The In Between

          I chose to answer the second question which asks whether there can be an in between position with viewing the world as "harsh and empty of values and pitiless" or "a moral structure, with real meaning, and forgiveness, and a higher power." I believe that the highest percentage of people believe in the in between. Some are people are bad and some are good and we all hope the good out weigh the bad. We wish everyone had morals and could forgive but we know not everyone does. Some believe in a higher power and some do not. The in between is being a realist. Wishing it was all good and we aren't responsible and those that do bad will be punished later but knowing that isn't true. Or, just an example, you could see the world as harsh and pitiless because of a higher power and see this as a meaning. I think there is more of an in between than not.
           The only similarities between Crime and Punishment and Crimes and Misdemeanors was the murder. Both men were responsible for the death of one (or more) people. Judah felt terrible guilt in the beginning but recovered and moved on without ever being discovered. Raskolnikov on the other hand, was so plagued by guilt he was physically affected and eventually confessed. They also committed the murders for completely different reasons which may be how Judah managed to justify his. Judah indirectly murdered his mistress because she was a threat while Raskolnikov personally, brutally, murdered two woman for reasons he has trouble finding; pride, the good of humanity, and money, being some.

Basic Human Ethics

I believe there are universal ethics because of understanding. We all share the human experience and  Murdering is universally recognized as something wrong because everyone has experienced death in some way and the sadness it brings. Every person knows what it is like to live, so everyone also knows what is lost when someone dies. Killing another human is too personal for another sane person to handle. Not stealing is another universal ethic because of understanding and trust. People value their reputations and the support of those around them. If a person is a known thief, people would not want to associate with them for fear of being stolen from. Everyone has been stolen from whether its just your last pencil or a wallet. Everyone has felt the injustice and anger and hopefully do not want to give those feelings to someone else. Cultures have similar ethics because usually most only require basic human compassion and we are all human. By now people have figured out the ethics that are worth being recognized universally and those that are not or can not be followed.

Ethics?

      Truthfully,  I believe that there are no such things as universal ethics. I am someone who
thinks that there are no rules in life, just consequences. If we wanted to steal something, nothing is holding us back, therefore we can steal as much as we please. However, if someone wanted us to be stopped and become arrested, nothing is holding them back either. I guess, in a way, there are certain taboos all cultures share. Usually this could include crimes like murder, theft, adultery, and lying. Yet, though there are many similar ethics shared throughout cultures, it is hard for me to call them universal ethics. For example, whereas we look at suicide as a terrible act, the Norse see it as a straightaway passage into Asgard, or their version of heaven. Also, whereas we see eating another person's flesh is seen as vile and unholy, the Maori tribes in New Zealand believed that eating a fallen enemy's flesh helps build manna, or spiritual power and prestige. Furthermore, as we view murder as sinful, the Aztecs frequently murdered people because they believe that human sacrifice pleases their gods.  As one can easily tell, there are plenty of examples that prove that ethics are not really universal. If anything, they are national for it is very uncommon for two different cultures to posses the same exact moral principles. A civilization would primarily base their ethics on what they view as bad and unholy acts and what are good, just, and enlightening acts. Religion, too, can have its own ethical code that can be copied from other, newly created religions (i.e. Christian motifs in Islam).
     Now I ask myself, should there be universal ethics? I honestly think that it is best to say no. Sure it would be quite beneficial in everyone's favor if everyone believed that killing is wrong, doing good acts is a necessity, it is best to see the good in people, everything must be fair, treat others the way you want to be treated, stealing is bad, cheating is bad, lying is bad, and eating meat is appalling. Though that is what my ideal world would be like, it actually sounds dull and boring to me. Where would be the conflict in everyday life? Where's all the excitement that life today holds? Where would be the balance between good and evil? Life would be bland for all we taste is goodness, not one hint of pleasure satisfying sins. That is not how life should be. Though sinful acts are bad, it makes us unique and best defines our inner wants. Also, civilizations would lose all of their unique individuality. Just imagine if the cannibals were vegetarian, the Romans didn't expand their empire, or the Aztecs didn't preform human sacrifice. Would they promote the same awe and wonder we give to them now? Would the world be the same? I think the world should remain in its non ethical, sinful ways in order for our world to retain its distinct balance between good and evil and to keep the ancient  cultural mindsets intact by remembering what it is that made them different from us.

