Author: rhettdawson

Capstone

Posted on by rhettdawson

Capstone Senior Design Project (In Progress)

For my capstone project I am working with a team of mechanical engineers to create a system that measures the angle between the center of gravity of a motorcycle rider and the Bike’s center plane as seen below: 

Method #1: Skeleton Tracking Using Openpose Neural Network

To find the center of mass throughout a race the rider’s body position must be tracked. My first attempt at this was using a skeleton tracking program cloned off of Github. The example below is a graphic I developed using this program. 

This method doesn’t require any extra clothing for the rider but it could only generate 0.2 frames per second and was only accurate about half the time. 

Method #2: Tracking Aruco Markers using OpenCV

This method tracks body position using aruco markers and the OpenCV library. See example below:  

After finding these tags the program writes location data to a CSV file:

These values will be used to calculate the location of the riders center mass. In the next pictures you can see the pros and cons of each method considered in my proposal presentation.  The pictures used were taken from my phone. 

Cold-Spray

Posted on by rhettdawson

Cold-Spray Research Experience

My first experience with professional engineers was on the team of two material science PhDs and leading experts in the cold-spray field. I spent two years studying the process and building fixtures to manipulate the particle stream. In this post I will describe the questions we faced and my solutions. 

The Constraints

The experiments were begun by programming a 6-axis robot arm to control the nozzle. A metallic powder was sprayed from nozzle at speeds over 1,000 ft/s and temperatures near 800 F which meant that human intervention was permitted during the experiment. 

Question #1: How does the spray deposit on rotating objects?

We wanted to see how a surface that was changing orientation and location would receive the cold spray particles. The fixture should demonstrate how cold-spray could be used on a driveshaft or projectile while maintaining convenience of experimentation. We also wanted to see how this would change as more particles bond to the surface and create a top layer. To test this I designed the following fixture that could be attached to a simple motor. 

This fixture mimics the shape and movement of a solid shaft but contains over 100 individual samples across six sections that can be tested and analyzed Separately. In the video below an experiment is run using this fixture. 

Question #2: What percentage of particles successfully bond to the substrate?

Using this simulation developed in SolidWorks FEM we could estimate how many particles are released in a given time. I then designed a fixture to control the time that the substrate was exposed.  The fixture used a slotted disk on a shaft attached to a torsion spring. An drawing of this fixture is attached below. 

Why I Love Automation

Posted on by rhettdawson
 

I firmly believe that the next great milestone for humanity is a wave of automation creating an abundance of necessary goods. Automation of agriculture, supply chain, and retail is the next step in our industrial revolution. This includes farms, trucks, warehouses, and essential stores (grocery, hardware, clothing). In this blog post I will outline the ethical obligation in play as well as the potential hazards of this movement. 

The ethical reason to increase automation comes down to access to the most important things. Access to food, housing, and transportation. We currently have subpar systems in place to make sure everyone has access to these. The ‘cost’ of needing these systems is very high. The bus takes twice as long as an Uber, Section 8 housing is low quality and often dangerous, and food stamps don’t provide access to fresh produce. Access to these goods could be ubiquitous and equal for all people. 2.2 million people in America don’t have a car and live over a mile from a grocery store (US department of agriculture). These people buy food from corner stores and dollar general, which brings on another set of issues. Installing autonomous indoor farms in these areas would change peoples lives drastically. Also consider self driving Ubers and autonomous construction. Automation would drive the price of essential goods close to zero. The long term effects of everyone having a nice place to live, high quality food, and the ability to get around can’t be quantified. People’s quality of life would increase immediately. While this starts in a country like America the effects would eventually be global. Automation is an obligation because of the positive effect it would have on billions of people. 

