Veritas Summer Term 2023 - Habs Boys School

Journal of Theology and Philosophy VERITAS

Issue XI

Summer Term 2023

I am honoured and thrilled to present the 11th Issue of Veritas, the school’s Theology and Philosophy Journal. This year’s submissions explore a wide range of topics: from the ethical issues arising from AI and environmentalism to the fundamental nature of God and matter and the philosophy of love, to name only a few. You will find that some of these pieces are strictly academic, while others are deeply personal. Some draw from a variety of disciplines, while others ‘zoom in’ to specific subfields. All are thoughtful, interesting, and well-written.

The last couple of years have seen some profound cultural shifts, driven by the aftershocks of the COVID pandemic and the increasingly important role played by AI and mass media in our daily lives, in the way that we conceive of ourselves, our identities and our relationships to one another and to reality. Such developments are welcomed by some and met with anxiety by others. I for one can’t help wondering whether we are being ushered into a post-human age, in the name of a rather narrow notion of ‘progress’ shared by those who happen to have cultural clout.

The depth of reflection so evident in the chapters of this modest booklet gives me reason to hope that, even should my worries prove to be justified, there will always be those who love Truth even more than they love themselves.

For that, after all, is truly human. I say all of this with a tinge of sadness, as my time at Haberdashers’ ends. I owe thanks to all who contributed to this journal. Thank you also to all those whom I have had the pleasure to teach in the last two years.

“You cannot go on ‘seeing through’ things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it.” - CS

Lewis, The Abolition of Man

Dr de Ray, Staff Editor

Is there a God?

Dr Christophe de Ray, T&P Teacher

The following is a transcript of a talk given at Aylesbury Vale Academy, on the 19th of June 2023.

Hi everyone, thank you so much for having me this morning. Let’s begin with a little game, shall we? Have a look at the list here. I wonder if you could rank these things from most real to less real:

1. Grasshoppers

2. Unicorns

3. Unicorns

4. Australia

5. Atoms

6. The colour red

7. You

I’m not a mind-reader but based on my experience of playing this game with people, here’s what I think was going on in your minds when you were playing this game. Some of those things you see listed here are quite obviously real (atoms, you), and others are obviously unreal/fictional. So far, so good. But things start getting a bit weird when you look at some of those other ones. Are clouds real? In a sense, yes they aren’t fictional like unicorns, or Batman. But are they real in the way that atoms are? In the way that you are? They may look solid and concrete, but as you’ll know by now, they’re just collections of particles sort of hanging around together (and you can fly right through them). So, on closer inspection, a cloud isn’t really a real ‘thing’ as such, more like a bunch of things.

How about Australia? Some of you might think, well of course it’s real, I went there last Summer! But think about it – if nobody in the world, not even people living in what we call ‘Australia’, believed that Australia existed, would it? It doesn’t seem like it – the landmass South-east of Asia would exist, kangaroos would exist, but it seems like countries depend on us thinking about them, creating them through conventions, to exist. But if so, if they only really exist in our minds, in what sense are countries ‘real’? The upshot of this seems to be that reality is a ‘spectrum’ – some things are more real than others:

On one hand of the spectrum, you have things that aren’t real at all – Santa Claus, Unicorns, Sherlock Holmes, etc. In between, you have things that are real. Things get more and more real as you go up, until you reach something that is maximally real – the ‘realest’ of all realities, that which is real This is what we call ultimate reality.

You may not realise it, but while you were playing the little game, you were doing philosophy. Because that’s what philosophy is all about: it’s the quest for ultimate reality, to discover what it is real. Philosophy begins with the realisation that the world around you isn’t quite what it seems. Naturally, we think of ordinary, physical objects – trees, animals, chairs, tables, people etc - around us as being real. And we think of the five senses (sight, hearing, smell etc) as giving us an accurate mental ‘picture’ or ‘video’ of the real world. But as soon as you think about it, you realise that this is all rather naïve. First, we know that the senses deceive us all the time, as in optical illusions, like the one you see here.

