What is the relation between suffering, God, and the meaning of life?

Jennifer Baranowski

PHCC-104-SF3

Professor Nachum Turetzky, PhD.

February 27, 2012

What is the relation between suffering, God, and the meaning of life?

     Suffering, as discussed by the late Pope John Paul II, “seems to be particularly essential to the nature of man… Suffering seems to belong to man's transcendence: it is one of those points in which man is in a certain sense destined to go beyond himself, and he is called to this in a mysterious way" (Pope John Paul II 1). While suffering is not uniquely a human condition, as all humans have seen other animals struggle, it is only in humans that suffering has the potential to be salvific. Through suffering we may grow closer to God. The key component in redemption through suffering is the belief and utter faith in the beneficence in God; while it is human nature to question the rationale and the meaning behind suffering, it is certain that the faithful will transcend the troubles. Through suffering, ideally, we grow closer to God.

    
     Life without suffering is like a yin without the yang. It is said “without darkness you cannot see stars”. Suffering helps us to appreciate what goodness there is in our lives. In my own Christian beliefs, I feel that God provides suffering as a learning opportunity for us. It is hard while in the depths of suffering and despair to keep that perspective, but keeping a faith that is steady in the knowledge that God is in control, no matter how out of control life may seem, is key to redemption through suffering. “Down through the centuries and generations it has been seen that in suffering there is concealed a particular power that draws a person interiorly close to Christ, a special grace" (Pope John Paul II 19). In the Bible, we see some of God’s “chosen” afflicted with horrendous situations – Job, Abraham, and even Christ Jesus himself, faced awful tribulations: in the cases of Job and Abraham, their suffering almost killed them, and for Christ, he famously was hung on a cross like a common criminal, not the son of God. But despite the atrocity and unbearable suffering, the men transcended above it all and received rewards from the Father.

    
     Through enduring faith in God while experiencing seemingly unfair suffering, we are able to experience what the pontiff calls the salvific meaning of suffering – we are redeemed and promised an eternal life with God. And that is what the meaning of life is all about, isn’t it? To live a life that amounts to something, that is morally right, and abiding by the laws that faith and your own personal God has provided to you. Through suffering and keeping an enduring faith, we exude the meaning of life.

Work Cited:
Pope John Paul II. "Apostolic Letter Salvifici Doloris." 11 February 1984. http://www.vatican.va. 22 February 2012. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_11021984_salvifici-doloris_en.html.

What is the relation between altruism, God, death, and the meaning of life?

Jennifer Baranowski

PHCC-104-SF3

Professor Nachum Turetzky, PhD.

February 21, 2012

What is the relation between altruism, God, death, and the meaning of life?

Altruism, God, death, and the meaning of life are all tangled together. In reflecting on the meaning of life, we often think about our actions, about how we’ve impacted the lives of others, and if we've lived the way our personal God mandated. A family member once told me that she believed the meaning of life could probably be summed up on what she would want on her headstone – living a life worthy of the epitaph 'SHE WAS A GOOD AND KIND PERSON' – we have to be good to one another, be happy with ourselves, continue to evolve, be open to opportunities for growth, and be at peace with what we’ve learned in our time here. The meaning of life is the purpose for our lives - it is something that continually evolves and becomes clearer as we grow older, and thus closer to death. Through death, it is promised, that we meet our God if we have abided by His law. Our personal God and holy books provide us with guidelines on how to live. The major religions advocate for altruism. Synonyms of altruism are selflessness and philanthropy – and arguably charity, one of the four natural loves. Charity is classified as a divine and supernatural love (Schrynemakers) that we received from God. God promotes goodness and altruism is good. In order to earn our place with God, in Heaven, after death, we have to be altruistic.

In a simple summary, through God and His teachings we learn to be altruistic. Through altruism, we modify our actions to be selfless and act with charity (divine love) towards others. Through an altruistic way of living, we live with purpose (and therefore achieve the meaning of life) – we earn a fulsome epitaph and are rewarded with a connection with God when we die. We get to live an eternal afterlife in God’s glory as He promised.