It’s interesting that with the current state of technology we have not seen more of a movement towards automating the process I mentioned before. We have the capabilities, self-driving cars, automated vertical farms, and autonomous warehouses. The implementation of has environmental and social risks. Environmentally, overproduction of goods is wasteful. Socially, people may become ostracized by society if they are no longer useful as employees. I am less concerned about the environmental risks because waste is an inevitable byproduct of production. If we hope to increase quality of life on a large scale, production and therefore waste must increase. The potential to alienate people who used to work is a more sinister risk. Careful steps must be taken to transition people into their post-work life and make them comfortable with it. I am not writing this paper to suggest public policies on the matter, but to argue that framework exists where this is successful. There would need to be opportunities to volunteer, participate in amature sports, or other fulfilling activities. I believe it is possible for people to be satisfied in life without earning a wage. 

I have explained my affinity for automating processes most essential to society. We are obligated to do so because of the impact it would have and because we can. So long as the structure is in place to support people with obsolete careers this transition would be the best thing since the industrial revolution. 

Rolls-Royce

Posted on by rhettdawson

My Experience with Rolls Royce

During my six months with Rolls-Royce I was an assistant engineer in the aftermarket services team. We managed maintenance and overhauls of propulsion systems for the US Navy. I gained valuable experience in MATLAB and Ansys stress analysis and PTC Creo graphic design while working on these projects. I also organized our purchasing lists using SAP enterprise software.      

LCS Waterjet Overhaul

The picture above is of the LCS water-jet propulsion, a boat known for speed,  agility, and limited range. The average Rolls-Royce propulsion system lasts 5-10 years before needing a full overhaul and these water-jets began manufacturing 4 years before I was brought on. My responsibility on this team was identifying the parts that would need complete replacement. I organized and ran replacement analysis on over 1000 parts in this system. The scripts that I worked with are proprietary but most of the parts that needed replacing were rubber seals, bolts, and impellers. 

Technical Manual Graphic Design

Another team I contributed was writing technical manuals used by Naval engineers and technicians. My responsibility was creating graphics for each section of the manual. I used PTC Creo to create cross-sections or exploded views that complemented the instructions. 

Expansion Planning

With the pipeline of incoming overhauls, my team realized that there was not enough shop space to keep up with the work. I figured out how much space and what equipment was needed for an overhaul and how many we would be doing at one time over the next five years. I used this to determine how much more shop space was needed. 

 

MWH

Posted on by rhettdawson

My Experience with MWH Constructors

MWH Constructors is one of the leading general contractors in industrial water & wastewater construction in the US and UK. With them I commissioned a 75 MGD micro-filtration system and a thermal hydrolysis process addition to a 150 MGD plant.  I regularly used P&IDs and Manuals to start up autonomous industrial systems built around PLCs and SCADA.

Safety was always a priority on the job sites. I completed the OSHA 10 hour safety course and wrote many job hazard analysis.

Pall Water Micro-filtration Spokane WA

On this project I completed a factory acceptance checklist with the Plant SCADA manager and a field engineer from Pall Water. Over four months we signed off over 5000 items in the categories functionality, graphics, and alarms. During this commissioning I was the sole representative of the general contractor, giving me the responsibility of coordinating repairs when problems arose. Examples are included later in this post. 

THP Solids Handling Upgrade Dallas TX

In Texas on worked on a team commissioning gravity belts, centrifuges, boilers, and many other pieces of equipment used in wastewater solids handling. during my two months on this site our main goal was to complete site acceptance tests (SATs) for the five gravity belts we had just constructed. I worked with the CDM smith design engineer and the plant inspectors to run the gravity belts for seven days without interruption. This involved overseeing operators and troubleshooting the gravity belts when problems arose. 

Leaky Diaphragm Pumps

I discovered leaks on diaphragm pumps that provided chemicals to larger  chemical batch tanks. There were leaks in multiple locations. The first thing I did was secure the area with “danger” tape because citric acid was one of the chemicals leaking. I then contacted a pipe-fitter to examine the pumps and tighten any loose connections. When there was still leaking I talked to my manager and we ordered a rebuild kit from the pump manufacturer. Using proper PPE and a technical manual I worked with the pipe fitter again to install the rebuild kits. This fixed the leaks. 