Second, as you can see here, different animals experience the world in different ways (the inner movie going on inside you is quite different to the inner movie going on in your dog Spot). That suggests that the senses don’t tell us what reality is like, in and of itself. Colours, sounds, smells, tastes, the general appearance of things, are all ‘in the head’, rather than being ‘out there’.

Third, remember the cloud – it looks like an actual thing in its own right, at least from a distance, but we know it’s just a cluster of things. Well, ordinary physical things are just the same, they are nothing more than bits of matter organised in a certain way. You wouldn’t say that a lump of rocks is itself

a thing. So, why should your pencil be any different? How about the chair you are sitting on? How about your own body?

Physicists tell us that the atoms in objects don’t even touch each other – in fact, an object is mostly empty space!

Fourth, your senses don’t reveal anything stable, or permanent. The world around you is in constant flux, more like a sandstorm or a river than a lump of rocks. There is an old philosophical saying that you can never step into the same river twice, because the position of the water keeps changing. Biological organisms are also unstable, their parts are constantly being replaced. Is it really the same body from one moment to another? But if bodies go out of existence so quickly, are they real? Just a bit reflection confirms that the world as we experience it, the world of chairs and tables and grasshoppers and trees and people, isn’t ultimately real. We don’t have direct access to ultimate reality, rather we are trapped behind what philosophers call the ‘veil of perception’, barring us from what is real, unless we can somehow break through, like this guy:

Plato, the founding father of Western philosophy, in his famous allegory which you may have heard of, compared this to being stuck in a cave, all you see are shifting shadows on the wall. Most people are satisfied with this. But the philosopher isn’t, because he longs for eternal, changeless, necessary truths. The philosopher leaves the cave, ‘sees’ that which is real. Ultimate reality. Being as it really is, not as we perceive or imagine it to be. Eternal truth itself, ‘seen’ with the eyes of the soul, i.e., reason.

Sadly, Plato’s story doesn’t end here. The philosopher returns to the cave and tries to convince the other cave-dwellers to leave the cave. As you might imagine, this makes them very uncomfortable. Eventually, they kill him. But never mind that – what we really need to think about this morning is, what exactly does the philosopher see when he steps out of the cave? What is this ultimate reality?

Well, one view is that ultimate reality just is matter, the stuff out of which everything is made – materialism. It’s a very popular view nowadays, championed by many philosophers and scientists like Richard Dawkins (pictured here). Historically though, it’s always been a fringe view. Plato was aware of it though, as some philosophers before him, like Democritus advocated for a form of materialism.

One way to make sense of materialism is to think of the world like a layered cake, or a pyramid, with the realms of biology and the mind towards the top, chemistry just below, because biological organisms are made up of molecules, and physics right as the bottom, because basic particles constitute everything.

Plato, his student Aristotle, his followers the Platonists along with most philosophers in the ancient world rejected materialism. Here’s one of the reasons: matter is infinitely divisible. Here’s how this works: think of any material thing, any blob of matter. Now cut it half in your mind. You’re left with two parts. Cut them in half. And so on. Will you ever reach a point at which you can’t do any more cutting? No, because for every object that has spatial dimensions (length, width etc), any part of it will also have dimensions, and thus also have parts.

You might say, but surely it must bottom out somewhere –surely there are fundamental particles, which lack extension, i.e., don’t have a size. Here’s the problem: suppose I have a million particles with a size of 0, lump them altogether – what will be the size of the lump? 0! Because 0+0+0+0+0 etc = 0. So, any lump of matter, no matter how small, is going to have parts. But then, if it has parts, its existence depends on its parts – it doesn’t exist. It isn’t ultimately real (remember the cloud!). So, matter cannot be ultimate reality.

Instead, ultimate reality needs to be simple – that is, absolutely part less, otherwise it would depend on its parts. Since matter can’t be simple in this way, it follows that ultimate reality must be immaterial. Since things that exist in space are material, it follows that ultimate reality must be spaceless. But we can say more. For something to change is for it to gain or lose a part (for example, a banana goes from being green to yellow because it acquires new pigments).

