Philosophy

In 1907 President Theodore Roosevelt made a speech covering the subject of immigration to America . In his speech he declared that anyone who wants to immigrate to America and become naturalized Americans should be allowed to do so and be treated with the same dignity and respect as anyone who was born in America . He hated discrimination of any kind stating that no one should be denied any of the rights this country has to offer with regard to race, national origin, or religion. His only request to anybody who wanted to become an American was that they learn our countrys language, English, and leave their previous culture and language behind. He believed in Americanization which meant that anybody who wanted to move to America and become an American must become assimilated with our countrys way of life in order to blend in with the rest of the countrys citizens.

President Roosevelt was obviously aware that every country has its own language and ways of life. Any new arrivals to any new country must learn how to speak the official language of that country and learn how the citizens of that country live, as well as the countrys history, in order to be able to survive and thrive in their new home. Roosevelt was reflecting what other countries may demand from new arrivals. He loved America and all Americans that inhabited our country and he believed that the only way to preserve Americas way of life and democracy as we knew it was to make sure that every newcomer to America learned English and left their previous language and culture behind.
     
Theodore Roosevelt was one of this countrys greatest Presidents and one of the most open minded Presidents for somebody living in the 1900s. His assertion that any new immigrant to American must learn English in order to become a citizen of our country was correct. It makes no sense why any newcomer to our country would not want to learn our native language in order to be able to survive in America . Often when Americans go overseas to other countries, either for business or to relocate, they do learn the countrys native language as well as their way of life, and possibly with countrys history in order to be able to live and thrive in their new home. The same courtesy should be shown to anybody who wants to move to the United States and become a citizen.
     
However, President Roosevelts other assertion, to have newcomers leave their native language and culture behind while becoming an American is nave. Despite the fact that this was the 1900s, to demand that someone forget where they came from in order to make a better life for themselves is very close minded.

It is not Roosevelts fault that he felt this way though. We take for granted the fact that we know a lot more now about other countries and cultures today because of the technological advances that allow us to view other countries, their inhabitants and their way of life. If we want to learn about another country all we have to do today is read a book, perhaps watch something on the National Geographic Channel, or go on line. Back in the early 1900s if anybody wanted to learn about another country, aside from possibly finding a book written on your country of choice, the only other way to learn about any one particular country would be to travel there. As President Roosevelt did travel to other countries as was customary for all Presidents. Most of the time the mission for traveling to another country was to mostly make the world a better place or possibly do business with them. It is normal when Presidents travel to other countries today because that is what is expected of them. In fact they travel other countries practically everyday because we have the technology to do so. We tend to forget that technology was very limited back in the 1900s and any time a President went to another country was a very big deal and they often times traveled by boat or train. Airplanes were in their infancy at this time. If the technological advances of today were available to President Roosevelt back when he was alive, he might be able to learn more extensively about other countries, their citizens, and their way of life. Therefore, his demand that new immigrants to America forsake their previous language and culture before becoming Americans may not have been part of his plan and the term Americanization may not have ever been uttered. He would instead welcome every new naturalized American and their culture with open arms and relish in the fact that America was one the most diverse nations in the world and truly show that we treat everybody equally in the United States, regardless of race, national origin, or religion.
     
President Roosevelt was right in the first part to announce that any new immigrants to America must learn English in order to become a citizen. However, Roosevelt was extremely wrong to also demand that new immigrants leave their native language and culture behind as another prerequisite to becoming an American. America is supposed to have the greatest melting pot in the world, where all of our citizens are a blend of other cultures from all over the globe. In order to make immigrants feel they made the right choice when coming to this country is to bring their culture and language with them so we can learn about their culture and become more open minded and better educated to all of our neighbors in this big world. The more we learn about others, the more we will be able understand and respect everyone. The more we start respecting everyone, their will be no conflicts. When there are no conflicts, there will be no wars. When there are no wars, Peace will reign throughout the globe. Of course, with a President like Theodore Roosevelt, who believed war and sport went hand in hand, peace would be the ultimate downfall of America as he knew it.

There have been many debates about the true meaning of knowledge and opinion for centuries.  In this essay, the difference between knowledge and opinion will be revealed as well as the views of David Hume and Immanuel Kant concerning knowledge.  References from the works of Adler are also included and emphasized in this essay.

The definition of knowledge is truth.  Opinion is defined as a belief, judgment or a personal view.  These two words have separate meanings and are most times confused with each others meaning.  David Hume defines knowledge as information that originates in our sensations.  Kant argues that knowledge is constricted to mathematics and the science of the practical and natural world.  According to Kant, it is impossible to extract knowledge to the spectral or supernatural realm of theoretical metaphysics.  Kant and Hume believe that knowledge has restraints on these other areas because the mind has an active role in comprising the characteristics of knowledge and confining the minds access to the practical dimension of time and space.  According to Adler, knowledge is truth and a well-found opinion based on reason and evidence that is redeemable.

Kant debates that components of our beliefs must be brought by our mind to experience firsthand.  According to Adler, truth is all branches of knowledge and they include
1. The addition of new truths to our existing body of knowledge.
2. The replacement of less accurate or comprehensive forms with better ones.
3. The discover and rectification of errors.
4. The discarding of generalizations that have been falsified by negative instances.
There are numerous forms of relativism which change in their degree of dispute. The term often refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths
                                                                                                       
i.e., that truth is always applicable to some particular frame of implication, such as a language or a culture                                                                                                    

Law has both served and betrayed humans beginning from the creation of Adam. It has greatly influenced our way of life and dictated how we should act accordingly. It has transformed over time which caused both happiness and satisfaction for some but it also produced grief and despair for the many. It has been discussed in different perspectives and were categorized in different manner yet it remains a concept very difficult to grasp especially for an individual who failed to practice the virtue of obedience and submission. This paper primarily aims to discuss the development of law and its effect on man. Thomas Aquinas is an advocate of Aristotelian principles and supported his views regarding human nature, society and law as presented in Prima Secundae Partis of the Summa Theologica.  Both of them believed that law are promulgated to make men good and this essay will analyze their arguments in order to justify the need to enact laws for the purpose of making good citizens.   This paper will also use Josef Piepers redefinition of the term leisure as elaborated in his work, Leisure the Basis of Culture, and George Wills conceptual analysis of the states ultimate purpose in his controversial work, Statescraft as Soulcraft, side by side the works of Aristotle and Aquinas to bring into union two historical worlds which are both wonderfully influenced by laws and man.

