Essay #1: Assignment Topics and Instructions NB: Before starting your essay, you should read this entire document as well as the information in the ‘Essay Assignments: Grading Criteria and Helpful Information’ folder. The articles given below are from The New York Times. Non-subscribers are limited to the number of articles they can read, but the Richland Library has full access to The New York Times. You can access The New York Times via this DCCCD Library web page. Choose one of the topics below. Topic #1: The Problem of Evil Chapter 3 of our text deals with the problem of evil. Read this article from The New York Times and write an essay that connects the article to the philosophical problem of evil. Your essay must include reference to chapter 3 of our text as well as at least one reference to an article/entry in either The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy or The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, through quotation and/or paraphrase. Rather than your opinion on the problem of evil, your essay should be a discussion of the problem of evil. Topic #2: The Problem of Personal Identity Chapter 5 of our text deals with the problem of personal identity. Read this article from The New York Times and write an essay that connects the article to the philosophical problem of personal identity. Your essay must include reference to chapter 5 of our text as well as at least one reference to an article/entry in either The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy or The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, through quotation and/or paraphrase. Rather than your opinion on the problem of personal identity, your essay should be a discussion of the problem of personal identity. In addition to what is described above, your essay must include the following: • • • • A heading done according to MLA An original title An introductory paragraph that contains your thesis (see this VERY helpful advice on how to write your intro/begin your essay, and if you are unsure of how to write a thesis, read this advice on developing a thesis) A summary of the New York Times article (If you are unsure of how to write a summary, read this helpful advice on how to correctly summarize a text) • • • Body paragraphs that discuss the problem of evil or the problem of personal identity, depending on the topic you chose, through reference to the article, chapter 3 or 5 of our text, depending on your topic, and at least one of the sources mentioned above (here is some excellent advice on how to structure body paragraphs) A minimum of 3 full pages (your works cited page doesn’t count as a page) A conclusion (see this VERY helpful advice on how to conclude your essay) Your essay should be double-spaced, in Times New Roman 12 point font; your paper should be written in Standard English and done in MLA format. You must include a MLA works cited page that includes all sources used in your essay, including the article I provided. To submit your paper, click on ‘Essay 1.’ You should attach a file that can be opened with Microsoft Word (doc or docx); do not submit a pdf or type in the submission box. Any instance of plagiarism will be punished by a minimum of an F on the assignment and a report to the associate dean of the humanities division. Further punishment could include failure in the course, suspension, or expulsion. 1. DISCUSSION :Personal Identity and Genetic Modification COLLAPSE In Chapter 5, you read about the problem of personal identity, the difficulties in answering the question ‘who am I?’ Recent developments in genetic technology are making issues of personal identity radically different than they have ever been. In the very near future, we may be able to create designer people; personal identity, though we do not even agree on what that is, may be malleable in ways previously only possible in fiction. Watch the Ted Talk “The Ethical Dilemma of Designer Babies” and then answer the following: What are the two points made by Paul Knoepfler that resonated with you most? (this might mean scared you the most, intrigued you the most, and the like). Do you agree with Knoepfler that, at least for now, we should ban the genetic modification of humans? Why or why not? And, if you could genetically modify yourself, alter your personal identity in some way, would you do it?! Explain. Works Linked/Cited: “The Ethical Dilemma of Designer Babies.” YouTube, uploaded by Ted, 10 Feb. 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOHbn8Q1fBM. reply to student 1 (sarai) There were a few things that resonated with me about Paul’s TedTalk: ● ● ● If they are “designer babies” shouldn’t they be flawless? I mean he said that a study found that these kids can be aggressive or narcissistic. The fact that he metaphorically brought up “Pandora’s box” to describe the discovery just doesn’t feel right. He said how by accident they could make them sicker I agree with him when he said that genetic modification on humans should be banned because it is dangerous and unpredictable. My brother and his wife are trying to have a baby, but have had no luck, they are thinking about artificial insemination, but my mom keeps saying that if it doesn’t work out naturally then it is not meant to be. When I was in the middle of the readings and watching the TedTalk, I remembered two movies I have watched that resemble this topic. One move is called Gattaca and the other is My Sister’s Keeper. In both movies, the parents have one naturally conceived child and the other is a genetically modified baby. Here is a brief description of Gattaca, “A genetically inferior man assumes the identity of a superior one in order to pursue his lifelong dream of space travel.” [1] Here is a description for My Sister’s Keeper, “Anna Fitzgerald looks to earn medical emancipation from her parents who until now have relied on their youngest child to help their leukemia-stricken daughter Kate remain alive.”