Work Cited:
Schrynemakers, Michael. CS Lewis on Love. n.d. Web. http://prezi.com/l5lzi6utix2y/cs-lewis-on-love/.



In what ways is Aquinas' account of love consistent with his account of justice?

Jennifer Baranowski
PHCC-104-SF3
Professor N. Turetzky, PhD.

February 14, 2012

In what ways is Aquinas' account of love consistent with his account of justice?

Justice is a misunderstood word. It is often thought of as a punishment or consequence for something that is deemed a wrong doing against a person or society. Justice is personified in the statue Justitia, or Lady Justice, “most often depicted with a set of scales typically suspended from her right hand, upon which she measures the strengths of a case's support and opposition. She is also often seen carrying a double-edged sword in her left hand, symbolizing the power of Reason and Justice, which may be wielded either for or against any party” (Wikipedia). It could be argued that the scales that Lady Justice holds are also symbolic for the required balance with an equitable resolution to a problem. When we think of justice, we often think of what we see on nighttime network television; Criminal justice doles out punishment but healing doesn't come from punishment. Justice should be restorative: “injustice is what leads to broken world but justice, specifically restorative justice, is what heals it - the key component to restorative justice is forgiveness” (Greeley and Kirven).

I think Aquinas believed in restorative justice and forgiveness. The Bible advocates for forgiveness and promises justice in Romans 12:14 – 21:
"Bless those who persecute you;
bless and do not curse
Live in harmony with each other.
Never pay back evil for evil to anyone.
Do things in such a way that everyone can see you are honorable
Do your part to live in peace with everyone, as much as possible
Dear friends, never avenge yourselves. Leave that to God.
For it is written,
‘I will take vengeance; I will repay those who deserve it,’ says the Lord.
Instead, do what the Scriptures say:
‘If your enemies are hungry, feed them.
If they are thirsty, give them something to drink, and they will be ashamed of what they have done to you.’
Don't let evil get the best of you, but conquer evil by doing good” (New Living Translation).

St. Thomas believed that love and forgiveness (and therefore, justice) are one and the same – "whatever else forgiveness is, it seems to include a kind of love of someone who has done one in injury or committed and injustice against one" (Stump 28). Love and forgiveness both relied on the desire for the good of the beloved and for union with the beloved. When there is love and forgiveness, justice can truly occur. However, people often hang onto hate after they have experienced a violation - hate is toxic and heavy. Even when there is a sentence for a crime, for example, justice has not been done and Justitia’s scales remain imbalanced when hatred continues to eat at and destroy the victim. Regardless what the physical consequence is for a violation, the Bible and Aquinas both preach that for healing and justice to truly occur, forgiveness and love should be extended.

Works Cited:
Greeley, June-Anne and Stephanie Kirven. "Restorative Justice: A Different Model of Justice." Sacred Heart University Colloquia Series. Fairfield, Connecticut, 2011.

New Living Translation. Holy Bible. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1996. print.

Stump, Eleonore. "The World at Large: Love and Loneliness." Stump, Eleonore. Wandering in Darkness: Narrative and the Problem of Suffering. Oxford University Press, 2010. Obtained from SHU BlackBoard. 8 February 2012.

Wikipedia. Lady Justice. 14 February 2012. Web. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Justice.



What is most morally problematic about the current US healthcare system and what is most just way to remedy it?

Jennifer Baranowski

PHCC-104-SF3
Professor N. Turetzky, PhD.

February 7, 2012

What is most morally problematic about the current US healthcare system and what is most just way to remedy it?

     The current US healthcare system is flawed and filled with problems, which is ironic because we often see this country’s politicians refer to the US healthcare system as the "best in the world". I suppose that the US is at the top of the list when it comes to technology, research, and surgical innovations, but these things do not make the whole system great. The only way to make the health care system fair, just, and great would be to ensure that all constituents are permitted to receive medical attention despite their socioeconomic status or their ability to pay. I believe that the biggest moral problem regarding healthcare is money - the making of it and the lack of it.