In Book I of the Republic, Plato already pointed out that society arises because of the needs of mankind. Aristotle supported this by stating in stating that man is by nature political. He does so by elucidating the naturalness of associations prior to defining the purpose of law in order to substantiate its importance. An association starts with the relationship that exists between a man and a woman. This basic relationship, vital for reproduction, is a natural tendency driven mostly by instinct that exists intrinsically in living organisms. Another association is that of the ruler and the ruled. In a sense, Aristotle argued that those with intelligence would naturally be a master while those that lack expertise would be the slave. These two associations are present in the household. Nevertheless, the household in itself is not self-sufficient. This implies that a single household could not provide the basic needs of all its members. Thus, it is inevitable that households collaborate and form a village. Yet, a village could either establish friendship or form rivals among their neighbors. Thus, villages in friendly terms group together for the sake of mutual benefit and protection. The fruit of the unity among villages is an established city which is soon ruled by a ruler with an established constitution which contains laws that  would be enacted any obeyed by the constituents.

The polis then becomes the ultimate creation of mankind to support his ultimate goal which is to live happily. But happiness is not established through a single source, the polis, rather it is achieved through the cooperation of constituents who belong to the polis. The polis is the highest form of community and aims at the highest good  Justice. Justice is the ultimate virtue which should be present inside the polis. The constituents being part of the polis ought to have this virtue present inside their soul because this is the only way in which happiness can be attained by everyone inside the polis. Thus the intention of every lawgiver is to make good citizens.

Thomas Aquinas supported the attainment of happiness through the enactment and obedience of laws inside the state. He stated the following lines
   
 . . . every man is part of the state. It is impossible that a man be good, unless he be well proportionate to the common good nor can the whole be well consistent unless its parts be proportionate to it. ( Summa Theologica, II-I, Q 92)

He further continues by stating that law in order to produce happiness should be dictated by reason and the proper end of law is to lead its constituents to their proper virtue, in this case justice. In addition, Aristotle further stated the following in relation to one of the characteristics of law

Laws are made to prevent the citizens from doing acts that are considered as wrong or evil. If a person would violate the law, the person would receive the necessary punishment. Nonetheless, despite the fact that laws also inflict punishments, these are necessary to persuade humans to do good things. Just actions or moral acts produce happiness. ( Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, p. 140)

Thus in the words of Thomas Aquinas tyrannical lawis not a lawrather a perversion of law and in effect fails to produce virtues. In as much as laws have a particular power to move its constituents if it is not grounded for the common good then the state will not flourish.

In like manner, George Will highlighted in his book Statescraft as Souldcraft that one of the aims of government is justice. Aquinas defended the idea that an object of justice is the just and that the just is equivalent to right. If the government ought to achieve justice, then it must uphold what is right. Justice in this context means adhering to the common good which is the right.  This does not imply that the government should provided all its constituents demands rather government should always bear in mind that laws should be grounded for the common good and is guided by reason. Reason and the common good should always be the main reason for the formulation of laws and nothing else. To prove this point, let us consider the following scenario If the law is based on desire, then it would refer to personal interests The fulfillment of personal benefits, however, implies the practical nature of the common needs. If laws would be directed toward the common needs, it would create a community where the people in power are able to abuse their authority to their hearts content. Thus, the existence of the rule of law could prevent subjective rulers from doing whatever they want. It also would maintain a governmental structure that would not be swayed by the whims of the citizenry.

The above discussion reflects that law should not be affected by passion. We should be very careful at this point by the meaning of passion because passion is regarded in a different context by different users of the language. Interestingly, Will mentions passion in this manner Purpose of politics is to facilitate the existence of worthy passions and the achievements of worthy aims.  Will referred to worthy passion. But what will count as worthy passion In the Politics, on the other hand, Aristotle describes passion as the, Quality of the soul which begets friendship and enables us to love. Is this the type of worthy passion that Will was referring to in is statement because in the latter passages of his book he also argued that laws ought to be passionless. If politics must facilitate passion and law must be devoid of passion, then the only way for these two premises to be compatible is to assume that politics is not the same as law because if you eliminate the element of passion in laws then it will not be human at all. Passion is one of the very elements that separates and distinguishes us from other creatures.

On the other hand of the discussion, we have Mill sharing the same perspective with Aristotle and Aquinas with regards to the ultimate purpose of a state or government when he stated that Government is properly concerned with the character of the citizens. It must aim to instill virtue in them thus statecraft is soulcraft.  The state promulgates law and enforces this law to form a habit among its constituents. Formation of habit is vital to the success of this endeavour since virtues are not achieved overnight. In Aristotles words, Moral virtue, like the arts, is acquired by repetition of the corresponding acts. Citizens are likened to a piece of clay which should be molded and fashioned to produce an excellent work of art. Man is like a piece of wood that should be properly treated to get its maximum potential. Individual flourishing is one of the ultimate ends of man and this resides in the good and the good inside man is achievable by constant reminders and imposition of the laws. At times, others may judge that punishments devoid law of passion, which is a vital element which distinguishes us among other animals, but our ability to subdue passion from time to time is also the mark which raises us above all the animals in the animal kingdom.

So far we have discussed that laws are promulgated to shape and fashion the individual in a state so as to form an excellent and good citizen. Both Aquinas and Aristotle shared the same perspective that ultimately, states were formed in order to achieve happiness and happiness inside the polis is attained through justice. We were able to clarify the definition of justice in terms of rule of man and rule of law but we still fail to discuss the happiness which the individual man aims to achieve within the polis.

Aristotle asserts that happiness seems to be the very antithesis of a busy life, in that it is compatible with perfect leisure. Since happiness and leisure are compatible, it follows that laws must also be compatible with leisure. In contemporary society, the term leisure is used to describe the free time that could be spent for relaxation. Does it then imply that individual happiness is equated with leisure If so what kind of leisure is that which is supported by Aristotle

Joseph Pieper, in Leisure the Basis of Culture, states, One of the foundations of Western culture is leisure for leisure in Greek is skole the English school.Understood in Greek terms, leisure is equivalent to contemplation. Pieper, defines leisure as a form of silencewhich is the prerequisite of the apprehension of reality. It is a form of silence that involves thinking and deliberation on important matters. Leisure is not about the quite time that a person spends alone while watching television, for example, or sitting on the sofa doing nothing. Leisure during the ancient period was not the same as idleness. In fact, in the words of Pieper, Idlenessis the source of many faults and among others of that deep-seated lack of calm which makes leisure impossible. Idleness, in this context, means that the person is not working or simply being lazy.

Aristotle defined leisure very differently. This may be due to the fact that the ancient Greek frame of mind is far from the mind setting of most contemporary thinker. He defined it as the property of the mind manifested through pure speculation that has no further end beyond itself, which is demonstrated with carelessness and all sufficiency. Unlike thinking or studying done to learn about practical matters or practical affairs, leisure is done for its own sake. Aristotle acknowledges intellectual thinking as a leisurely activity that is part of humans quest in achieving final human happiness. Law, according to Aquinas, is an order of reason for the common good. Therefore, the creation of law is made through the contemplation of the common good. Pieper distinguished the common good from the common need. The common need is a product of the practical mind. It is derived from the utilitarian world of work and toil. Actions directed toward the common need are not leisurely activities and does not involved thinking. Thus, the end of law is the common good created for the common benefit of citizens, whereas the end of work is the common need that satisfies the practical desires of the citizens.

