Source of Morality

     Morality is an instinctive and adapted quality. Human beings are, by nature, empathetic. But it takes shaping to create sympathy. Morals can change depending on the situation in which people are raised, culturally, personally and traditionally. These can affect what people think are moral or immoral. One the basis that morality is a natural instinct to an extent, there are numerous examples that can be used to show that basic human nature is to empathize or simply following ones lead. One example would be infants crying; one baby cries and if heard, the other baby will also start crying. On the other end of this spectrum we have to ask the question of what is the standrad of morality and what is its' source?

     I beliebe that the source of the standard of morality is something that has to be taught and adapted and influenced by surrounding society. This is an extremely cultural standard. I can not give specific examples because I have not lived in enough different cultures to understand. However this statement can be exemplified by saying what is considered correct or not entirely depends on the situation and society in which you were raised. I was raised in a democratic, atheist family with certain ideals. And although I might not agree completely with their ideas, I can honestly see the influence they had in my life, my ideals and my morals. 

    It can further be argued that morality can not be learned or adapted. That it is solely a self-learned standard and are mostly human nature. I personally do not agree with this statement, I think that it is a combination of everything that creates peoples morals. The only extension that I feel I could agree with the previous statement is in the case of mental disease or defect.  Specifically in the idea of sacrifice. The belief that murder of an innocent human being is justified because "God made me do it", when really in a different society it would be viewed as murder.

Death Penalty

Death penalty is moral because it is how my society has decided is the best way to deter and to punish murder.

     I chose to write about this topic because I find it the most widely discussed and conflicted over. The death penalty, or capital punishment because of the conflist of whether or not it is ethical to "fight fire with fire". From the two different perspectives come justifiable reasons for their opinion, the question lies in which argument is more or less superior. From one end of the spectrum, that the death penalty is moral, it is said that the person in question who committed the crime chose to commit that crime. They therefore have to accpet the known punishment if caught. It can be argued along with this statement that the death penalty being enforced in a state can help to keep the crime rate down because the person who commits the crime knows of the possible repercussions. However this can be countered by the other opinion that it is a proven fact that murder rates decline in those cities/states that do NOT enforce capital punishment. They also are of the opinion that mistakes can be made and therefore the execution of an innocent citizen is more than probable. This is due to the fact that the legal system is no where near perfect and things can "slip through the bars" and a wrongfully convicted man would be put to death.
      From a purely moral point-of-view I am personally split on the question of the morality of the issue.  On one hand I do believe that there are some crimes that need to be punishable by death not only on a safety level, but a psychological reassurance level, for the victims of the crime. Especially when the alternative is a lifetime of solitary confinement, which is both irresponsible ethically, morally and economically. I believe that if the judicial system succeeds and justice is met by the government that the death penalty is not truly morally correct but a much better alternative to solitary confinement.  There are the beliefs that fire can only be fought with fire, and then there is the aspect from which I agree, being, "A eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". The death penalty is not the solution for incarceration and it is morally incorrect. I think that the judicial system is in limbo between these two views and has no where else to turn.

Was Mathematics discovered or invented?

Mathematics is difficult to put into a category of invented or discovered. We can look at Math from both of these aspects. It is not argued that numbers are real and can be found in nature, along with Mathematical formulas and patterns. This is a fact. Mathematics also has a certain set of it's own rules, this makes it set within it's own boundaries. We can therefore go along in agreement that Mathematics was discovered, and is being discovered (to a certain extent). However on the other end of the spectrum Mathematics is an invented science, although it can be found in nature. Formulas are seen naturally but there had to be a way in which to define the true answer/formula, in this sense we can see that Math is invented. If we take the example of pi, it is an invented sequence of decimals that can be applicable to all of these formulas. In that matter or the idea, Mathematics is invented. We cannot categorize Mathematics into discovered or invented.

short historical paragraph

Compare these two claims.  Which of these views do you think is closer to the truth? 

