwood, Sterling Harwood, “The Pros & Cons of Affirmative Action,” Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1996, p. ???.)


2B) I agree.


2C) Affirmative action gives those who in other matters have lacked opportunities more opportunities now to go out and acquire employment opportunity, along with a education in seeking a higher education to advance themselves in the field that they are studying in Greater competition and a larger pool to draw from. (See, Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual Text, Readings, and Cases by Sterling Harwood @ 1996 by Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc, p. ???).RU ADD THE MISSING PAGE(S) 


Additionally, to this greater pool the AA in fair enough for others who in other words will be unable to go up the latter and not on the bottom of the totem pole because they were able to accomplish it by the Affirmative Action in process and that is what is all about.


3. Affirmative Action is Morally Correct Because It Corrects Evil


3A) “The policies were originally developed to correct decades of discrimination and to give disadvantaged minorities a boost.” ~ Joe Messerli, http://www.balancedpolitics.org/affirmative_action.htm.


3B) I agree.


3C) Since there had been a lot of people of color who were segregated in to the lower sector of employment and education. Likewise, women that were given even lower type of services of work and education. In a Prima Facie Moral Principle number 5 Nonmaleficence: Avoid causing pain or suffering. (Note this is not the same as nonmalevolence, which concerns only motivation rather than causation.) . (See, Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual Text, Readings, and Cases, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc., 1996).


4. Affirmative Action Avoids Punishing Whites

4A) “One may also object that AA [Affirmative Action] hurts or punishes innocent whites for the sins of their fathers, which is unfair.” ~ Sterling Harwood, describing a Con of Affirmative Action, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual Text, Readings, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc., 1996, p. ???). IU, RU; ADD THE PAGE OF THE TEXT. OU


4B.  I disagree.


4C.  It may be true as some were to say but nevertheless some are taught or shown by their own fathers of arrogant toward the minority and women at that. In the same way as the old TV show the Archie Bunker show (“All in the Family”) that was once seen on the tube in the 70’s era of off humor type of show.

Perfectionism (Often Called Virtue Ethics) number 5. Gratitude is a virtue and ingratitude is a vice. Business as Ethical and Business as Usual Text, Readings, and Cases by Sterling Harwood @ 1996 by Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc).

Egalitarianism (often Called Fairness or Justice) number 2. Discrimination (e.g., racism and sexism) is wrong. Discrimination is failing to treat relevantly similar cases similarly or failing to treat relevantly different cases differently. 

The quotation is conceivably so, in this statement of the way some of the minorities may fill for the reason that their own fathers who had previously enforce on the people of color and women in thinking of they were the inferior to them and it took in till then President Lyndon Johnson to help get AA going to give these minorities and women a better chance in the employment opportunity and as well as a education opportunity. 


5) Utilitarianism, to count a particular amount of happiness for a white person as more important (or less important) than the same amount of happiness for a black person. See, Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual Text, Readings and Cases, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc., 1996.)


5A. “Students/workers who are put into a position through affirmative action often are not fully ready for the task. Not only is this not good for the university/company, but it is also not good for these students/workers as well because it lowers self-esteem.” http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jesan20l/classweb/arguments.html, This page was last edited on 5/15/06 RU; ADD QUOTATION MARKS; OU ONLY PUBLISHED QUOTES COUNT


5B. I Disagree.


5C.  On the contrary I find this statement irrelevant in most case due to the fact that those who fit in to the Affirmative Action category they do try harder than those who do not fit in order for them to get where they are going if it were not for Affirmative Action in being what it is what it is today. Prima Facie Moral Principles rule number 11. Promote just institutions and work for their establishment, momentous, and improvement. (See, Sterling Harwood, Business ss Ethical and Business as Usual: Text, Readings and Cases, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc., 1996, p.25.)

In those families knowing that their sons and daughter or other family members, close friends will have this opportunity to achieve in that field of work or to further their educational plan. 


6A.  “I doubt that there is a single person in our nation who would object to supporting the higher education of a child from a poor school with impoverished parents who has shown he/she can be successful in college. But what does race or ethnicity have to do with that child’s achievement?” ~ Author Unknown, Citation unknown. OU, IU, RU


6B.  I disagree.