Morality could be explained as a system of ideas about righteous behavior that was emerged over the course of human evolution. Now whether or not it has evolved directly as a result of natural selection has been an argument between many philosophers after Darwins proposal of natural selection. Francisco J. Ayala argued that ethical behavior come about in evolution not because it is an adaptive process, but because ethical behavior is a necessary consequence of humans prominent intellectuality. Hence, moral behavior is an attribute indirectly promoted by natural selection that is morality evolved as an exaptation and not adaptation, with respect to the consequences of the behaviors. On the other hand, the proponents argue that ethical morality is an adaptation for human because we are social animals. In short, ethics is an illusion put in place by natural selection to make us good cooperators.   These adaptations are evolved exactly like teeth, hand and human genitalia, which is a direct product of natural selection. I, on the other hand, am saying that both arguments are very closely related. Because if there wasnt a direct adaptation and biological evolution of human brain then the cultural evolution among human would have never occurred and vice versa. In addition, morality is not a biological feature like hand or penis. It is something that was taught through religion and social contracts as well.  Whereas, many people also believe that progression in cultural evolution cannot explain certain feelings such as love and hate. For instance, the feeling of love is so strong that people would scarify themselves for the ones they love. How would this be compatible with their survival

As explained above, ethics is the consideration of the rightness or wrongness of human actions, as well as their identification of what is good and evil. Mackenzie (2008 1) noted that it is the science of conductmens habits and customsthe principles on which they habitually act. An action is considered as rightful if it is a good thing. A good thing has a desirable and valuable end. Since human societies have different values and desires, it is inevitable that their ethical principles differ.

Michael Ruse noted that philosophical systems have normative ethics and meta-ethics. Considering that this paper would like to show the function of evolution in ethics, it is worthy to look into the whats and whys of ethical principles. Normative ethics, according to Steve Olson (76) is largely concerned with what a person should do. Dwelling further unto this matter yields at least four different schools of normative ethics consequentialism, nonconsequentialism, distributive justice and virtue. A short introduction of these concepts is important to realize how normative ethics work.
Stephan Darwall (2003, 1) introduced the concept of consequentialism as the result of good and bad things. He argued that things events have values of either good or bad despite the absence of morality. The idea of consequentialism revolves on the idea that human action is good or bad depending on the result of their conduct. This means that if the action produces good consequence then the act is moral while if it produces bad things, then it is immoral.

Obviously, nonconsequentialism proposes a contradictory claim. According to Frances Myrna Kamm, nonconsequentialism do not believe that it is the consequences that determine the goodness or the wrongness of action. The act in itself is either right or wrong. For example, lying and killing are actions that are wrong in themselves. Even though the act of lying could save a billion lives, it is an immoral act in itself.

The notion of right and wrong is also seen from the perspective of justice. This is how distributive justice came about. According to Robert Nozick, individuals are entitled to the goods that they justly possess (Gensler et al. 235), if the goods are not distributed properly then the act is immoral. Virtue ethics, on the other hand, emphasizes the role that diverse habits and dispositions play in moral decisions.

Michael Ruses arguments maintained that normative ethics are mere illusions if ethics are rooted in evolutionary biology. He tried to prove this claim by stressing the role of meta-ethics. Steve Olson (76) pointed out that meta-ethics is concerned with why a person should follow those rules with justification for ethical codes of conduct. For example, consequentialists would act morally to maximize happiness while non-consequentialist would act morally out of obligation to protect human life.

The concept of evolution had its consequences on ethical principles, particularly because it suggests that humans act in certain ways to adapt to their environment. The primary reason why living things ought to survive, in evolutionary perspective, is to preserve the species. Scary enough, even Aristotle who had lived more than two thousand years ago acknowledged this fact. Therefore, it is not a product of mere human imagination but a factual statement verified throughout history. Evidences of the concept of survival of the fittest abound not only in the flora and fauna environments but also within human societies. This was the foundation of Social Darwinism. Accordingly, an action is morally right if it leads to evolutionary progress (Olson, 76). Following Ruses argument, ethics only exists as a tool towards self-preservation.

Michael Ruse argues that common-sense morality is an illusion due to our genetic construction, which is a direct outcome of biology and hence natural selection. It is an adaptation like hand, teeth, and penis or vagina. It is a social adaptation like pheromone trails that the leaf-cutter ants leave to direct their nest-mate to the price. Morality has an objective base, meaning that the incomes are relating to an object of thought without consideration of independent existence of genes, and therefore successfully adapted because we believe substantive morality has an objective basis. We feel to do the right thing because it truly is the right thing to do, not as a consequence of our emotion. Consequently if no justification implied then the ethical morality would fall down into futility. For example if someone steals your money, you would dislike the person not because you do not want to lose your money but because you think that person has truly done something wrong in objective sense. We are people with a genuine sense of morality that is real feeling of recognizing right or wrong and obligation. Human with respect to morality is not transcending from animal world whatsoever but rather completely the same.

In order to work together socially we have made an innate capacity that is put there by natural selection as morality. This means morality is hard-wired into humanity and just shaped by culture. We do not have the moral senses because we decide to be moral creatures but because we are humans. Aristotle pointed out that humans are moral animals. The existences of psychopaths who do not have moral sense are biological exceptions or mutations.

When suggesting that morality is hard-wired to humanity, it implies that right and wrong are manifestations of the genetic origin. Now, Richard Dawkins is the well-known author that tried to prove the existence of this gene. The argument is based upon the notion that human behavior and other human qualities are merely genetic expressions. As could be observed, humans have different appearances despite the similarities in their genetic codes. Humans differed from one another in complexion, height, body mass, and sex organs. There are several ways human varies and all of these variations make each human a unique living organism. Particularly, all of human traits are product of genetic make-up. This was long been proven by Gregor Mendel and other geneticists. It is also considered as a fact that some traits of the persons lineage are pass down to the next generation. Traits like selfishness had always been present to humans. Dawkins declared that we are the survival machines of genes. Selfishness is an attribute opposite of altruism. Selfishness involved doing whatever is needed to benefit oneself. If this term would be use to describe evolutionary processes and element, it merely suggest that the process and the element aims to benefit themselves. Thus, the notion of selfish gene merely implies that the genes selfishly want to exert its survival. The gene is programmed by nature to do whatever it takes to survive. This is what Dawkins is talking about when he referred to humans as survival machines. Since the framework of every human body are the genetic codes embedded in the DNA, Dawkins analogy accurately described the situation.

