Philosophy Papers, Rhett Dawson

Welcome to my philosophy blog! Here you can find some of my favorite papers from my time studying at Northeastern as well as papers I have written for my own enjoyment. Philosophy has improved my analytical and writing skills as well as allowed me to grow as an engineer and person. It encourages me to consider every possible perspective.

Abstract: This post outlines my motivation to contribute to the implementation and development of automation technologies. There is an opportunity to lower the cost of essential goods and spare people from tedious jobs. There are also potential negative side effects when replacing jobs with automation.

Abstract: Gregor Betz makes an argument that we should begin R&D into geoengineering technology immediately so that we have the option to use it if needed. My paper discusses the drawbacks of this and the reasons we should wait as long as possible to develop this technology.

Human enhancements with technology could allow us to live thousands of years or become super-intelligent. The question I hope to answer in this article is whether or not we can remain ourselves after such enhancements.

Abstract: A common and effective objection to moral realism is the fact that all of our thoughts and feelings can be explained by evolution. We avoid pain, form friendships, and find love all to preserve our genes as Charles darwin describes with his idea of Natural Selection. Evolution has no reason to push us toward moral truths, only survival. How can we find moral truths with our minds being so consumed by the desire to survive and reproduce? In this article I argue that with one moral truth given to us by evolution we can unlock others, this moral truth is the badness of pain.

Abstract: Bedke argues that all normative truths like “you should not steal” are equally strange to moral truths. The point being that if either type of truth ‘exists’ they would have different properties from anything else in the universe. In this article I distinguish moral and normative truths by pointing out that moral truths are objective while normative truths are not. Something like “you should not steal” is no longer true if your family is on the brink of starvation. The objectivity of moral truths makes them always present and favoring certain actions. The constant presence of an objective truth makes it significantly more strange than a normative truth.

Abstract: This paper attempts to describe and form an objection to Kant’s primary moral theory that we should always act ‘from duty’. I argue that if I internalize this theory and believe it is right to act from duty I will really be acting in personal interest. Specifically I will be acting on the selfish desire to be a good person, or to do things with moral worth. In this way it is impossible to truly act ‘from duty’.

This paper objects to Julian Savulescu’s controversial and prominent paper “procreative beneficence” where he argues that we should use technology to select the best possible children to give birth to. I propose a new principle of ‘procreative benignity’ that we should select a child that can follow a variety of paths to a ‘good life’ not the one with the best possible life. Anything further than this makes the child a means to the parents’ end and risks permanently effecting the human species.

J.L Mackie argues that because different societies have very different moral codes throughout history, there must be no objective moral truths. I argue that societies use the same objective truths that can manifest into different moral codes with different circumstances. It is not that an objective morality doesn’t exist but that it manifests very differently depending on who by and when it is being interpreted.

Milton Friedman claims that inheritance is a just method of acquiring money, similar to finding a bill on the street. I argue that being born into money is far more random than that and the consequences are more severe. It is analogous to one person randomly finding a feast while those around her starve. For these reasons inheritance is unjust and should be redistributed.

John Rawls uses the difference principle to show that we should strive to maximize the situation of those worst off in society. He also argues that only way to remove bias is to assume the “original position”. This paper explains these two ideas and shows why we should use all information that the maximin principle is not necessarily effective.