Swapped Chemical Lines

One of these chemical tanks was not filling up when we turned on the feeding pump and opened the necessary valves. I first checked that the pump was running and the valves were open. Then I checked the level transmitter on the tank to see if it was really not filling. After this I traced the line from the pump to the tank and found that a different tank was being filled. I corrected this by swapping the air lines on two pneumatic valves near the outlet of the pump. 

Tanks Overflowing Foam

When testing a cleaning sequence I smelled a strong chlorine scent and found chlorine foam. The foam was contained in a basin so the area was easy to contain with “caution” tape. I spent the next month collecting data on the situation. This included which tank, time of day, time since last clean, what was being cleaned, and how much foam was created. I worked with my manager to submit an RFI on the topic and many theories were fleshed out. With this data we learned that if the filters were cleaned at least once per week they would not create foam. This was within the expectations for the system. 

Alarm Latching

Of all the problems we encountered in SCADA the alarm latching ws the most significant. After an alarm was triggered and the alarm state was removed, the alarm would not stay latched and would fully clear as if the alarm had never happened. I worked with the vendors programmers to fix this issue for hundreds of alarms over the course of a few weeks. 

Summary

I had the opportunity to get hands on experience with the hardware that is used by many automated industrial systems. I learned that I enjoy being on site working with tangible problems. 

A Disagreement with Milton Friedman on Inheritance

Posted on by rhettdawson

Milton Friedman argues against the redistribution of wealth in his passage. He uses the example of finding money on the street to show why someone should not have to share money that they randomly gained. I disagree that the randomness in birth should be his justification for inheritance. Before explaining why I disagree, I will outline Friedman’s entire argument. 

            His first idea is that people should not be required to give up their belongings, an idea that we are accustomed to. No matter the circumstances, we are all entitled to the things we own. It could be money, property, or material possessions. People should not join forces to coerce someone into giving up their belongings, even if it is for the greater good. Friedman’s second premise is that something is your belonging if it is acquired justly. For instance, when we buy something, we are acknowledging the idea that anything can be ours if we go about getting it in a just manner. The third premise is the justification of a completely random acquisition. The two examples Friedman uses are becoming marooned on a plentiful island and finding a twenty dollar bill in the street. He argues that both of these are random acquisitions, and that the owner has no obligation to share them. The last premise of his argument is that inheritance is random because birth is random. Friedman uses his examples to recreate inheritance in a simpler way. This makes the previous arguments relevant. The fact that inheritance is a product of chance, makes it a justified acquisition. This premise leads directly into the conclusion. Milton Friedman’s overarching point is that each person’s inheritance should not be redistributed in order to even it out with everyone else’s. People randomly have different starting points in life, and that is ok.

            I disagree with Friedman’s statement that a random process of getting something is a just process. Friedman underestimates the meaning of random, and tries to analogize partly random scenarios with a completely random process. Finding a dollar bill on the street is not random, and it’s impossible to ignore the slight feeling of deserving of this dollar. I would think to myself “I was paying very close attention to the ground and I noticed it before anyone else did, so I deserve this dollar.” Even if I were stranded in the ocean, I could choose which direction to swim, thereby affecting which island I become marooned on. The lottery of birth is one that nobody consents to nor has any control over.

            To more clearly illustrate the problem with Friedman’s belief, I have an example. First, I would like to establish that living the same life from different starting points will almost always result in different ending points. A hardworking person born into poverty will have a very different life than a hardworking person born into wealth. Now, imagine if the “lottery” of birth did not take place at birth. Instead, have everyone be rounded up at the age of eighteen to receive their life’s random starting point. Would it make sense to give a few people a fortune while leaving another group of people with nothing? I assume people would argue to give everyone the same starting point. If you were in that room, what would you want for yourself? When given a voice and an option, the people in the lottery would choose to have equal starting points.

            A more relatable example is the Northeastern housing lottery. The system randomly assigns an order for students to select housing for the next year. Say I received one of the best lottery numbers possible. Friedman would see it as justified if I were to make demands to the other people in my housing group. I could force them to pay for my share of the rent because they need my lucky number. The lottery number was randomly assigned to me, so according to Friedman, I should be able to leverage it. I doubt anyone would feel justified doing this. This is applicable since none of us consented to this random process, similar to how children have no choice in the system of birth. We are bound by contract to live on campus and have no input in the process.