Whenever cooperation has beneficial consequences human seem to be willing to accept the moral codes and therefore consistent with their survival as social animals. It is true that we have selfish genes but that does not necessarily generate selfish people because these people tend to be expelled from groups rather quickly. It is a social contract that is brought about not by our ancestral or modern leaders but it is rather advanced as biologically evolved genes selected by natural selection.
Further analysis would reveal that all of the body functions are also manifestations of the genes. The amount of hormonal secretions was also determined inside the genetic code. The structures of each hormone as well as the corresponding functions were largely determined by the genes. Hormones are essential part of the human system. They function interactively and independently from each other. In the documentary What the Bleep do we Know, the hormones were portrayed to affect even the persons mood. This idea is backed up by several studies showing how the levels of hormones affect the persons disposition. For instance, a depressed person has lower levels of serotonin, while a happy person has high levels. A person is also driven to the sleepy state with higher levels of melatonin. Overall, the persons mood is very dependent on hormonal levels.

This analysis reflects that the genes, which are evolutionary mechanisms of survival, affect behaviors. Morality is also seen as an evolutionary mechanism. While genes operate internally it expresses outward actions that could be evaluated in the society. Nevertheless, this generalization only confers that implications of morality is something that must not be followed because it is merely a manifestation of evolution. The implications of morality are the rules and the laws that were made and followed because they are considered rightful and good.

One way to enlighten this particular concept is to look back on the formation of societies. Societies were creates laws based on morality. This could be verified by the writings of Thomas Hobbes. According to him, laws are the rules of just and unjust.  Laws were established to maintain peace in the Commonwealth or the society. Laws provide security because in the state of nature the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short (86).  Hobbes further argued that men are selfish and insatiable. To control human passions, laws were established. However, as discussed above. Human passion is a part of the survival mechanism. This further enlightens the uselessness of following moral codes because they merely restrain the persons natural ability to survive.

If the above case will be considered, the justification of morality as a result of evolution would only lead to its dismissal. This is the argument the Michael Ruse had expound. Therefore, ethics could not be explained and justified through evolution.

Nevertheless, genes are not the only thing that could affect ethical consideration. Genes might have functioned selfishly throughout human history but its manifestations changes over time. As evidence, one could look into the fact that genes could evolved or even mutate. Every living thing has the ability to adapt to its surroundings. This means that other factor besides the genes affects a human being.
Human evolution differs from other organism due to humans capacity to interact and learn from their previous mistakes. Humans could communicate what they learned not only to their offspring or immediate relatives but also to several people. Humans work together but they could decide independently from one another. In a sense, humans adapt to specific situations but they are informed and they learned in collective groups.

In a strict discussion of evolutionary ethics, it is inevitable to stumble upon the works of Herbert Spencer and Charles Darwin. Darwin is famous for the idea of adaptation and evolution of all living organisms. Darwin noted that organisms are able to adapt into their environment and this process could improve their chances of survival. John Wright (125), in his attempt to explain Social Darwinism argued that the focus on human evolution was Spencers work, focusing on mental characteristics. Thomas Malthus heavily influenced Spencer and Darwin.  Malthus is concerned about the connection between human consumerism and the availability of resources, emphasizing the effect of the increasing population to limited resources. Spencer noted that humans who possess the skill intelligence, self-control and the power to adapt through technological innovation would survive in the struggle for scarce resource.

This idea was the central theme on Francisco Ayalas work What the Biological Sciences Can and Cannot Contribute to Ethics. Francisco J. Ayala argues that the high intellectual capability of human beings force them to have a preferred moral judgment and to accept the good or bad moral values.  He proposed that moral behaviors are rational behaviors. In general human evaluate their actions as either right or wrong according to their intellectual ability, which includes self-awareness and death-awareness, the most important difference between human and animals. Human also evaluate abstract thinking such as creation of mathematical formulas and most of the science to the present day. These behaviors are particularly characteristic of human among all the other social animals.

Rational behavior implies that the actions are base on informed decisions. Ayala explained that evolution actually reflect the development of ethical principles. His discussion was not narrowly framed on biological evolution per se, but on the idea of the process of adaptation. To explain his idea, Ayala cited three conditions that contribute to the ethical behavior of human beings.

These three conditions are (i) the ability to anticipate the consequences of ones own action (ii) the ability to make values judgments and (iii) the ability to choose between alternative course of action, which all three are the consequence of human intellectual capability that results in cultural evolution rather than biological evolution of ethics.

The ability of human to anticipate the consequences of ones own action is the most fundamental of the three conditions required for ethical behavior as if one could anticipate to pull the trigger will shoot the bullet, which as a result can kill ones enemy. That is one would only kill the enemy if he or she anticipates pulling the trigger, therefore the ability of human to produce images of realities happening in the future serves as a mean to whether or not anticipate the action in the present, which in turn provides a connection between means and ends at the fundamental intellectual capability. It is believed that cultural evolution was the remote evolutionary root to be found by the evolution of bipedal-gait by natural selection, which promoted the intellectual abilities of the bipedal ancestors. It is because bipedal ancestors were able to improve the perception of tools as tools and therefore their construction and use in terms of biological survival and reproduction.

The second condition for existence of ethical behavior is the ability to make value judgments and therefore to perceive certain objects as more desirable than others. Making value judgments depend on the capacity to perceive and compare actions or objects in abstraction, concluding whether or not they are desirable. Ayala gives an example that  only if I can see the death of my enemy as preferable to his or her survival can the action leading to his or her demise be thought as moral. In other words, if an action has a neutral consequence for an alternative action, the action couldnt be distinguished to have any ethical value. Morally best action is the one having the most beneficial consequence to others however this cannot be defined as a measurement of morality of actions, which in turn does not necessarily involve utilitarianism.

The last condition is the ability to choose between two different courses of action. He argues with the same example that pulling the trigger can be a moral action only if one has the option not to pull it. This mean that if people do not have the ability to choose between two alternative actions then the action can not be considered as ethical, where an immoral action would be blood circulation. He further explains that making a decision is genuine and not apparent. Also, since we are able to mentally explore alternative courses of action, we can actually exercise our free will. For example our ancestor were able to improve survival in the wild by creating more advanced tools to defend themselves from the predators.

Peter Singer, according to Kamm (418), also discussed how judgments are affected by evolution. Judgment depends on moral principles. Singer focused on the idea of killing. He distinguished how people kill today from how they attacked in ancient times.  According to Singer, psychological studies revealed that most people believed that attacking a person face-to-face is intuitively wrong while killing a person in long distances are permissible.

Singers finding is compatible with the conditions presented by Ayala. First, the person prefers long distance attack after analyzing the possible consequences of his action. By doing so, the person engages himself with making value judgment by comparing the desirability of the act. The desirability is extended by the notion of permissibility attached to long distance attacks. The third condition is already fulfilled because no one compel the person to choose one over the other and alternative choices are present.