“In a very real sense the study of history is concerned with a subject matter more objective and independent than that of the natural sciences.  Just because historical matters is in the past, is gone… its objective reality is guaranteed; it is beyond being altered for any purpose whatsoever.” - G.R. Elton

“Though God cannot alter the past, historians can.” - Samuel Butler

In my personal opinion G.R. Elton claims that history can not be altered due to the fact that it has already passed and therefore cannot be changed. I would have to strongly disagree with this due to my personal view that History is not an objective art, it is in fact; how it is told. However, each persons perspective on the matter can change how it is viewed in the future. As an example, I have the opinion that the Boeing 757 flight 77 from Virginia to LA really did crash into the pentagon on September 11, 2001. I believe this because my aunt works at the pentagon and was in the parking lot when it happened, she watched the plane crash into the building. My friend Jose Daniel believes that the plane never hit the pentagon, that it was a conspiracy theory in which the governments aim was to destroy the building, this is because there is no video footage of the plane hitting the pentagon. We can both, however, agree that the building was destroyed on September 11, 2001; that is historical fact. Historical facts can become skewed due to different personal opinion, this is why I personally agree with Samuel Butler rather than G.R. Elton, because history can become skewed due to a subjective viewing of the facts.

History KI's

1. To what extent is history an accurate examination of human activity of the past?
2. To what extent can history be trusted to give us the accurate information and truth?
3. How does the interpretation of history affect how it perceived today?

KI Essay

Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of reason as a way of knowing.

To what extent does religious faith skew deductive reasoning as a way of knowing?

• Prove religious truth or disprove
• Counterclaim: gods words is law?
• Belief in god obscures ones ability to use deductive reasoning as a way of knowing.

Charts!

Good	How can reason be used to justify belief in the paranormal?	To what extent can perception change our opinion on the seriousness of an epidemic?	Is it reasonable that Ms. Anne allows the kids to wear jeans as part of the uniform?
Intermediate	Should we believe paranormal claims?	To what extent should we trust the claims of a swine flu epidemic?	Do jeans change the educational atmosphere of Ms. Anne’s school?
Poor	Does the paranormal exist?	Is swine flu likely to kill millions?	Why are jeans preferable in a school uniform?
Not a Knowledge Issue	What is the Sixth Sense?	What do we mean by an epidemic?	Wearing jeans in school
Real Life Situation	A film on haunting	A news report on a new swine flu?	An interview with Ms. Anne

My Chart

Good	To what extent does statistical facts influence our perception of society?
Intermediate	How does perception affect our ability to see past the statistic and help a teenager in need?
Poor	How can we reverse the rise in teenage pregnancy?
Not a Knowledge Issue	Reversing the rise in teenage pregnancy
Real Life Situation	Statistical rise in teenage pregnancy

TOK Project

So for this TOK project on Language we (Andrea, Leo and Chepe and Cora) decided to do one broad description of language and then focus in on one aspect of Language. We chose ambiguity. Ambiguity is defined: the possibility of interpreting an expression in two or more distinct ways. [1]

One of the most classic cases of ambiguity is sexual innuendos, the most popular being, "Thats what she said".  
"ambiguity." Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. HarperCollins Publishers. 07 Feb. 2011. <Dictionary.comhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ambiguity>.

Language Prezi

Language on Prezi

Things you didn't notice before

Language Ambiguity Presentation

Ambiguity on Prezi

Language

Language is the method that can be used to express opinions, needs, thoughts and questions to one another. Language is, apparently, a highly contraversial topic in our TOK class. Language is universal, no matter the species language is a form of communication that is used every day. For instance, forager bees can communicate where they found pollen by using a dance that beekeepers call, the waggle dance. By performing this dance, successful foragers can share with their hive mates information about the direction and distance to patches of flowers yielding nectar and pollen, to water sources, or to new housing locations.^[1] This waggle dance is a form of communications through bees. This shows the different forms of communications between species, not limited to communication between humankind. Language between humans has many different aspects and sociocultural levels. For instance the level of vocabulary can change the caliber and outcome of a conversation or argument because the facts or opinions expressed are more detailed, accurate and relavent to the subject of conversation. This makes vocabulary a huge playing card in communication; vocabulary can, however be a hinderance if the level of vocabulary is not matched between the two people whom are communicating.


1. Riley, J.; Greggers, U.; Smith, A.; Reynolds, D.; Menzel, R. (2005). "The flight paths of honeybees recruited by the waggle dance". Nature 435 (7039): 205–207. doi:10.1038/nature03526. PMID 15889092