              Unlike my example, those who agree with Friedman would compare inheritance to genetics, another random lottery that people also do not consent to. They could pose the question “if randomness is an unfair method of inheritance, should we start scientifically leveling the playing field in genetics as well?”  The reason I can accept the “lottery” of genetics and not the lottery of inheritance is a simple one: our differences ultimately benefit society as a whole. We need bright individuals to lead companies and we need athletic or artistic individuals to entertain us. Randomness is the best way to select who gets what genes. As long as all genes are present, and everyone has randomly selected talents, we do not need inheritance at birth to randomly select rich people.

 If Friedman were to say that wealthy people can give their money to whomever they want, his argument would make sense. But a complete lottery is a terrible way to separate people’s wealth. Not all people born into wealth inherit said wealth, this is because they do not always deserve it.

 

 

 

 

A Rebuttal to John Rawls’ Difference Principle

Posted on by rhettdawson


            In this paper I will present one argument John Rawls makes in support of his difference principle and provide an objection to it. The difference principle is Rawls’s theory that any inequalities within a society should only exist if they benefit the people in the worst position in society. Rawls proposes that people should not be given the probabilities of their potential societal positions. The framework of this argument is given by the original position, which will also be discussed in this paper.

            The original position is what leads Rawls to conclude that society must be built around benefiting the people on the bottom of the society. When discussing policy, the only way for a person to remove bias and selfishness is to ignore their own characteristics. The person must ignore their natural abilities, race, wealth, class, and general social status. It must be assumed that they could take form with any combination of these different factors. They also must assume complete self interest, only caring about their position in this society. If everyone were to do this, societal decisions would all be unanimous because everyone would be in the same position trying to accomplish the same thing. The key component to this original position is that the person does not know the likelihood of having one characteristic over another, or being in one societal position as opposed to another. This specification by Rawls about the lack of knowledge of probability is the key component to justifying the difference principle.

            Rawls states that not knowing the probability of where anyone would end up would lead everyone to make decisions ultimately raising the lowest possible position. Rawls argues this would happen because the risk of being at this lowest possible position is entirely unknown. 

            This unknown probability is important to Rawls’ argument because from the original position, a person’s position in society is completely based on luck. This implies that nobody is rightfully deserving of their position in society, therefore we should be focused on assuaging the pain of the people with the worst luck. Given the wide range of other unknowns included in Rawls’ veil of ignorance, he thought it made sense to include the probabilities in this.

            I fully agree that when placed into the original position given by Rawls, people would unanimously agree to work to improve the worst situation possible. The problem I have is with the original position itself, and the decision to include likelihood as an unknown. If people were to be aware of the likelihood of being in each position of the society they create, decisions would still be unanimous, but people would not strive to improve the worst situation. This is because it is easy to predict one’s likely position in society with a simple calculation. The success of many should not be sacrificed to preserve the welfare of few.

            The reason it is important to know the probabilities of each possible outcome is because the correlation between certain personal attributes and societal position is relevant. To have unknown probabilities of being intelligent or successful is to have no knowledge of the correlation between the two. If there is no correlation between them, there is no incentive for people to improve their intelligence or any other ability. By proposing to ignore the correlation, Rawls is asserting that the correlation does not matter; since people’s positions are entirely based on luck, there is nothing one can decide to do to improve his position. If Rawls were to acknowledge that people could have some control over their future success, he would be implying the possibility for an improved position in society. The choices would be incentivized by a universal understanding of the correlation between choices and position. For this correlation to exist, probabilities would have to be known, or at least partly known, in the original position. 

            To prove that the difference principle would not be satisfied if these probabilities were known I will use the following example. Ten equal people are collected and told that nine of them will be randomly selected to win a million dollars. The tenth person, however, will be assigned to give up one dollar and receive no money for themselves. This offer would be accepted unanimously by the ten people, despite the position of one person being made worse off. All the people in this scenario will on average make nine hundred thousand dollars, which would lead them to unanimously agree to the circumstances. If the people did not know the chances of one possibility over another, they could not reasonably accept this offer.