The fact that people of current generation choose differently from people who lived during the primeval era exposes a change in moral judgment. This change may be biological. Maybe, toxins, vaccines and several genetically modified products affected the level of hormones inside the body causing disruption in their amount and function. Nevertheless, this is very hard to prove and somehow trivial. What Ayala had been emphasizing was the ability of the mind to contemplate and process information. This ability is innate. However, the environment is the only thing that could affect the observation and problem solving process that occurs in the mind of the person. Therefore, Ayala implies that throughout history humans do not only adapt in the biological level but also in the cultural level. Culture is composed of the societal beliefs, rules, norms and traditions that changes as human progresses.

Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat. It is a gradual process, taking place over many generations that improve organisms survival and reproduction. On the other hand, exaptation is defined as features of organisms that evolved because of the function they serve for the organism, but was used later to serve another function, totally different from the original function targeted by natural selection. For example feathers have evolved to conserve the temperature but later was used in birds to fly with.

Cultural adaptation happens when the culture or the conditions in the society changes as a response to the scarcity and manner of acquiring resources. Like biological evolution, cultural evolution also includes the aspect of inheritance. The cultural inheritance was in the form of language, laws, conventions, and traditions.

Ayala suggests that literature, arts, religion, and human cultural activities were also not created because they were favored by adaptation to human but because they are expressions of high intellectual capability and tool making generated by exaptation. It means that moral sense was evolved in human by a rather more indirect evolutionary process brought about by intelligence, which is a selection-produced adaptation and hence in realm of culture not biology. It does not seem that making moral decisions would advertise the reproductive fitness for those who judge an action as good or bad. Neither is morality a developing feature as a result of natural selection but rather as a result of advanced intelligence, which is targeted by natural selection. Advanced intelligence is then favored by natural selection because it improved the human ability to construct more advance tools. Evolution of bipedalism followed by advance construction and use of tools, provided an increased possibility of biological fitness among Homo sapiens.

Morality developed because it is beneficial for the welfare of the social group and indirectly individuals as a member of the group. For example reducing crime would protect private properties. However, group selection based on altruistic behavior is an unstable evolutionary strategy because selfish mutations favor over altruistic behavior by natural selection and therefore the rate of multiplication of selfish individuals would predominate over altruist individuals. Fortunately, in human altruistic behavior is advantageous over the selfish ones because human can understand and comprehend the benefits of altruistic behavior to the group and indirectly to them and hence implement altruism by laws and etc against the socially harmful selfish behavior.

Ayala suggested that the cultural evolution surpassed biological evolution because it is a more effective faster and it can be directed (Ayala, 328). The cultural inheritance is not limited by biological mechanisms. It could affect millions of people from different places in a single generation. On the other hand, biological evolution is restricted by genetic inheritance, which could only be passed down from parents to child. Spencer is correct in his assessment that evolution would lead mankind onward and upward (Wright, 126). Human history showed how civilizations learned from previous mistakes. Darwin, according to Ayala, had made the same assertion towards morality. Darwin acknowledged, morality will tend to improve over human history and it contributes to the success of a tribe (society) (Ayala, 328). Taken together, evolution and morality, both improve humanity.

He concludes that if one looks at todays life, one would realize a radical breach between human intelligence and other animals like chimpanzees, whose elementary culture does not require advance intelligence and thus moral behavior. Human society had successfully intertwined cultural evolution with biological evolution. After the recognition that abnormalities may occur to the child of people with the same genetic history, incest were regarded as a taboo. The current ethical standards are considerably favored by cultural evolution (Ayala, 333).

Darwinian approach to moral ethics leads to a sort of moral non-realism whereas Ruse believes that morality exist, if without foundation, such as in psychological reasoning Games. Researchers have shown that different parts of the brain come together to make judgment decision based on emotion and logic, where emotion can be decisive over logic in different scenarios. For instance researchers shown that people would choose to kill one person and save the life of five other people by hitting a switch that set the points to send an out-of-control trolley to the side-line towards one person and away from the other five (Kamm, 418). However, in the other scenario, people chose not to push the sixth person physically off a bridge that is about to fall, in order to save the life of the five other people. Researchers concluded the only crucial difference between the two cases is the emotional response and not just some objective reason.

Michael Ruse concludes that morality is an illusion. The reason morality is successfully adapted is because we believe substantive morality has an objective foundation. For Ruse substantive ethics is due to emotions, which could mean moral principles are substantive but their meanings are objective. Our beliefs are based on our biology and we think because of our biology we should justify our normative morality objectively, which is self-revealing to human beings. However, morality is a result of psychology rather than an expression of non-natural objective property and a direct product of natural selection.

It does not seem like our moral ethics are solely to preserve genes and hence only based on human biological nature, because this would mean that racism is ok and therefore to protect the social ethics, different races with certain people cannot exist since they have undesirable genes and therefore the natural selection acts against them. We see that this not true now a day but it could have been accepted maybe hundreds of years ago. However, genes play a very important role in the development of social ethics. The most important difference in human is the evolution bipedal-gait that leads to the evolution of tool making and therefore a larger brain consequently.  Ayalas argument is the most acceptable theory after these adaptations were made. Since these adaptations were made at the beginning of human evolutionary tree and remained until now, we cant say that these adaptations would serve us no function and therefore of no importance. For example, the feather was first evolved to serve as temperature regulation but than gained other function totally different from the first function. But feather still serves as a temperature regulator for the birds. In human the adaptation that made us so distinct cannot be excluded since we have gained additional function for it and therefore could be directly a product of natural selection. After all, since the cultural evolution is at the fastest, currently it seems to dominate all the other theories and therefore most of our moral values are being determined by passing generation to generation as a Lamarckian evolution.

Philosophical endeavors have for a very long time directed towards the establishment and proof of the existence of God. God is considered a supreme being who is perfect. He is said to be the creator of the universe and everything that exist within it. Religions have always relied on faith to prove the existence of God. Advances in philosophy have led to the establishment of arguments which are aimed at proving the existence of God. This is concept has enjoyed the contributions of great philosophers and theologians.  One of the contributors is St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas was a priest, theologian as well as a philosopher. Some of his notable works include Summa Theologica as well as the Summa Contra Gentiles. These works went a long way in trying to provide a logical proof for the existence of God.

This paper is going to primarily focus on some of the proofs put forward by St. Thomas Aquinas for the existence of a supreme supernatural being, God. This paper is also going to establish some of the strongest objections to his argument and to determine whether or not, the argument is able to sustain itself amidst objections.

Introduction
A cosmological argument is one which follows a general augmentation pattern making inferences from facts regarding the world, otherwise known as cosmos, and a unique being identified with or known as God. Cosmological arguments have thus been associated with natural theology aimed at proving the existence of God. These arguments are based on the belief that something must have caused the existence of the earth, possibly a supernatural being, God. Some of the theologians and philosophers who have come up with notable arguments include, Plato, Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas as well as Fredrick Copleston.