6C.  The quote in 6A might be right, since no one in our nation object to this fact a child to have a higher education but without the Affirmative Action implemented to help many of these children we would fail to have them in our workforces. In by using their civil rights in bettering their families and them at that. And I will cal that Perfectionism (Often Called Virtue Ethics) number 5 Gratitude is a virtue and ingratitude is a vice. (Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual: Text, Readings and Cases, Jones & Bartlett Publishers, Inc., 1996, p.25.)  Prima Facie Moral Principle number 6. Beneficence: Benefit others and cause them to be happier. (Note this differs from benevolence, which concerns only motivation rather than causation. See, Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual: Text, Readings and Cases, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc., 1996, p. 25.)


7A. “Minorities gave decades of unpaid labor, [and] had land taken from them.” ~ Joe Messerli, http://www.balancedpolitics.org/affirmative_action.htm, Webpage Last Updated: 02/17/2008; OU ONLY PUBLISHED CLAIMS COUNT & THE INTERNET GENERALLY FAILS TO COUNT AS PUBLISHED


7B.  I agree.


7C. Without the vast minorities in our nation and all the hard work that these minorities did as they are still doing for America and even today in which if it were not for Affirmative Action that was put in to place during President John F. Kennedy/Lyndon B. Johnson era. Because of all the torment and segregation that went on. In a Egalitarianism (Often Called Fairness or Justice) number 2. Discrimination (e.g., racism and sexism) is wrong. Discrimination is failing to treat relevantly similar cases similar or failing to treat relevantly different cases differently. See, Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual: Text, Readings and Cases, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc., 1996, p. 24.


8. We Need Affirmative Action to Promote Diversity


8A.  “Simply having people of different races or ethnicity's in the workplace/university does not necessarily mean diversity of opinion. People with the same skin color are not necessarily the same in opinion or even culture.” ~ Author unknown,  http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jesan20l/classweb/index.html, This page was last edited on 5/15/06 RU; ADD A PERIOD AND QUOTATION MARKS; ONLY PUBLICATIONS COUNT AND THE INTERNET USUALLY FAILS TO COUNT AS A PUBLICATION


8B. I agree.


8C. It will be as if we are all one body, mind and soul even though we are the same race, culture. Whether we are married in to that cultural and or race, heritage we all have a will to think in dependently. Egalitarianism’s rule number 4 applies here: Exploitation-taking unfair advantage of an innocent person’s predicament –is wrong. See, Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual Text, Readings and Cases, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc., 1996, p. 24.


9. Affirmative Action is Just


9A. “Part of the education process is learning to interact with other races and nationalities.” ~ Joe Messerli, http://www.balancedpolitics.org/affirmative_action.htm, Webpage Last Updated: 02/17/2008. OU ONLY PUBLICATIONS COUNT & THE INTERNET USUALLY FAILS TO BE A PUBLICATION


9B. I agree.


9C. The quote in 8A is indeed right, and consequently our nation of the first peoples of the land was the Native American. Who showed their white counter parts to live off the land. When the black man came to this land from their white counter parts as slaves they also brought to the new lands of America their ways of their land. Therefore, they also resurrected there customs and heritage and that was the start of the AA, for it took century’s in order for the AA to come to pass.

Prima Facie Moral Principles rule 11 applies here. Promote just institutions and work for their establishment, maintenance, and improvement. Business As Ethical and Business as Usual Text, Readings and Cases by Sterling Harwood copyright @ 1996 by Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc


To sum up on my decision of choosing this topic it took me quite a few thoughts on different topics. However this one has stood out to me on a number of occasions and knowing it firsthand of incidents that has previously and present transpired, in doing different research on this paper of AA and learning the history of AA it was a real eye opening experience to me. If it were not for these past Presidents of J.F. Kennedy who stated the ball rolling in getting this law in to and President Lyndon Johnson,. The following Executive Order regarding race-neutral Affirmative Action was signed into law by President Lyndon Baines Johnson on Sept. 24, 1965. Editor, EO 11246 is race-neutral on its face; President Johnson specifically left it to various federal agencies to implement the terms of this order. Many of minorities and women would not have to opportunity to continue on with their education and employment opportunity to achieve in. http://www.adversity.net/Terms_Definitions/TERMS/Affirmative_Action_EO11246.htm


Numerous minorities have benefited from this Executive Order regarding Affirmative Action and, like myself, knowing that a law like this helps those who are of some would say under privilege get a better opportunity for them to accede in whatever field of employment or education in which they prevail.


10. Affirmative Action is Justified


10A) Part of the education process is learning to interact with other races and nationalities.” ~ Joe Messerli, http://www.balancedpolitics.org/affirmative_action.htm, Webpage Last Updated: 02/17/2008. OU ONLY PUBLICATIONS COUNT


10B) I agree. 