            People would still make decisions unanimously if the likelihood of being in each position were known. The likelihood of being in each position would be the same for everyone. Everyone would still be in the same situation with the one goal of giving themselves the best possible outcome. Now, however, people would build society to have the best average position rather than the best lowest position. This removes the difference principle from Rawls’s theory.

           

Aristotle and Studying as the Best Activity

Posted on by rhettdawson

            The main argument in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is that the best life is one filled with studying. In book one, Aristotle gives a convincing argument for why happiness is the best good and begins working toward what activity best achieves happiness. In book ten, studying is determined to be the best activity. Aristotle presents a different argument in book ten for what entails the best life, specifically on his definition of self-sufficiency. This argument is less convincing and makes the conclusion about studying questionable. In this paper I will cross examine the two arguments and attempt to apply the argument in book one to the claim that complete happiness is studying (Aristotle 1177a).

            Happiness is the best good in life because if we have happiness there is nothing else we would need or want to live the best life. Happiness is the best good because it is the most complete and self-sufficient. The component of this argument I will focus on is how aristotle defines self-sufficient. This definition is given as,  “we regard something as self-sufficient when all by itself it makes a life choiceworthy and lacking nothing” (Aristotle 1097b). The keywords in this quote are “lacking nothing”. This is explained further by saying that there is nothing we can add to happiness that would make it more choiceworthy (Aristotle 1097b). The implications of this are significant because the meaning changes over the course of the book.

 An instrumental good is a necessary prerequisite for happiness. For example, friendship might be an instrumental good for happiness if you need friendships to be happy in the first place. Aristotle is saying that if you have enough friends, or enough of any other instrumental good to be happy, more would not make a difference in your quality of life. This also implies a binary interpretation of happiness, where having it is the end all be all.

            This is easy to agree with because most everything we do seems to be in the pursuit of happiness. It also makes sense that the best good would complete and self-sufficient. If we ever choose one thing for the sake of a second thing else, the second thing is better. There is nothing that we choose happiness for the sake of but there are many things that we choose for the sake of happiness.

            Aristotle transitions at this point to finding the best activity to achieve happiness. This is to exercise the best virtue and the best virtue is one that best exercises the human function of rational thought. The discussion while selecting the best virtue is important because the question of instrumental goods arises again. Wisdom is the fullest expression of our ability for rational thought, which makes it the best virtue. Aristotle defines wisdom like this, “Wisdom is the scientific knowledge and understanding about the things that are by nature most honorable” (Aristotle 1141b).

            The next transition is to argue that studying exercises the best virtue and therefore happiness is the activity of study. The quote is: “Complete happiness will be its activity in accord with its proper virtue, and we have said that this activity is the activity of study” (Aristotle 1177a). To restate the arguments that led us here: Happiness is the best good, exercising the human function is how we achieve happiness, acquiring wisdom best exercises the function, studying is the best way to acquire wisdom. If we believe complete happiness is the activity of study, we must also believe studying meets the same self-sufficiency requirements as happiness.

            The problem with Aristotle’s argument is that a new interpretation of “self-sufficient” is described in book ten.  Studying is said to be the most self-sufficient rather than fully self-sufficient (Aristotle 1177a). There is another difference from the claim about happiness “lacking nothing”. Aristotle Writes “The wise person is able… to study even by himself; and though he presumably does it better with colleagues, even so he is more self-sufficient than any other virtuous person” (Aristotle 1177a). The implication here is that the wise person can study by himself but if he adds colleagues studying is more choiceworthy. This disagrees with the initial statement that nothing can be added to happiness to make it more choiceworthy. Book ten sticks with this less strict self-sufficiency requirement for study when it is later claimed that even happiness needs external prosperity. We need health, food, and other services. Aristotle claims that no one can be happy without external goods (1179a). The argument for happiness in book ten is less precise and therefore less profound. Self-sufficient in book ten means desirable on its own and requiring the least external goods and studying fits this definition. These are bad reasons to believe that studying truly is the best activity. It sounds like studying is merely the easiest activity. The rest of this paper will scrutinize wisdom and studying through the prism of the argument in book one.