[2] I found both descriptions of the movies on IMDB.com. Both of these movies came to my head when thinking about this topic because I know I would not want to do that. As of right now, there is not enough information and research to compel me to want to either modify myself or to want a GM kid. I have two naturally conceived children whom I love to the moon and back. I do not care if they are a mess or if I have to wipe their stuffy nose because they are my precious kids. student 2 (amani) I enjoyed listening to Paul Knoepfler’s TED talk. I like the way he presents facts without prejudice. First, I liked the way he pointed out that regardless of the how perfect the parents wanted their children to be, the GM children have still developed increased aggression and narcism. Thus, regardless of how perfect these children might seem, imperfections still surface. If this is the case, than what is the point of GM? Knoepflers’ talk also raises the question that he posed: “What is better?” How do we define better? The metrics we define today will shape how our future children will be made, and how they behave. The worse is that today’s decisions cannot be undone tomorrow. Once a GM generation is produced, they will breed GM generations. Interestingly, mixed marriages between GM and non-GM persons will result in imperfect children unless the children themselves are also genetically modified. This is a seed for a mega-scale business. The second point, I like about this TED talk, is that it brought a very important question to the table: what signifies a disease? Is disease defined as any defect that may hinder my ability to function as a physical human being? If this is the case, then what about psychological diseases? The discussion draws the audience’s attention to the fact that fixing one aspect of the problem might trigger another somewhere else. Another pressing point relates to how will an all-perfect society function in the absence of morals. How will I develop the virtue of caring for others if there are no others to care for; everyone is perfect. I totally agree with Knoepfler’s point of view. GM should not be allowed until maturity is reached into whether this technology is safe in the long run, and its social implications are well understood. If I am physically and mentally an average person, should I seek medicine to upgrade my physical and mental statuses? I don’t have a definite answer to this question. If my hair started falling down, then I definitely would want a cure to restore it back although I know for sure that hair loss due to aging is natural and has no effect of my physical health. Of course, it would surely have an effect on my mental and psychological statuses. On the other hand, if I am an average thinker, I would most probably seek an upgrade, especially if it would grant me a better job. Drawing the line is not that easy. student 3 (tisbet) The first point that resonated with me was the idea that these designer babies could be more narcissistic and aggressive than “natural” babies. This combined with the idea that in trying to make improved humans we could actually end up making people that are sicker, makes it clear to me that designer babies may not be as flawless as they first seem. It makes sense that these designer babies would grow up to be more narcissistic and aggressive than natural babies; they would be raised to believe that they are better than natural babies. And though this is true in the sense that their genetic makeup is essentially flawless, that doesn’t make them a better person. Smarter people are not better people than less smart people, healthier people are not better people than less healthy people, attractive people are not better people than less attractive people, etc. I think that this idea of genetic modification could get out of hand if people who do not agree with those statements decide to have designer babies. They would essentially create a new class system in which designer babies were superior and natural babies were inferior. The second point that interested me was the scenario he made up with the two young girls. The point that stuck out to me the most was that the parents paid millions for their daughter to be smarter, prettier, more athletic, etc. I believe that the gap between the wealthy and the poor would increase if this technology was used to create designer babies. Poor people and even middle class people would not have millions of dollars to spend to have a designer baby, however, wealthy people would. If the wealthy decided to start having these designer babies, the children of the lower classes would have to compete with wealthier, more intelligent, more athletic, more healthy children in school, and in the workforce. I personally feel like genetic modification of humans should be banned for now. The two points that I mentioned above are troubling enough that I believe it should at the very least be put on hold, until measures are enacted to limit the effect it would have on the class structures in many countries across the world. Because of this belief, I also would not genetically modify myself. I do see how beneficial it would be to use the technology to eradicate diseases that make the lives of many people miserable so that future generations do not have to suffer. However, before this technology is used we need to be sure that it will not make people sicker. In addition, we have to be sure that there aren’t other technologies that could eradicate these diseases without forcing us to risk unintended consequences like the ones Knoepfler mentioned. 2.DISCUSSION: Digital Immortality COLLAPSE The title of Chapter 4, “Do We Survive Death?”, is a question that has been asked for a long time, and though traditionally, people who have believed that we do survive death have thought something like an immortal soul allows this to occur, recent developments in technology are changing the way we think of surviving death. Though many people remain skeptical, there are those who believe we will someday be able to upload our minds to computers to achieve a kind of digital immortality. [If you have access to Netflix, you should watch episode 4 of Black Mirror from season 3 called “San Junipero”. It’s REALLY good and gives a scenario related to this topic. If you have seen it, feel free to refer to it in this discussion; if you haven’t, sorry for the plot spoilers!] Before answering the below questions, you should look at the website Digital Immortality Now and skim the article “Digital Immortality and Virtual Humans”. Would you want to upload your mind to a computer to achieve immortality? Why or why not? [If you have seen the above-mentioned episode of Black Mirror, feel free to refer to how this dilemma is dealt with by the characters in the episode.] Do you see any drawbacks or ethical concerns related to digital