In the context of this paper we are going to restrict ourselves to the argument of St. Thomas Aquinas. He was an Italian Roman Catholic priest. His argument borrows a lot from the one which had been initially formulated by Aristotle. He felt that the cause of the Universe was something uncaused, a supernatural being, God. He is credited with the school of philosophical thought known as Thomism (Quinn, 2003, p.581).

Aquinass Cosmological Argument
Like the case in most cosmological arguments, Aquinass Cosmological Argument is composed of two parts. The first part is trying to prove that a First Cause exists. The second part is showing that the First Cause has attributes which we believe that God has. In Summa Theologica, he was able to come with five proofs that God exists. His first way was The Argument from Motion. Aquinas had concentrated a lot on the works which had originally been done by Aristotle. Aristotle had based himself on moving objects. Aristotle believed that for an object to move, it must have been set into motion by another object or probably by force. Aquinas felt that an UNMOVED MOVER must have existed to set the rest of the things in motion. He felt that this mover must have been God. This argument is plausible in the sense that first we believe that nothing is able to move itself, second, it is true to predict that since objects need a mover to be in motion, then definitely the object which was first in motion had a mover. Thirdly, movement must have an end. We can thus conclude that the first mover must have probably been the Unmoved Mover, whom Aquinas called God. Aquinas believes that things are naturally at rest, movement is unnatural and hence external supernatural force is a prerequisite for such an occurrence (Beck, 2002, p.286).

Aquinas second way of proving Gods existence is referred to as Causation of Existence. Aquinas argues that nothing is able to create itself. Every object must have been created by another which had existed before it. Aquinas expressed the opinion that ultimately, UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE, who was responsible for the existence of the rest of the things must have existed. This must probably have been God. This argument is also plausible in the sense that objects are created by other objects. It is an uncontested fact that no object is able to create itself. The chain of creators cannot be infinite. Hence Aquinas is correct in saying that the first cause who is uncaused must have been God (Beck, 2002, p. 287).

His third way of proving the existence of God was known as Contingent and Necessary Objects. This argument is sometimes known as the Modal Cosmological Argument. Aquinas classified beings in the universe as either being contingent or necessary. A contingent being only comes into existence, when it is caused by necessary being. Since contingent beings exist, then there must have been a necessary being that was responsible for the existent of the contingent beings. Aquinas feels that this contingent being must have been God. This argument is also plausible since, it is true that contingent beings must be caused. Also we believe that not all beings can be contingent. Since contingent beings are caused, there must be a being that must have been responsible for the existence of the contingent beings. The necessary being must have been God (Quinn, 2003, p.585).

His fourth way was referred to as The Argument from Degrees and Perfection. Aquinas based this argument on natural observations he had made. He realized that objects differ in terms of qualities such as beauty. He felt that all the qualities must have been measured from a perfect standard. He felt that such kind of perfection could only be in a supernatural being, God. His fifth argument has come to be referred to as The Argument from Intelligent Design. Aquinas based this argument on his observation of the universe and nature. He concluded that nature must have been designed by a very intelligent designer. This designer must have been supernatural, God. He ordered nature as well as life in a very intelligent manner. This is true when we take a keen look at the world around us we realize that there is some kind of order that must have been a result of perfect design (Beck, 2002, p.302).

A number of philosophers including Immanuel Kant have objected the existence of a necessary being as is concluded by cosmological argument. Kant felt that, when cosmological argument concludes that a necessary being exists, it can be deemed to be arguing that a being exists, whose inexistence cannot be conceived. This objection greatly undermines this argument as it seems to concur with the ontological argument. This being must be a perfect one as is the case with ontological arguments. Ontological argument has been realized to be defective hence, probably, cosmological argument, which concurs with it, is also defective (Quinn, 2003, p.587).

It is not a fact that cosmological argument borrows from ontological argument. These two arguments are confusedly linked. Necessary being as a term can be conceived differently. The objectors of this term seem to think of it as a logical necessary existence. They feel that this existence should be proved logically. The conceptions of necessary being in cosmological and ontological arguments are considerably different. In the context of cosmological argument, a necessary being can be described as one that must continue to exist if it exists or cannot be brought into existence if it is non-existence. This kind of being can thus possibly occur as the statement does not contradict itself (Quinn, 2003, p.588).

Dialect evaluation
This objection is very strong but not very successful as the response is stronger. The response severs the link that was being established between the ontological and cosmological theory. This argument is not refuted. The argument can be defended against any objection as has been the case in a very strong objection above. This argument is sound since it is able to conclusively address all the objections directed towards it.

Conclusion
St. Thomas Aquinas was able to come up with five arguments to prove the existence of God. Two of his proofs were based on his personal observation of the universe. He was able to prove that God existed. While this might be taken as a proof of the existence of God, it can still be argued. St. Thomas Aquinas went a long way into linking the attributes of the initial mover to those which were considered characteristics of God hence the initial mover must have been God. The attributes of the supreme religious being varies from religion to religion hence the attributes that St. Thomas Aquinas perceived to be Gods, may not exactly fit those assigned to God by other religions.

Human life is regarded so highly that terminating such a life, whether within or outside the law, attracts a great and emotive diversity of ideas. A wide variety of conditions including disease, depression, injuries, hopelessness, fear lead thousands of people to commit suicide every year across the world. While some of these people terminate their lives on their own employing such tactics as wrist-slashing, drug overdose, hanging, shooting or throwing themselves at fast-coming vehicles, other seek the assistance of physicians to terminate their lives. While physicians are duty-bound to accord their patients as much help as possible, they are bound by oath not to kill the patients. Physician-assisted suicide is therefore a very controversial issue which attracts as much support as it attracts opposition. This paper compares and contrasts the views of supporters and opponents to physician-assisted suicide.

Common ideas
The authors Richard Doerflinger, and David Watts  Timothy Howell agree that legalizing physician-assisted suicide or loosening the stringent measures which prohibit or govern the practice would make it easier for people to abuse the provision. Cases of patients suffering from terminal illnesses, and whose practical chances of recovery are negligible, deserve serious consideration when they request for professional assistance to terminate their lives. However, many people seek assistance to die out of fear, pain, ambivalence, or depression (pg 325). In other words, patients can take advantage of lenient rules governing physician-assisted suicide even when they are suffering only from treatable conditions. For instance, old people whose age renders them dependent on others may find in physician-assisted suicide a way of eliminating their interference with their childrens or caregivers lives. Rich but old parents whose children are eager to inherit wealth, the unhealthy and impoverished would be more vulnerable to pressure from their families to seek assistance to terminate their lives, even though they suffer from no degenerative or irreversible health conditions.

