In the play, Doubt, the writer is making the point that doubt plays a significant role in our lives. Too often, doubt is present where certainty would be ideal. The writer speaks of doubt with what almost seems to be a sense of awe. “Doubt requires more courage than conviction does, and more energy; because conviction is a resting place and doubt is infinite – it is a passionate exercise.” (preface, page 7)
It is, of course, the intention of the play to create a feeling of sympathy toward Father Flynn, at least in the beginning. I found myself sympathetic toward Flynn throughout, despite the accusations that he formed an inappropriate relationship with the child. At no point did I find myself believing the accusations might be true.
For this reason, I also found Flynn to be admirable. Oddly enough, I found Sister James to be rather admirable as well. While she fumbled in the beginning, trying to decide how she felt toward both Father Flynn and Sister Aloysius, she behaved as she saw fit. She followed orders despite feeling that she was behaving unjustly; that is, without truly understanding the situation. This is admirable, to an extent. By the end of the play, Sister James was willing to stand for her belief that Flynn was innocent. This is even more admirable than her initial behaviors.
Because of the differences in ideas regarding the proper relationship between the ministers and those ministered, the ways in which Sister Aloysius and Father Flynn interact and view interacts would be very different. This is important to understanding why it is that Sister Aloysius beliefs what she does about Flynn, and why she makes the claims about him. Despite the suggestions that Sister Aloysius makes these claims merely because of her disdain for Flynn, it is possible to look at their differences of opinions and attribute her accusations simply to a different understanding of the roles they fill.
To borrow the quote provided in our syllabus, “Doubt is not the opposite of faith; it is one element of faith.” Dynamics of Faith

Nov 7th

Thomson’s article spends his time pointing out flaws in the arguments of his opposition. He argues that the woman should not be expected to carry the child if it would put her life at risk. He also says that a person has the right to avoid being killed, but only when it does not cause harm to the person who would be doing the killing. Marquis makes many of the same arguments. They support the idea that a fetus has the right to live assuming that the mother is not at risk as a result.
In opposition, Feinberg supports the reverse of the above theories. Feinberg says that because a baby is born little brighter than a vegetable, unable to make decisions for itself, it has no rights. According to Feinberg, until a child is able to make rational decisions, it has no claim to rights.
I really found all of these readings to be hard to get through. They spend a lot of time making points that were not their own. I would have found it easier if they had led with their own opinions and not those of their opponents.

I believe that fetuses do in fact have a right to life in most situations.
Allow me to explain. These situations include all but those in which the mother‘s life is at stake. If the question is who should live, the child or the mother, I believe the mother should be considered first. I do not think she should be asked to forfeit her own life for her child’s. This brings about too many factors: at least one motherless child, possible a widower, and the loss of a life that has had time to live and become something.
That having been said, here are my supports for my opinion.
I was raised to believe that no innocent life should be taken. An unborn child is most certainly an innocent life. One might argue, is a fetus a living being? Yes, in fact, I think that as soon as it has developed a heartbeat, it is a living being.
As for whether this living being has rights, I would be inclined to say in general no, but in this regard, yes. I do not believe a fetus has many rights, in fact, I might say the right to life is the only.
I would think this would clearly express a belief in the fetus thus having a right to not be aborted, as it has a right to life. Now, some people argue that the fetus’ rights should not negate the mother’s rights (ie the right to abort), however, I am of the opinion that the fetus’ rights should in fact negate those of the mother assuming she wants to abort for reasons other than personal safety. If, for example, the woman is pregnant due to lack of, or incorrect use of, contraception, I certainly would argue that she knowingly put herself into this situation, and therefore must face the consequences.
People will also argue the rape issue: should she be allowed an abortion if she conceived as a result of rape? I would say no.
Now, I would like to explain that these are my personal opinions at the present moment as they could be applied to my own life. Should I ever find myself, or someone I care about strongly, faced with these difficult issues, it is entirely possible that I would change my opinion.

For Mon Nov 3

The question of the day concerns the definition of keeping promises as a possible social construct.
I think the obvious answer is yes, we likely did, as a society, decide that it would be right, and to the benefit of society as a whole, to have our promises kept.
Once again, I want to use the concept of sympathy in my explanation.
Most actions are performed based on contracts: I will do something to benefit you, as long as you agree to do something to benefit me. For significant actions, ones that are seen as being of great importance to one or both of the parties involved, written contracts are generally used. However, in some cases, written contracts are impossible or unnecessary and verbal contracts are enough.
It was this need for verbal contracts that led to the establishment of promises as a basis for expectation. And it is this basis of expectation that allows for the keeping of promises to be considered “right” and the breaking “wrong.” Because one expects the other to hold up his end of the deal, so to speak, when the promise is kept, the result is a feeling of pleasure at having been granted the desired benefits agreed upon and promised. When one experiences this feeling of pleasure, the other can often experience a sympathy resulting in his own feeling of pleasure. It is this shared happiness that encourages each party to do as promised.
While no other right is necessarily depending on that of having our promises kept, and neither is having our promises kept necessarily dependent on any other rights, we find that this pleasure as described previously is dependent on honored verbal contracts. Thus, it could be said that our right to happiness is somewhat dependent on our ability and willingness to keep our promises, which would in turn encourage others to keep their promises.

For Friday Oct 29th

Utilitarianism puts a great deal of focus on the happiness of the individual. It says that each person is entitled to work toward his own personal gain, and that in doing so, he will actually promote the gain of the group as a whole.
One possible flaw with this argument, at least according to those who disagree with Mill, might be the possibility that what might be in an individual’s best interest could conflict with the common good and could possibly result in actual harm to those affected by the individual’s behavior.
Another possible flaw, Mill presents as an issue of conflicting religious views. While one religion finds it perfectly acceptable to, for example, eat pork, another religion might find it to be not merely disrespectful but outright blasphemous.
I think these are both valid arguments, even considering Mill’s attempts to respond. I really had difficulty understanding the way Mill tried to argue against his opponents and in support of his own theories.
As far as the differing levels of acceptance of Mill’s writings from one country to another, I think it might be easier for Americans to accept the idea of individual flaws because of Americans’ inclination to view behaviors as being inherently individual. Other nations consider society to be more encompassing of the whole, with much less focus on individualism. Because this is the most basic component of Mill’s Utilitarianism, it would make sense that the British, among those of other nationalities, would disagree because of their definitions of their own cultures.