Norman Melchert proposes the following thought of your soul leaving your body and going to heaven but your memories, consciousness, and all your basic character traits remaining on Earth. Asking the overall question, of where would you be and why if you could even bear to imagine it. If your soul left your body but you’re consciousness, memories, and basic character traits remained on Earth in your body your personal identity which is you would remain with your body. The soul and body are separate from each other. Myself such as my personal identity would actually still be in Earth even if my soul left since my self is founded on memory and consciousness. According to Locke, rejects the claim that having the same soul is necessary to remain us and that we might never know if our soul is in fact changed during our sleep when there is period of absence of consciousness.
Thus, we would actually never truly know if the soul is necessary to our personal identity because we don’t know if its the same one as the day before. Its not so much that I am in Earth because of my body but because of my consciousness stayed with my body since the consciousness is what makes my identity. If my consciousness remained with my soul and went to heaven then I would be in heaven but that is not the case since it remained with my body. The soul can be transferred from one to another if free of consciousness, memory, and basic character traits because it will transfer to another body that can be totally be different from your personality and mimic that one and totally change unlike consciousness.
Many believe that there is a strong and necessary connection between a cause X and effect Y. In which there is a belief that one cause X can have the power to generate or alternate the effect Y of another showing that there is always a connection between the two. While, David Hume argues otherwise in stating that there is no real justification proving there is a necessary connection between the two but rather constructing ideas for simple impressions. He argues the idea that sometimes past experiences does not tell us much when it comes to X and Y but rather that they are just constantly joined and that is the actual reason they always occur together. For example, fire causes smoke. Claiming that when there is X there will also be Y creating a certainty of constant conjunction making certainty Y will follow X and so forth. Hume argues for the need of mitigated skepticism by accepting the sole idea that matter of facts are not based on what we have learned or seen from our past experiences but solely on the facts and true information that we are given.
Empiricists such as Hume, say only experience produces a belief in casualty and not and idea. The reason being is because the idea does not come from our objective experience of the event but rather since all we observe is “X” occurs and shortly after we have ”Y” something that recurs a lot known as conjunction because it will always have the same outcome whether we experienced it or not. Experience produces a belief in casualty because you will think it only happens because you already saw it happen before rather never seeing it happen and believing it would happened based on sole though or idea without having experiencing or seen it making it a casualty not an idea. Overall, Hume argues against the usage of time spent trying to discover and define things such as abstract matters because we will never really find a rational or definite answer to these matters.
Cartesian dualism is the idea that the body and mind are two complete separate existence that are independent from each other. Which it is believed they can exist without each other even if one is destroyed. Some argue that although your body can go through body destruction our souls continue to live. Unlike, other Gretchen Weirob, a dying professor objects to cartesian dualism believes one such as herself will cease to exist when they die. Weirob objects against cartesian dualism as she claims that someone may know two people over time and they appear the same but what might not be known is if their sons have remained the same as well since there is no actual real way to tell. Weirob’s uses “Blue River” as an analogy for reference. Explaining how the water in the river is never the same water even if it looks static. Since it is always flowing and coming from different directions and gathering different sources in objection to Descartes’ conception of personal identity.
Making reference to the human body how the immortal soul is always constantly changing and never the same before. Although, you can’t touch or see it, raises the question of how do you know it is the same soul? For instance, let’s say we see a tree and ten minutes later we see the tree again we cant say it’s the same because the cells are always being replaced. There is no way to guarantee sameness of the immaterial self when we observe sameness of psychological characteristics. Referencing it back to the river and how you can see the dirty water but not know if it was clean and clear before. Although, each time you see it is made up of different water in which you judge the sameness of water it doesn’t not require identity of the water being at that state several times. So like you judge personal identity by the way it is in state of mind it really does not follow that soul or mind because the soul of the body can change every hour or day to a soul that is psychologically similar.
Kant’s Categorical Imperative is the principal of morality and moral obligation. It is universalized applied to everyone without exception. In which, one must act morally and follow their duty to obey the moral law as no other reason to follow except it is the right thing to do. Kant says, ‘Lying is wrong, you know.’ Laying the claim, that lying is morally wrong and never right under any circumstance. Many would understand this claim and follow it but others may question it or may just totally contradict it and ignore it. Arising the question of, “Who’s to say?,” it is wrong. Since some might believe a lie could cause more happiness than sadness or have a better outcome in some situations. Kant would argue that a lie of any sort is still a lie, no matter the outcome of it since it is and will continue to be morally wrong. He would say lying is wrong because it corrupt the moral capacity of humans since the more you lie the more you start thinking it is justified and will be hard to control. It can also have an effect on others not only one’s self, since it might prevent others to act freely and rational.
Believing that if others lie why shouldn’t they also be able to cause a sort of domino effect. Inevitable can lead to losing trust in ons’s word or others never knowing if what others say is really the truth. I myself as others would need to think about this question every time before making the unmorally decision to lie even if I believe it will bring a better outcome to others. This way it will be a reminder to others as well as my self that lying is morally wrong and should not be done. It should be thought about until the thought of lying disappears in one’s mind and follow their moral duty of the truth. Overall, Kant believes one should always tell the truth because of morality but as well as it being a formal duty toward each other. The Categorical Imperative determines our morality duties as a whole and actions do not depend on the consequence instead if they fulfill the duty.