The scholars further point to the likelihood of health institutions, physicians, patients and their families employing physician-assisted suicide as a technique of keeping health-care costs down. Palliative care for the terminally ill can be quite expensive. Family members, governments and insurance companies have the responsibility of meeting these heavy costs even in instances where there is little possibility of the patients recovering from the diseases. There is therefore the concern that family members and public officials can find the incentive to press patients to request for assistance to terminate their lives as a cost-cutting measure. This would thus result in the termination of more lives than necessary and might leading to underinvestment in health-care.

Contrast
According to Doerflinger, the right to life is fundamental and suicide is not the ultimate exercise of freedom but its ultimate self-contradiction (pg 317). Suicide, whether assisted or otherwise, is an assault on the right to life. However, society has changed from the family-oriented family of the 19th century to the modern achievement-oriented society which views old and sickly family members as a bother. Doerflinger argues that members of this younger generation are more likely to suggest physician-assisted suicide to their sick parents. By making it clear that they are not interested in the continued living of their older dependents, the younger family can narrow the patients range of choices, leaving suicide as the best way out of their suffering. The patients are therefore under intense pressure to request for assistance to terminate their lives. But according to Watts  Howell, in physician-assisted suicide unlike euthanasia, the patient has the absolute power to make the choice of action. Restricting the physicians role in the suicide to offering the assistance requested by the patient provides that the patient or those responsible for making decisions on their behalf are free from pressure from physicians or other family members. Watts  Howell therefore argue that there is little likelihood of people abusing physician-assisted suicide to influence others to request assistance to die. Watts  Howell therefore do not see the likelihood of abuse of physician-assisted suicide to get rid of old and sickly patients under pressure from their younger family members.

The role of physicians and the impact on physicians of assisting patients to end their lives also marks a point of difference between the writers. Doerflinger argues that no member of society has the power to end anothers life, whether legally or illegally. Killing people is a taboo and rules around it should not be brought down. Physicians are bound by duty and oath to take good care of patients, not to end their lives. When a physician assists a patient to commit suicide, the taboo is assaulted and there is nothing to stop that physician from killing yet more patients. Physicians who have not done it before are likely to be more unwilling to assist in suicide but once they have participated in one such process, they are more likely to assist in more suicides. Watts  Howell, on the other hand, argue that the moral integrity of the medical profession should not be maintained at the expense of the patients welfare. Physicians struggle to palliate the symptoms of patients suffering from debilitating and degenerative even when the patients condition is irreversible and unstoppable. The long suffering and indignity which such patients go through as physicians fight to keep them alive renders the physicians effort to keep the patient alive inhumane and not acceptable (pg 326) Rather than promote the level of the patients trust in the physician, the prolonged, unnecessary suffering erodes trust in the physician, as the physicians most important goal should be the comfort of the patient (pg 326). When the patients condition is known to be incurable, the physician should be assisted to end the suffering. Offering this assistance neither erodes patients trust in physicians nor makes physicians more likely to assist more patients to commit suicide. Allowing physician to take part in suicides deemed necessary only strengthens the physicians respect for the principle of caring. Patients who are in pain must not be made to pay the price of maintaining the moral integrity of the medical profession.

Logical appraisal
Watts  Howell make the more logical argument of the authors. Watts  Howell begin by making a clear distinction between two often-confused and related issues assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia. While they are both done to terminate the lives of patients, the role of the physician and the physicians level of participation in the process vary. Physician-assisted suicide places the decision of whether to terminate their lives or not entirely on the patients or those making decisions of their behalf. While Watts  Howell maintain a clear line between euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, Doerflingers arguments treat the two as the same.

Although the central idea of their argument is that physician-assisted suicide is not wrong, Watts  Howell balance their argument by giving ample attention to the widespread opposition to their stand. For instance, they accept that allowing more space for physician-assisted suicide is likely to create some room for abuse. There should therefore be some legal and moral controls to minimize chances of abuse. By reasoning with their opponents and then arguing their point, Watts  Howell address many of the fears which drive most people to oppose physician-assisted suicide, sometimes out of ignorance and fear of the unknown.

The question on the nature of animal consciousness is a controversial one, not only moral grounds, but also on our understanding of the mental processes that animals do experience. From a biological point of view, some might contend that lower animals in particular, such as lobsters, lack the sensory nerves necessary to perceive, feel or register experiences in the same way as human beings. And if they experience pain at all, they dont experience it in the same manner as we do. He maintains that experiences are subjective, i.e. unique to the being experiencing them, and therefore a given phenomena (like the nature of a bats experiences) could not be understood comprehensively through reductionism (generalizing experiences).

Thomas Nagel holds such a view, by contemplating on what it is to be a bat. He argues that to truly understand what in essence it means to be a bat, as a real bat, is impossible (Nagel, 2004). For one, you cannot take a bats viewpoint of the world, if it has any. For instance, it is possible that a bat doesnt conceive it as odd to have an upside down posture for the bat, that is standing.upright in fact. But you and I know otherwise. David Wallace, in Consider the Lobster, argues from a similar perspective that experience is not universal to all creatures. He refers to the argument that stem from a biological understanding of body physiology, which posit that lobsters are not endowed with the same sensing mechanisms as human beings and other higher animals. He criticizes the viewpoint adopted to moralize and justify mistreatment of animals because it doesnt make any sense to them in one way or the other, whether they are mistreated or not. The notion in this case is that Lobsters lack endorphins to detect or translate pain, such that their subjective experience of pain is so radically different from mammals that it may not even deserve the term pain.  He points out an analogue that compares lobsters to those frontal-lobotomy patients, who evidently can feel physical pain, but in a totally different sense. These patients do not complain about what they feel, because although they dont like it, it is not distressing, and it is not an experience they wish to get away from.

The bearing of this observation on animal consciousness is straightforward it suggests that it is not possible to describe an accurate status of animal reasoning, if there is ever such a thing. Thomas Nagel argues that a reduction approach that aims to reach at an objective understanding of the psych of animals is doomed to fail, since unlike physical qualities, mental features are abstract and cannot be accounted for in every stage of reduction. For instance, there are no means to measure the brain capacities of say an insect, so that it can be compared against that of a human being to account for their differences of behavior. In the first place, the phenomenology of lower animals such as worms cannot be termed as a behavior in the same sense as human behavior, because there is an aspect of motive in human beings. It cannot be ascertained whether worms have any motives at all and yet motives are part of mental processes that define consciousness.

