Response to Shannon's Question on Sleep

All people sleep and it is a biological imperative that they do. This does not mean that all sleep is or should be created equal. Most people have two hands but everyone’s looks lightly different and some might be missing fingers, etc. Sleeping issues are the same idea. They may be for psychological or physiological reasons, but they lead people to sleep less or sleep less comfortably. They do not change the fact that all people sleep. Sleep allows people to recuperate physically from the stress of the day both physically or mentally. Children likely need a lot of sleep during stages of physical and mental development and adults might need less because they do not face these developments. I would guess this would change at a certain age because the body would start to face difficulties from age related stress. This might be why your grandmother would seem to sleep more. Sleep is also an important aspect of human nature because it helps with memory storage. It is widely believed that our brain selects certain memories to maintain from the day’s activities during sleep. Sleep is also thought by many people to help us sort through emotions and difficulties in our lives. One theory of dreams is that they are where we work through unconscious emotions that we are unable to access in our daily lives. Whether these theories are true or not, and as someone with only an introductory understanding of psychology I cannot claim to know their degree of truth with any authority, sleep and dreams are an important part of humans as well as other animals mental and physical development and maintenance.

Should aspects of biological similarity and similarity in consciousness be filed under the same category of human nature or are they to distinct to be discussed as two parts of one whole?      

Response to Jenny's Question on "because I said so"

I feel that when parents say “because I said so” it is because they do not have easily accessible reasons for asking the child to do something. They may have reasons and these reasons may be legitimate but the parent is unable to quickly articulate them. This is not positive for the children because they do not learn why they should or should not behave a certain way; they only learn that they must obey their parents. If I told a child all the time that they could not eat candy because I said so, they would not learn that it is bad for their health. Then when they leave the parents authority they are likely to rebel against that authority and eat candy all the time. If I had taught the child that they should not have candy because of their health and encouraged them not to make that decision, instead of demanding it, they would probably do so less in the future. This is why it is beneficial in the long term if parents refrain from the “because I said so” argument.

 In the case of religious teachings, we cannot know God’s thoughts and are of course getting a man made interpretation. People should still have a reason for acting the way they do, but if their reason is that God wants them to than that is their decision. I am inclined to believe that children should not be forced to acquiesce to parent’s religious beliefs. Doing so does not make the child believe and may make them resent the religion. It would be best if parents exposed children to their religious belief, but allowed the child to choose whether to believe once they were old enough to do so. This would probably be difficult for many parents to do if they are strong believers. They would want their child to have a good life and afterlife and may believe that this is only possible through religion. These parents should remember that people are more likely to enjoy and stick with practices that are not forced upon them.

Do you find that people are disinclined to like things that are mandated, for example classes in school, or do you think you would enjoy some things no matter how you are introduced to them?

   

Good Samaritan Laws

Most humans would agree that humans have moral status, but does that mean that we have to help any injured humans that cross our path? If people are responsible for helping others who are injured, it could create a separation between ethics and self interest. Certain states Good Samaritan laws protect trained and untrained people that attempt to help people in trouble, but some states do not and any mistakes could land someone in legal trouble. Say someone encountered a person in trouble, called the police and then were at the scene with an injured person waiting for the police to arrive. Should they help the person while help is on their way or is it ethically alright for them not to do anything and avoid legal trouble even if they feel they could help? These laws can also require people to help if they witness an accident. Should people be required to help each other because we all have moral status? Most of us would agree that we should help others in need, but it seems questionable to legally require someone to do so. We do create laws that are based on ethical codes such as not stealing from neighbors, but this only requires people to refrain from an action. Legally binding people to help each other is requiring them to act a certain way and not just to refrain from acting a certain way. It also seems to be connecting moral responsibility and legal responsibility to closely. People should help others because they choose to and not because they have to. Also, helping an injured stranger could be potentially dangerous and it seems unethical to require people to enter potentially dangerous situations. Injured people could be dangerous themselves, they could have been attacked and the attacker still a threat or they could have a communicable disease.

Should people legally be required to help one another?

Some information on Good Samaritan Laws: http://firstaid.about.com/od/medicallegal/f/07_good_sam_law.htm

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,833639-1,00.html