immortality, assuming it becomes reality? If so, describe those in detail. If not, then explain why not. Works Linked/Cited: Digital Immortality Now. No date. http://digital-immortality-now.com/Mission. Accessed 15 July 2019. Savin-Baden, Maggie and David Baden. “Digital Immortality and Virtual Humans.” Postdigital Science and Education, vol. 1, no. 1, 2019, pp. 87-103. reply to student 1 (amani) I watched episode 4 of Black Mirror. It's a well written and directed piece of work. The idea of being able to relive a young life when I am old is very tempting, specially if I am able to do it for few hours every day or a week regardless of my physical health; all what I need is a functional brain. I also like the idea that future doctors will be able to communicate with unconscious patients. As for the idea of uploading my mind to achieve immortality, I don’t mind it although I don’t see the point behind it. The movie is based on defining personality through the Memory Theory. If my memories and the way I think are digitally copied to a computer, then a digital copy of me exists on the web, or whatever they will call it at that time. However, that digital copy is not me, in my current sense at least; it’s just a copy. After my death, it will probably be helpful for my family and friends to come and visit my digital copy every once and a while to chat and enjoy some gatherings together as if I actually still exist. However, this does not help my extinct physical self unless I am convinced that I am only a mind/brain and memory. I am still convinced that I am composed of mind, memory and spirit despite the philosophical arguments against the existence of a spirit or soul. There are definitely some drawbacks. Two living adults or an adult living with the digital self of his partner can get so used to the digital world and totally forget or lose sense of the real one. If I can practice, experience and get addicted to sex in the digital world, then naturally, I won’t get pregnant. If this system is deployed worldwide, then birth rates will decline and, in no time, humanity will face extinction. The other concern I have is about how the digital world will be laid out. If it will be laid out as heaven, then their should not be any problem as I don’t have to work for a living. However, problems will begin and will probably never end if this system will be laid out as an extension of the actual world. After my death, corporations will start employing my digital self instead of an actual physical human being, specially for tasks that don’t require physical human movement. Within no time, corporations will be run by digital copies of physically dead people. Those digital people will require no pension plans, probably lower salaries, no sick-leaves, etc. New human graduates will have no chance of being employed anywhere. Why would a corporation employ someone with a higher salary that can get sick and mandates annual leaves when it can do without her or him? The other problem I find has to do with the segregation between the two worlds. Can cash be transferred from my digital self to buy a property in the physical world and vice versa? If this is the case, what will happen when my physical self dies? Will that property be transferred to my digital self or inherited by my children? Allowing financial transactions between the two worlds will have serious implications. Within no time, Earth will be owned by rich digital people and new generations of humans will have to face another form of slavery. I can go forever pointing and detailing the drawbacks of such systems, but, I think enough is said to convey the message . student 2 (sarai) As of right now, I would not want to upload my mind to a cloud or a computer or anything of the sort. I would not do it because I cannot see the advantages of being stuck in a dimension where I am not able to move forward. I will always be stuck in the same place. I will have the freedom and have, literally, all the time in the world to travel the world and see the places I want to see; however, if my loved ones are not persuaded to do the same, I will be stuck in that dimension by myself with no one to share all those new adventures with. While I may meet new people, like Yorkie met Kelly and all, it will never be the same as sharing those experiences with my loved ones. One drawback I can think of is, what if someone hacks into the cloud or computer where our minds are? My most inner thoughts and secrets would be violated. It feels as if it were some sort of rape because nothing I hold dearly or private would be private anymore. student 3 (tisbet) I have seen the San Junipero. I personally enjoyed it. It does tie into these questions very well, and brought up some dilemmas that I had not thought about when considering the idea of digital immortality. The dilemma that stuck with me the most is Kelly’s dilemma in the episode. I would most likely make the same decision that her husband Richard made. If some of my loved ones were not able to be uploaded to the computer then I would not upload my mind to it either. I also think that I would get bored of my existence after a while. As fun as the world looks in San Junipero, there are only so many things a person can do. After hundreds of years in this computer I am pretty certain that I would run out of things to do. I think many of the ethical concerns would stem from people’s religious beliefs. A show called Altered Carbon deals with religion in relation to the idea of consciousness. In the show people can put their consciousness in a “stack” which is like a chip which is placed in the base of a body's neck. The stack can be moved into other bodies, or sleeves as they are called in the show. As long as the stack is not broken, you could live forever. In the show there is a religion called Neo-Catholicism. People who believe in it refuse to put their consciousness in the stack because they believe that people only have one life to live. They believe that if they put their consciousness in the stack they will go to hell if they die permanently. It makes sense that people may believe this. By uploading your consciousness to a stack or a computer you could essentially live forever. But you would not be doing that in heaven or hell as God intended it to be. The biggest drawback for me that others in this thread have mentioned already is the security of this computer. Where would it be stored? How secure would it be? What happens if the computer breaks? Who would be incharge of maintaining it? If the computer broke and the data (that being the consciousness of all the people in it) was damaged what would that mean? Would they essentially be dead? I personally would not trust a computer that much. DISCUSSION 3 :Who Are You? Watch the video below on personhood and the one on arguments against personal identity, and then answer these questions: Which of the theories about personal identity do you find the most plausible/convincing and why? Which of the arguments against personal identity do you find most plausible/convincing and why? Personhood: Crash Course Philosophy #21. YouTube video file. [9:13]. CrashCourse. 