The inaccessibility of animal consciousness is further explored by the neurological fact that lower animals lack cerebral cortex that is present in human beings a part in the brain that deals with reasoning, language and self awareness. It is doubtful if animals exhibit a sense of self awareness conscious of their existence. Yet, they show an awareness of their immediate surroundings, such as when lobsters move away from light, suggesting some level of consciousness. It might be instinct (which has nothing to do with consciousness) but could also suggest knowledge of light as harmful, or how it makes them feel comfortable, perhaps from experience. This emphasizes the idea of the subjectivity of experience, in that lobsters register light in a different way from human beings, such that they find it repulsive, just as you find pungent smell and decomposing flesh disgusting, which is nonetheless aromatic to flies But a more substantial illustration is the behavior of lobsters when they are being boiled. Wallace says that David Wallace reckons that The lobster will sometimes try to cling to the containers sides or even to hook its claws over the kettles rim like a person trying to keep from going over the edge of a roofeven if you cover the kettle, you can hear the cover rattling and clanking as the lobster tries to push it off, claws scraping the sides of the kettle as it thrashes around (Wallace, 2007). The lobster, he concludes, behaves in the same way as a human being would if he was tossed into a tank of boiling water, only that it they cant scream perhaps they do but we miss it.

The antics of a burning lobster, Wallace concludes, could be their way of expressing their feelings, of expressing preference may be that they dont like what they are being subjected to, and would prefer a different environment- the way they express this preference by moving into dark places and away from light. The fact that we cant reason together is not reason enough to conclude that they dont reason at all. There reasoning, it is possible, is at a level inaccessible to the human mind.

I see it this way when you leave a toddler with a puppy pet, he would chuckle and clap when the puppy performs some antics which the toddler finds amusing, while the puppy is encouraged to perform more. Isnt it reasonable to argue that at that age, the toddler has the toddler-capacity to reason with a puppy In fact, if he hits it, the puppy would consider this act unfriendly and walk away. As an adult, however, you cannot reason with a puppy by the mere act of teasing in your mind it is a game, but from the puppy viewpoint that is how it can reason with a human being. Likewise, perhaps they try to reason with us when they are subjected to pain, only that we cant understand their means of expression. It is like when you chop certain kinds of worms into pieces, and the worm-lings continue to wriggle about as if nothing has happened to them. But you expect a human being to jump and throw and scream. Such a comparative neuro-anatomy to determine the nature of animal consciousness is over-stretching the scales of proportion. Wallace says that pain is a totally subjective mental experience, we do not have direct access to anyone or anythings pain but our own and even just the principles by which we can infer that others experience pain and have a legitimate interest in not feeling pain involve hard-core philosophymetaphysics, epistemology, value theory, ethics (Wallace 2007). A worms behavior, whatever the circumstance, doesnt make even an ounce of sense to us all we know is that they meander and wriggle without showing any sense of direction at all.

However, unlike David Wallace who takes a purely analogous and neuro-anatomical approach to explain the distinctness of animal consciousness, Thomas Nagels argument to the complexities of such attempts is rather philosophical. He posits that even if we experienced what a bat experiences have our feet tied to the roof in an attic so that we stare downwards in the darkness as bats do, pad our limps with animal hides to make them appear webbed, be blindfolded and sense our way by means of some electronic sensors- we are still experiencing a zillionth of a bats world. On the contrary, we are only trying to behave like a bat, but not experiencing whatever it is that bats experience while hanging downwards in dark corners and catching insects at night with their mouths.

Furthermore, there are many bat-experiences that we can never imitate, like giving birth upside down Regardless, even if we manage to stage a bat-birth in a dark attic with the delivery path (what can one say) pointed skywards, it is just an imitation that gives no insight into the real experience of a bats life. It becomes extremely futile when we attempt to imagine how a bat feels to be a bat. Nagels argument is centered on the idea that an experience makes sense to the subject in relation to how that subject registers and interprets that particular experience. Accordingly, what a bat experiences is truly known only to a bat and not any other being. Even among human beings, asking a person How was the movie and getting the response Fabulous, fantastic or thrilling does not help much in assessing the way the persons experience in watching the movie. To that person, fabulous could mean beautiful actors instead of an interesting plot, and thrilling mean to a full-packed action rather than -as you may imagine, comical and humorous scenes. In this consideration, understanding animal consciousness takes more than a reduction approach that equates our own experiences with what we expect or imagine animals to experience in similar situations.

This approach, Nagel argues, stems from the quest to understand incomprehensible and abstract subjects from what we already know or could comprehend. However, the incomprehensible concept cannot be completely known by way of substitution, imagination and speculation. The common belief that the state of the body reflects the state of the mind is questioned, since understanding an animals anatomy does not in itself explain its mental status.  Similarly, we cannot gain any insight by speculating or equating by analogy the implications of animal behavior. For instance, we cannot say that bees are disturbed by smoke due to allergic reactions or irritation, simply because smoke irritates and is allergic to some people. Response to stimuli alone is not a window to consciousness. The way animals react and respond to external stimuli, accordingly, does not reflect a certain kind of mental processes simply because we know certain stimuli to elicit certain responses.

The central question all these observations by David Wallace and Thomas Nagel lead to is whether animals have a conscience at all. Do they reason or have a mind that directs their behavior Is a wriggling worm after it has been cut protesting for injury suffered or a conditioned instinct What could we say of Nagels argument regarding the nature of a bat Can we define its conscience with certainty based on reductionism

The answer to these questions is the same, though arrived at from different perspectives. The analogy by Wallace reveals the distinctness of each creature such that any other creature, including man, could not explain the mental processes that determine behavior. He gives an illustration by comparing a frog and a lobster, in which case a frog does not react when it is placed in salty water and then heated slowly, becomes its body adapts to gradual temperature changes. A lobster, on the other hand, is affected by rising temperatures. It is at this point that a philosophical reasoning leaves us in a dilemma a demonstration that subjectivity of experience limits us from making any objective claim on the consciousness of animals. First, it could be that a frog decides to assume the whole issue because it can tolerate it- the way you can withstand rain in absence of shelter, though it makes you feel cold and uncomfortable. You can protest of course, but since it doesnt make any difference, you let it pass.

Likewise, the frog, after considering the situation, realizes that croaking wont make any difference. The lobster, on its part, realizes that somebody has put it where it doesnt want to be, and is aware that it might burn if nothing is done. Accordingly, it raises hell by banging and knocking at the container- the way you will bang at the door for somebody to open for you, if you are outside and it is raining frogs and lobsters, if you see what I mean. You see, then, that both the frog and lobster have a conscience.

Or perhaps they have none at all The frog is not aware of what is going on, since its body is physiologically adapted to temperature changes. Staying calm is therefore not a decision, but due to the fact that heat as an external stimuli does not affect frogs. The lobsters body, on the other hand, has heat sensors that stimulate an automatic reaction (by instinct) to high temperatures, just as you would jump if you stepped on a hot object.

Whatever, as far as animal consciousness is concerned, we cant state with certainty what it is to be an animal, because only animals know what it is to be an animal. Just consider the lobster