     The United States government allows profits to be made by the insurance companies on the backs of the insured. In the recent past, subsidiaries of the insurance conglomerate WellPoint were accused of dropping women who had the misfortune of being diagnosed with the costly ailment of breast cancer. The 2007 documentary entitled Sicko by producer Michael Moore painted the insurance industry in very unflattering light when he depicted the sagas of real patients, who were forced to choose between procedures which would improve their health and basic living necessities like food and a roof over their head. Somehow, the United States’ love of capitalism has been allowed to infringe on human rights: the United Nations declaration of human rights in Article 25 states "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control” (The United Nations). There have been some politicians, like Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama, who have attempted to rectify the unfair practices of insurance companies and overhaul the United States healthcare system, but were vilified by many because the cost of ensuring that every person had insurance was very high. The health care system remains unchanged but the costs remain exorbitant: it is expected that governmental healthcare costs will peak at $1.8 trillion over the next decade (Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation). The costs are high and yet, people still die because they cannot afford basic health care or the prescribed medications that will maintain their state of wellness (like the newer, more expensive heart and pain medications).

     While socialized healthcare systems are not without their flaws, it does ensure that citizens of those countries receive what they need, despite ability or inability to pay. Medical services are provided and the costs to consumers of medications are reduced and financially within reach for the average citizen. While it is a fact that those patrons of the socialized systems have to sometimes wait for non-emergent procedures or appointments, it is a fair system because everybody has to wait; that fact makes it just - but not perfect. Nobody gets blatant preferential treatment based on socioeconomic status. Implementing universal healthcare laws in the United States would improve the accessibility of health care to all citizens.

     Living in a moral and democratic society, "we have, under certain circumstances, a moral duty to bestow certain kinds of goods upon our fellow human beings” (MacLean 42). We should all attempt to protect the fundamental worth and equality of all persons (two principles of a democracy) in all ways, including healthcare. The United States prides itself on being the beacon and the world ideal on how a democracy should be, but in this sector, the country has dropped the ball. For too long, the United States healthcare system has "emphasized irrational democratic deliberation and power dominated, ignorance driven, and appearance preserving decision-making that shape much of our social discourse now” (Fleck 8) – priorities need to change.

Works Cited:
Fleck, Leonard M. "Syllabus PHL 870." Fall 2008. Obtained from SHU BlackBoard.

Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. CBO: Federal Health Spending To Double Over The Next Decade. 1 February 2012. Web. 7 February 2012.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2012/February/01/cbo-budget-report.aspx.

MacLean, Niall. "Philosophical Approaches to The Problem of Healthcare Distribution." Distributing Healthcare:Principles, Practices and Politics. University of St Andrews, 2007. Obtained from SHU BlackBoard.

Sicko. Dir. Michael Moore. Prod. Dog Eat Dog Films. 2007. DVD.

The United Nations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. © 2012. 13 January 2012.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/.

 

How do empirical studies of the development of empathy relate to our understanding of altruism and of morality in general?

Jennifer Baranowski
PHCC-104-SF3

Professor Nachum Turetzky, PhD

January 31, 2012

How do empirical studies of the development of empathy relate to our understanding of altruism and of morality in general?

     Michael Slote defines empathy as "having the feelings of another person involuntarily aroused in ourselves, like how we feel when we see another person in pain" (Slote, Caring Based in Empathy). Scientists have conducted studies that have examined empathy and have attempted to determine why certain mammals are predisposed to it. According to primatologist and author Frans de Waal, empathy, which relies on perspective thinking - the ability to see other sides of a situation - is found in the animal species that have the self/other distinction. De Waal says that the self/other distinction is “activation in a certain part of the brain that makes one distinguish ‘your pain from my pain’ when we witness someone [hurting]” (Clip 5: The neuroscience of compassion (Templeton Foundation)).