            This scrutinization will check to see if any step fails to meet the initial requirements that made happiness the best good. If a step fails, for example if there is something apart from wisdom that we need to achieve happiness, then happiness cannot be the activity of studying.

            In this section I will consider whether or not wisdom is self-sufficient in the same sense happiness was in book one. If we have wisdom, are we lacking nothing for our pursuit of happiness? In the beginning of book six Aristotle states that virtue is an intermediate condition or a mean. He says “Virtue, then… consisting in a mean… defined by reference to reason..  by reference to which the prudent person would define it”. In this quote it seems that prudence is a virtue instrumental in acquiring other virtues, namely wisdom. This does not say that prudence could make wisdom any more choiceworthy. It says if wisdom is not consisting in a mean defined by the prudent person then it is not a virtue at all. This follows with the book one definition for self-sufficient. If someone has the virtue of wisdom they must also have prudence. Aristotle makes the analogy to health and medical science, where wisdom is health and prudence is medical science. Medical science does not use health but only aims to bring it into being. It also follows that wisdom is the superior virtue because prudence can be for the sake of wisdom.

There is a close relationship between prudence and wisdom. Wisdom is not concerned with anything concrete while prudence is. Prudence is the science what is just, fine, and good for a human being but only the science. Prudence does nothing to make us act on this science (Aristotle 1143b). Prudence tells us how to achieve the right goals and character virtue gives us the motivation to go about achieving them. This means that virtues of character and prudence are instrumental in each other and therefore both instrumental in wisdom.

It is still unclear whether or not wisdom is truly lacking nothing. Although Aristotle gives a convincing argument that it is the best virtue but there could be other virtues or goods necessary to achieving happiness. In book two aristotle claims there are two sorts of virtue, virtue of thought and virtue of character. Although it is not explicitly stated, virtue of character seems to be instrumental to happiness.  I am inferring this from the following statements from chapter thirteen of book one. Aristotle claims that happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance with complete virtue and then he separates the soul into a rational and non rational parts (Aristotle 1102a). Virtues of thought are in accordance with the rational soul and virtues of character are in accordance with the non rational soul. Wisdom is also stated to be a virtue of thought, and therefore in accordance with the rational soul (Aristotle 1103a).

 Given this distinction it is reckless to assume that wisdom is self-sufficient to the point that the non-rational part of the soul can be ignored. It should be asked whether or not virtues of character are instrumental to wisdom. Given what Aristotle has said about prudence, virtues of character are instrumental to wisdom.

Another way to test this is to imagine a life full of the best wisdom and see if it’s possible for this to be a bad life. A life full of happiness could never be a bad life according to aristotle. A life full of wisdom would consist of scientific knowledge and understanding about honorable things. If we have wisdom, we must also have prudence, and all the other virtues instrumental to wisdom. Having virtues of thought means we would use proper reasoning to decide the best action. Having virtues of character mean that we will act on this decision correctly (Aristotle 1139a). It is impossible that someone with wisdom have a bad life according to aristotle because they would always complete the best action.

Now that wisdom is confirmed as self-sufficient for happiness is is safe to make the next step. In book ten the claim is that happiness is studying because it is the activity in accord with wisdom. Instead if this claim I will scrutinize the following claim: “happiness is studying because it is the activity that best exercises wisdom” using the self-sufficiency standard set in book one. Studying and its instrumental goods must be enough on their own to acquire wisdom and therefore happiness.

The argument in book ten is about how few external goods studying requires. Outside of food, health and other basic needs, nothing is said to be instrumental in studying. Studying is said to be the activity in accord with understanding. Aristotle says in this book that understanding is the best virtue (Aristotle 1177a) even though he clearly states that wisdom is the best virtue previously. There is no explanation for this shift so I will treat it as though they are synonyms even though Aristotle distinguishes between them in book six.