Faith Over Truth

To answer question number nine, a person would knowingly choose religious faith over truth because it gives a person hope. It gives someone a purpose for life and comfort when times get hard. Otherwise, I would wonder what is the purpose of life. Just to live for the point of living doesn't seem fulfilling. For a lot of people, religion and faith gives their life fulfillment. The truth sometimes is devastating, and it is sometimes better to not know the truth. People can become burdened with the horrible truths, so religion can lift the spirits of people. When one can cast all their cares and worries to God, then I would pick religion over truth any day. For most people, it is more comforting to be involved with religion rather than the truth.

The movie Crimes and Misdemeanors is very similar to the novel Crime and Punishment. Both plots include murders where the murderer gets away with the deed. Both also have characters struggling with self-hatred for not being successful and a loser. However, the difference is that Raskolnikov is incredibly guilty for his crime and he can't escape it. In fact, he nearly goes mad about it. At the end, he turns himself because he can no longer handle feeling guilty any longer. Judah in the film, gets away with the crime. He only feels guilt at first, but then his guilt flies away as his normal life returns. Judah already had a successful life and money, while Raskolnikov did not. The two characters had different reasons for their murder. Judah killed his mistress so that his secret wouldn't get out, while Raskolnikov killed because he felt that the old woman deserved to die and that he had the right to kill her. Both stories are similar, but definitely not the same.

Universal Ethics

I think there are definitely universal ethics, but they have absolutely nothing to do with religion, because of course everyone has different views and ideas. "Don't kill" is probably the most definite 'human law' in the world. Even though somewhere there could be a small tribe of people that believe in human sacrifice, it is probable that even they believe killing another human for no reason is wrong. I do not think that always telling the truth could be considered an universal ethic. Although I personally believe that telling the truth is an important thing to do, it would be near impossible to never lie, and sometimes it is even the right thing to do by lying because you are protecting someone else's feelings. Cheating cannot exactly be considered universal either, because there are cultures where it is okay to have more than one partner.
The important thing about universal ethics is even though they apply to everyone, we only learn them from others and from society. If a person is isolated from birth all alone and then suddenly thrown into society, I do not think they would necessarily know that it is bad to kill a person. Humans have animalistic instincts but we change or suppress a good deal of them by teaching children wrong from right.

Universal Ethics

The idea of universal ethics is definitely a very loaded one. My first thoughts were “of course” and “how could humans function without them?”. However, once I tried to tease out an individual rule or idea I reached an impasse. In class, we looked at religion, both western and eastern, as a starting point for his discussion, but I found that these did not satisfy the task of “being universal”. For example, a recurring ethic among many group secular and non-secular is the idea that one should not steal, but this idea is based that of possessions. The laptop I wrote this on is mine or my house and land surrounding it belongs to my family, specifically my mother and father. This is an idea that I respect and believe in, to a certain extent, but this is not true in cross cultural sense. Some groups, such as Native Americans and extreme communist, do not believe that one physical object belongs to a single individual, but rather to the earth or universe as a whole. Similarly, the idea that adultery is unethical seems to appear frequently; however, there is no universal idea of marriage. Even within the United States, politicians squabble over the idea of same-sex marriage and various marital laws. Being that there is no universal definition to marriage, how can one describe adultery as universally unethical.

This process lead me to two ideas. Firstly, it is nearly impossible (at least for me) to pinpoint exact, clear-cut rules that apply to all. Secondly, while one can not exactly nail down what is ethical on a universal level, one can say that these laws or codes that rule over millions (if not billions) are based on maximizing pleasure (happiness) and minimizing pain (sad/anger). Since ethics are meant to guide larger groups they not only take into consider the pain/pleasure of the individual, but also that other the masses. The cause of this underlying principle is simple human desire -- no one wants to be in pain and even if they cause pain in some way it generally meant to cause some form pleasure. On a personal level, I would like to create universal ethics, but I don’t think that would go well in that cultures vary so widely that imposing my personal ethics may have a converse effect on a certain cultures and do damage that I could not foresee. I, also, do not think I have enough knowledge or life experience to create a perfect ethical system for my own culture.

Uni Ethics

Yes, I do believe in universal ethics. For example, everyone believes in laws and morals, such as no murdering, no lying, and no stealing. All cultures believe those are universal ethics. I also believe that sleeping with another man's wife should be a 'no no' for all cultures. I believe that it is a universal ethic, but some people disagree. It definitely was a universal ethic back in the old ages, but now times has changed. Men sleeping with multiple women in public seems to be more acceptable now. Before, in the olden times, it was done more in secret and frowned upon. Back then, adultery was definitely a universal ethic. I believe it should still be one now. Other ethics vary between countries and cultures. The USA has very different ethics then let's say, India. But definitely we have a few ethics in common such as murder, stealing, and lying.