     While empathy studies are limited to humans, there is a theory that animals that recognize themselves in a mirror also have the capacity for self/other distinction, and therefore have complex perspective thinking. De Waal maintains that aside from humans, elephants, dolphins, and chimpanzees also recognize themselves in the mirror. Although it is impossible to obtain subjective feedback and responses regarding empathic behavior from the animals, they have been studied objectively. I recently saw a news segment about a family of elephants who mourned the death of a calf. Upon further exploration of the topic, a 2005 article discussed experiments conducted on elephants had “nineteen different family groups presented with an elephant skull, a piece of ivory and a piece of wood. The animals showed a strong preference for the ivory and for the skull over the wood. Preference for ivory was very marked, even though it was the smallest object on offer. Elephants placed their feet, which have a sense of feeling, on the ivory and rocked it gently back and forth” (Lorenzi). Those elephants appeared to mourn and empathize with the dead. Aside from that particular study, most people have heard about evident empathic behavior exhibited by animals; there are the famous tales about dolphins protecting scared humans from sharks and chimpanzees consoling one another after a fight. These animals have no obvious ulterior motive for their behavior and their behaviors are seemingly empathic.

     Many may argue that humans are selfish beings. History has kept track of the many cruel and evil things that we humans are capable of. We couldn’t possibly have many redeeming qualities, could we? The empirical studies of empathy development show that the opposite is true. Humans, like elephants, dolphins, and chimpanzees, are hardwired for empathy. There is innate goodness in us. We, our brains, are made that way.

 

Works cited:
Clip 5: The neuroscience of compassion (Templeton Foundation). 25 January 2010. From www.templeton.com. 27 January 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEgiIrI5UM

Lorenzi, Rossella. Elephants Mourn Their Dead. 4. November 2005. 27 January 2012. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/11/04/1497634.htm.

Slote, Michael. "Caring Based in Empathy." Slote, Michael. The Ethics of Care and Empathy. New York, NY: Routledge, 2007. Copy obtained from Sacred Heart University Blackboard.

Do you have an obligation to help fight world hunger?

Jennifer Baranowski

PHCC-104-SF3

Professor Nachum Turetzky, PhD

January 24, 2012

 

Do you have an obligation to help fight world hunger?

     Anybody who lives in a developed nation with a television set has seen commercials for aid organizations like UNICEF, Oxfam, and Feed the Children. Their advertisements tug at the heartstrings of average working human being. Children are seen in misery, the hunger pains visible on their faces, with their malnourished, ravaged bodies lying limp like dish rags in the arms of their distraught mothers. Anyone with a soul would feel sadness. Most westerners cannot imagine the pain – after all, what could possibly be worse than watching your child die of malnutrition? Should we have empathy? Yes. Do we have an obligation? No. We do not have an obligation to help fight world hunger. But we SHOULD fight world hunger because of empathy.

     Nations who are plagued with world hunger are often nations that have been impacted by wars, corrupt leaders, and corrupt governments. Resources there have been misappropriated by dishonest officials or through ignorance. The first world, with its resources and its high standards of living for its citizens, are capable of acting in the interests of those impacted by hunger. Peter Singer writes, "the prevention of the starvation of millions of people outside our society must be considered at least as pressing as the upholding of property norms within our society… If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything else morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it" (Singer, Famine, Affluence, and Morality [revised edition]). World hunger is more than a money issue - sure, we can throw money at the problem, but what happens after the money runs out? After we assist with rectifying the immediate crisis, verifying that the assistance is going to the intended recipients and punishing those governments that abuse it, it would be wise to empower those who were directly impacted by famine. In addition to providing food to the hungry, we could provide them with tools to feed themselves, like fishing and farming equipment. We could educate them on how to grow food and how to dig a well. I think the old adage "give a man a fish, he eats for a day; teach him to fish, and he eats for a lifetime" is important – it would give those people pride and self-sufficiency. Most people do not want a hand out, they want a hand up.