Aristotle says in book ten that studying is leisurely, desirable because of itself alone, in accordance with understanding, continuous (unlike actions), and needs very little external goods. These descriptors imply a sort of stationary study with only pens, paper, books, and thoughts. Active studying such as sport and geographical exploration are not continuous. Scientific experiments often require many external goods. The descriptors Aristotle uses make it difficult to picture a life of exclusively studying where wisdom is achieved. It feels harsh to hold studying to the descriptors but there is nothing else to go off of. Any activity where understanding is gained could be considered studying including eating, fighting, chopping wood, farming… etc. Studying must be narrowed down somehow otherwise the conclusion would be that the best activity could be any activity which is not productive. My interpretation is the traditional type of studying at a desk reading, thinking, and taking notes.

Even with the best studying, much more will be needed to acquire wisdom. A key component of wisdom comes from experience. The example I will use is parenting. How to raise good children is certainly scientific knowledge of the most honorable type. It is impossible to know and understand parenting without actually raising a child. Raising a child is not leisurely, requires many external goods, is not continuous, and is enjoyable for the sake of the child’s success. This does fit within Aristotle’s image of studying.

It is also easy to picture a life full of the best studying that is a bad life. Imagine a selfish scientist discovering the cure to cancer while studying. After discovering it they simply set it aside and continue studying, telling no one. If studying is truly self-sufficient the scientist is still living the best life. There is nothing instrumental to studying that would make the scientist share her discoveries. This scientist is clearly lacking prudence, character virtue, and wisdom. I hope it is clear that studying is not self-sufficient for happiness.

Aristotle concedes that other virtues are required with the life of studying. He writes “insofar as he is a human being… he chooses to do the action in accordance with virtue. Hence he will need the sort of external goods [that are needed for the virtues], for living a human life” (Aristotle 1178b). Aristotle changed the self-sufficiency requirement because he has to.

What is discovered about wisdom in Nicomachean Ethics is profound but the roadmap to achieving it is underdeveloped. The claim that “happiness is the activity of study” is not proven in this book because happiness is not attainable by studying alone. The extent of the argument in this book is that happiness is the state of having and exercising wisdom through any activity.

 

           

 

           

           

 

 

           

 

 

A Defense of Moral Realism from Evolution

Posted on by rhettdawson

Evolution can be used to make a strong argument against the existence of moral truths. The main premises of this argument are that our beliefs are heavily influenced by evolution which has no reason to influence our beliefs toward the truth. A moral realist must either deny the influence of evolution or explain the relationship between the influence and independent truths. In this paper I will argue that while the relationship is small and coincidental we can use one coincidence to unlock the rest of the independent moral truths. Rational reflection is not as contaminated by evolution as the antirealist believes.  The paper I will be using to represent the antirealist argument is Sharon Street’s “A Darwinian Dilemma for Realist Theories of Value”.

The claim about evolutionary influence on our beliefs and evaluations is strong. In our current state of science evolution is widely accepted to be the explanation for almost everything related to living things. There is no reason our thoughts on what is moral or not would be any different, on this front I agree with Street.

Part of Street’s point about the extent of the influence evolution has on our beliefs is that there is no escape to it. She acknowledges that we can use rational reflection to steer our beliefs by comparing to other beliefs but believes this is futile in finding any real truths. If everything is contaminated by evolution then we have no “tools” to use to escape this contamination. If we can find even one uncontaminated truth we can use it rationally to steer our judgements in that direction. Can we find this one independent, uncontaminated truth?

Street herself denies that the coincidence could give us many truths but she acknowledges that it occasionally happens. “Every now and then, Darwinian pressures might have happened to push us toward accepting an evaluative judgement that accords with one of the realist’s independent evaluative truths”(Street 112).  So even if there is no relation, we must have stumbled upon a few independent evaluative truths. It might be infrequent, but there is a good chance we have evolved to believe some independent truths.