10C. Native Americans were the first peoples of our nation. Who shown who showed their white counterparts to live off the land. When the black man came to this land from their white counter parts as slaves they also brought to the new lands of America there ways of their land. Therefore, they also resurrected their customs and heritage and that was the start of Affirmative Action, for it took centuries in order for the AA to come to pass.

Prima Facie Moral Principle number 11 applies here. Promote just institutions and work for their establishment, maintenance, and improvement. See, Sterling Harwood, Business as Ethical and Business as Usual Text, Readings and Cases, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc, 1996, p.25).


11. Affirmative Action is a Good Check on the ETS


11A. “What right does the Educational Testing Service have to judge a family breadwinner’s occupation? According to the chart, the ETS feels free to play God by assigning a child’s family to the 

socio-economic group based on parents’ education, occupation and income.” ~ Author Unknown, Citation Unknown. IU OU


10B. I agree.


10C. Advocates of affirmative action have no right to implicate this kind of scenario of their Educational Testing Service of judging one family economic status, just because one is in a lower income bracket does that mean that that family did not attend a higher learning education, no sometimes scenarios get in the way and a down fall happens were there a death, divorce or loss of one’s job that either of the parent or both of the parents had that brings that family in to that bracket of a lower income family.


Egalitarianism 3. We should prevent innocent people from suffering through no fault of their own. (Business As Ethical and Business as Usual Text, Readings and Cases by Sterling Harwood copyright @ 1996 by Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc. 


12. Justice Scalia Poorly Argues That Affirmative Action Wrongly Mismatches Blacks Because Blacks Need to Study on a Slower Track


12A. "There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to -- to get them into the University of Texas where they do do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less -- a slower-track school where they do well. On of -- One of the briefs pointed out that -- that most of the most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they're -- that they're being pushed ahead in -- in classes that are too -- too fast for them." ~ Justice Antonin Scalia, Fisher v. University of Texas, oral arguments, 12/9/2015, quoted by MSNBC Live 12/11/2015.


12.B. I disagree.


11.C. I disagree because … IU BU EU VU COMPLETE THIS SENTENCE & THIS SECTION BY APPLYING ALL 5 MORAL PRINCIPLES TO THE QUOTE IN 11A.


13. Justice Scalia Was A Racist


13A. "These ideas that he [Justice Antonin Scalia] pronounced yesterday [that affirmative action is wrong because it mismatches racial minorities with schools and jobs] are racist in application if not intent. I don't know about his intent. But it is deeply disturbing to hear a Supreme Court Justice endorse racist ideas from the bench of the nation's highest court." ~ Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), from MSNBC Live with Kate Snow, first aired 12/11/2016.


13.B. I agree.


13.C. I agree because … IU BU EU VU COMPLETE THIS SENTENCE & THIS SECTION BY APPLYING ALL 5 MORAL PRINCIPLES TO THE QUOTE IN 12A.


14. The US Military’s Acceptance of Affirmative Action is Strong Evidence That Affirmative Action is Morally Acceptable


14A. "You know who else thinks Affirmative Action is a good idea? The U.S. Military. They've gone so far as to issue friend of the court briefs saying we want to be able to consider diversity, gender, race when we build up our office corps and our leadership. We think it helps the national security of the United States. And we want leadership that looks like America. That's what a lot of schools say. That's what a lot of Fortune 100 companies say."~ Ari Melber, MSNBC Chief Legal Correspondent, from MSNBC Live with Kate Snow, first aired 12/11/2016.


13B. I agree.


14C. I agree because … IU BU EU VU COMPLETE THIS SENTENCE & THIS SECTION BY APPLYING ALL 5 MORAL PRINCIPLES TO THE QUOTE IN 13A.


15. Conclusion: Affirmative Action is Ethical


Affirmative Action is moral because all 5 moral principles support it. Libertarianism supports affirmative action whenever the private employer or the private school want to use it. This is part of caveat emptor and “anything between consenting adults is moral.”


In 2C I argued … In 3C I argued … In 4C I argued … In 5C I argued … In 6C I argued … In 7C I argued … In 8C I argued … In 9C I argued … In 10C I argued … In 11C I argued … In 12C I argued … In 13C I argued … IU CU BU COMPLETE THESE SENTENCES BY REPLACING THE ELLIPSES (…)

coming soon

Contact Us

Dr. Sterling Harwood's Homepage

5445 Alum Rock Avenue, San Jose, CA 95127-2613

408-687-8199; svharwood1@aol.com

Get in Touch!

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Cancel