2016, Jul 25. youtu.be/GxM9BZeRrUI Personhood: Crash Course Philosophy #20. YouTube video file. [9:43]. CrashCourse. 2016, Jul 11. youtu.be/17WiQ_tNld4 reply to student 1(sarai) The links that he talks about, to me, sound like neurons created to help us learn new things. As time progresses, if we don’t continue feeding those neurons with the information that they were made for, the neuron dies. This reminded me of the movie Inside out, in this movie, memories are represented by little spheres, there is a part on the movie that shows two “workers” looking through those spheres to see which ones should be kept and which ones to get rid of. The ones they get rid of are thrown into like a pit where the spheres slowly fade away. In this movie, it also shows the girl’s personality built from “island within her head, that represent different aspects of her life such as family, friendship, sports, etc. Something happens to the girl and those “islands” began to collapse or destroy because she no longer cares about them. So even though the islands that made her, Her were destroyed, it still continued to be her, she just lost her path for a little bit. At the end of the movie, those islands are rebuilt because she finds herself again and makes the connections all over. At the beginning of the movie, there were only 5 islands, at the end of the movie there are a lot more because she made more connections and created new friendships and relationships. I think the movie is a good representation of a little bit of what happens in our heads and how we come to be who we are. Even if after you take away the box that holds all the things that make you, You, those things still remain. Like in the movie the islands were destroyed but the memories remained. It is the collection of those things that make up who you are. It is the shared collection of memories that my husband, my children, and I have of each other that make us a family. We change by the second, that is true, but it is also true that those constant changes help us grow and learn from our mistakes. I think the soul theory is the most convincing because this theory is about what you were raised to believe and the way you think. My soul is a collection of everything that has happened to me. I might contradict myself answering the second question against personal identity. I believe that Hume’s point is the most plausible because he says that people change over time and that is true. Every day different things happen that change the way we think. However, I do not believe that we change that much that we cannot be considered the same person. student 2 (tisbet) I personally find the gradient theory the most plausible. The genetic criterion includes too many things like corpses. The cognitive criterion excludes too much like young children. I find the social criterion to be ridiculous. The idea that you are only a person if other people care about you just seems wrong to me. There may be people who are incredibly isolated, not being considered a person because of that is unjust. I think the gradient theory provides a good balance. For the arguments against personal identity I find Parfit’s idea of psychological connectedness to be the most plausible. I do like Hume’s points that people change and are not the same as we were before, however, I do believe as Parfit believed, that parts of me survive. Those being the parts that are connected to my past self. Although I do not believe that the me that existed when I was born still exists, I do believe that some of the me that existed 4 years ago is still around. student 3(samantha) The argument I found the strongest and most plausible would for sure have to be Parfit's theory of survival through personal connections. The idea that what makes you, you is a series of chains that add on and fall off as you go through life makes the most sense if you're using imagery to describe how one's personal self an identity changes over time. I find my self thinking about this kind of thing a lot. I have had best friends that I hung out with extremely often and now we have grown so far apart, my parents always tell me I used to love spinach and hate kangaroos as a child, and now I think kangaroos are cute and spinach is not my favorite vegetable. The things you experience life allow different "chain links" to be added on and the longer you go through life the more links are added and the more links fall off. I agree that your personal identity may change in the way that Parfit explains in his theory. The theory I find least convincing would have to be David Hume's theory. From my understanding, his way of explaining personal identity is that all of our memories and every thought we've ever had is metaphorically in a box that represents us as a human. All of our memories and thoughts are just thrown in this box with no particular order. This theory makes no sense to me because as human's it is even scientifically proven that our brains develop over time. They grow and get stronger and smarter. If all of our memories were thrown into a box, that isn't growth or development that is just a box of things with no organization or growth. I feel those whose brains may work that way must be sociopathic. Those who don't know who they are subconsciously and are constantly mimicking the actions of others in social situations. The previous theory I found most plausible, Parfit's theory, makes the most sense because that would explain that there is organization and growth in the brain to create one's personal identity. Rather than throwing everything in a box and picking personality traits at random. 
Purchase answer to see full attachment