 

     In answer to the posed question, we do not have an obligation to fight world hunger. We in the first world are fortunate enough to live in a relatively free world. We are obligated only to not harm or impede the rights of others. Because of the fact that we as a society have been blessed with abundance, we need to look at how we live and "Consider the consequences of our actions on those who are impacted by them and get beyond yourself” (Singer, Singer Solution to World Poverty). We need to look at helping those who suffer from hunger like this: although we were fortunate enough to have been born in a world where we do not experience the plague of hunger, we could have been. We need to treat those who suffer like we would want to be treated. We should help our unfortunate brothers and sisters. We SHOULD fight world hunger.

 Works Cited:
Singer, Peter. "Famine, Affluence, and Morality [revised edition]." Philosophy and Public Affairs 1.1 (1972): 229-243. www.utilitarian.net.

Singer, Peter. Singer Solution to World Poverty Dan Rather. n.d. uploaded Jan 18, 2010. 22 January 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu7XHUXvEKU.

What are human rights? What is their source?

Jennifer Baranowski

PHCC-104-SF3

Professor N. Turetzky, PhD
January 17, 2012

 

What are Human Rights? What is their source?

 

     If you ask an average person to define human rights, they are likely to list the three pillars of the term: freedom, justice, and equality. Human rights are defined as "entitlements pertaining to those needs and desires that other people are obligated to fulfill or to allow you to fulfill" (Amesbury and Newlands 24) and are "the common birthright of humanity in their possession and cannot depend on one's membership in any particular community" (Amesbury and Newlands 27-28) - in other words, rights could be described as entitlements that one is entitled to because he or she is human. Pretty simple, right? Unfortunately, because of human nature, we tend to want to complicate human rights. It could be argued that some religious groups and governments worldwide feel that they are the key holders and the authority on human rights; that their beliefs on how to live trumps their constituent’s human rights. Regrettably, that is not necessarily the case, and in forcing their agendas, freedoms, justice, and equality are impeded.

     Human rights are often the basis for our laws; the United Nations (UN) devised an objective, neutral, and unreligious list of thirty human rights that serves "as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society… shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms" (The United Nations). Everyone can recall a time when they've witnessed human rights violations. The obvious example would be the Holocaust - Jewish people were murdered because of their ethnicity and religious faith. We've witnessed ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and Rwanda (just to name two) - massacres based on differences in ethnicity and culture. In just the past decade, we've seen ignorance and intolerance between Christians and Muslims grow into acts of terror and injustice. Daily we see news programs that tell us about hate crimes, rapes, and murders in our own cities and towns. If we humans have a list to guide us, why do some people continue to violate the rights of others? A theory could be that we lose a touch of our humanity we hold on to our own egocentricity.

     Human rights violations are undoubtedly brought on by intolerance. Instead of embracing others' distinctions, there are some in society that want to destroy them for it. Some people fear difference. A homogenous world is bland - difference gives our world color and variety. "Christian humanism is a powerful antidote to the fear that seems to dominate the human encounter with ‘difference’; that humanity remains capable, under grace, of building a civilization worthy of those made in the image and likeness of God" (Weigel). In ideal conditions, humans attempting to act in the likeness of God, no matter the religion, would bolster human rights. The one problem with that is deciding to act in the likeness of God is open to misinterpretation. The Judeo – Christian – Islamic foundations are arguably peace, love, and coexistence, but unfortunately, the extremists in each of these sects make it appear otherwise.

     The basis and source of human rights is arguably the equality of every human being. In acknowledging the equality of all, that no one is better or worse than the other, human rights will be assured. If equality is the brick in human rights, then empathy should be the mortar. It is easy to want to protect the rights of someone when you see yourself in his or her eyes. Only through a foundation of equality and empathy can human rights be valued and honored.

Works Cited:
Amesbury, Richard and George M. Newlands. Faith and Human Rights: Christianity and the Global Struggle for Human Dignity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008. Kindle Edition.

The United Nations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. © 2012. 13 January 2012. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/.

Weigel, George. "The Catholic Human Rights Revolution." n.d. www.ewtn.com. Document. 12 January 2012. www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/HRREVOLU.TXT.