There might be some overlap but we must identify it.  Street argues against what she believes to be the most plausible overlap that pain is bad. It is easy to see how we would evolve to believe this. Pain is an indication that something is wrong with us physically and will hurt our chances at surviving and reproducing. Her point is this  “And once again the realist is unable to give any good account of this coincidence. To insist that the coincidence is mere coincidence is implausible” (Street 151).

There may not be a good explanation for this coincidence but there is also no good explanation of why there is no coincidence. Most people do not have blonde hair. There is no good account to why one randomly selected person would have blonde hair but if you randomly select a person they might have blonde hair. In the same way if you can look at a belief we received through evolution it might be an independent truth. A coincidence being unlikely is not a good reason to believe it is not a coincidence. Pain being bad is an example of such a coincidence.

 I have argued that some evaluative truths exist and are identifiable, now I will show how we can use these to discover the rest of the evaluative truths. The thrust of my argument comes from extrapolation. The idea is that If we can find a few independent truths we can use those to find the rest of them. These would have to be independent truths coincidentally imparted on us by evolution because I do believe with Street’s claim that evolution has no reason to track the truths.

Using the previously identified truth, pain is bad, we can discern that actions that only cause pain are bad. We could also discern that the opposite of pain is good, so pleasure is good. Then we could develop this to say that any action that causes more pain than pleasure is bad. Already a primitive groundwork of independent truths is being laid. In this paragraph I have used rational reflection to expand one moral truth into many.

Street assumes that rational reflection is fully contaminated by evolution because there is not one belief we could point to that is uncontaminated. However, street cannot provide a good reason to believe that there is no identifiable overlap between the independent truths and our evolution.  If we can find one independent truth, we can evaluate other beliefs against it to find more independent truths, ultimately discovering all of them. This is how rational reflection can be used to find independent truths from only what nature has given us.

 

 

 

Might All Normativity be Queer?

Posted on by rhettdawson

In Bedke’s paper Might All Normativity be Queer he applies Mackie’s “argument from queerness” to more than the mere categorical imperative’s that Mackie applies them to. Bedke begins by giving his interpretation of Mackie’s objection because it is crucial to understanding his extension of it.  The queerness objection is that if there were objective moral values they would have completely different properties than anything else in the universe. Further, discovering these objective values would require us to drastically change our perception of the universe. If our lives are sufficient with a simpler understanding of morality, it is better to stick with that.

            To show that all reasons and values are also queer, it is necessary to understand what it is about moral imperatives that make them queer. The Moral Realist believes that objective values are independent of the people that must follow them. In any situation, there is a moral fact that favours a particular action and disfavours another one. Bedke writes that the queerness comes from an inability to describe what the moral fact is and how it favours certain actions.

            Philosophers that reject objective moralities on queerness tend to accept subjective, or hypothetical moralities because it is more believable to think that someone will act to advance their ends. It is easy to see a subjective morality only existing inside one person’s head so it is not intuitive to ask the same questions they ask about objective moralities.

Bedke uses one person with conflicting values to show that the reason we do something is still separate from us even if we are furthering our own goals. One reason favours an action while the second reason favours a different action. If there can be competing reasons for one person to act in different ways then these reasons are at least partially independent from that person. If reasons were only dependent on the person and their circumstances, then that person would only have reason to do one thing. If the reason is independent from the person the same queerness arises. What kind of entity is that reason and what would it mean to discover it?

Although I am skeptical the entire queerness objection I will only question Bedke’s extension of it assuming the original objection true. My suspicion stems from the belief that it is the universality of objective values that makes them queer. Something that is always existing everywhere is more queer to me than something that exists for brief moments in specific spots although both are indescribable.

I do not think the reasons I used a year ago are lingering somewhere, decaying. If reasons exist they could poof in and out of existence without anyone noticing unlike objective moral laws. Bedke could argue that this is an insignificant distinction because I still could not describe what those reasons are. I would contend that the entire argument from queerness is dependent on a subjective opinion about how queer something is. I see that reasons are slightly queer, but they’re not so queer that I would abandon them as soon as I abandon objective morality.