So, a simple reality would also be changeless since it can’t lose parts or acquire any. And since things that exist in time are things that can change, it follows that ultimate reality is

timeless, and therefore eternal. There we have it – a simple, immaterial, spaceless, changeless, eternal ultimate reality, that underlies everything else. That is what’s real, according to Plato and his followers.

You may wonder, what does any of this have to do with God and religion? Think back to that well-known scene in the Book of Exodus from the Hebrew Bible, in which Moses hears the voice of God, speaking to him from a burning bush. As you’ll remember, God commands Moses to return to Egypt to bring his people out of slavery. Moses asks him, what is your name? A strange question! The voice’s answer is even stranger: ‘YHWH’, I am.

Historically, Christian theologians & philosophers have taken this to mean something extremely important, something that would define the trajectory of the history of ideas. The God that is speaking to Moses isn’t like the gods of ancient world (Egypt, etc), who are very much part of the world, change all the time, and are dependent. This God is a self-existent, eternal, absolute. You might say he is Being/Existence itself, from which we derive our existence.

We don’t usually think of the Bible as a philosophical book. But many have noticed the close similarities between what Plato & his disciples had taught about the world and God, and what the Bible teaches about those things. For both, the endpoint, the goal of the journey towards ultimate truth is God, in which we move, live, and have our being, the source and ground of all existence. Nowadays, philosophy is seen as something that opposes religion & belief in God. But this way of seeing philosophy is very recent. Historically, from Ancient Times through the Middle Ages and up until just a

few centuries ago, most philosophers would have said that God just is what philosophy is all about. In fact, Aristotle went as far as to say that to identify ‘first philosophy’ with theology, the study of the immaterial, unchanging divine. Philosophy is the journey of the soul, out of the illusions of the senses, Plato’s cave, the veil of perception, to the Eternal God. Why not embark on this journey today?

Appendix: Is God good?

To answer this question, let’s look at what it means to be ‘bad’. Here is the classical definition: to be bad is to lack something (this is known as ‘privation theory’). To be cowardly is to lack courage, to be foolish is to lack wisdom etc. Now, I’m obviously ‘bad’ in a lot of ways – I’m not always as intelligent, thoughtful, physically fit as I could be. It’s easily to explain why that is: I depend on other things for my being. My being – including my intelligence, thoughtfulness, physical fitness etc – is something that I receive. And I’ve only received so much of it.

We saw that God is ultimate reality, that on which everything else depends, the ‘realest’ of all realities. Ultimate reality, by definition, is ontologically independent. It doesn’t receive being from anything else – rather, it’s the source of all being, possible and actual. There’s no reason for it to lack being in any way. It would be incredibly odd for the source of all being to lack being. You can look at this another way: why is it that God isn’t the sort of thing that receives being, unlike you and me? We need to explain this. A very good explanation says that God already has all the being that he could possibly have. But once again, to be bad is to lack being. So, if God doesn’t lack being, then God can’t be ‘bad’ in any way, which means that God must be good in every way.

Is Jesus unique?

Alexander Taylor, Year 12

Jesus Christ, known to Christians as the Son of God, came down to earth to liberate the world of sin and bring humanity closer to God. He gave teachings, preaching’s the word of God, became a figure of political liberation and support for the poor and weak. He attempted to unite those in conflict and performed miracles to aid those in need. He created a fellowship, turning fishermen into ‘fishers of men’ and inspiring the faith we know today as Christianity through his resurrection and ascension. To many Christians, it is imperative we believe that Jesus Christ is unique, our faith requires us to see Him as a figure that is unmatched and incomparable as this provides us blissful clarity. However, some theologians argue that it is not essential for Jesus to be unique, and, in fact, He is not a figure unlike any other. I will aim to clearly demonstrate that Jesus of Nazareth was, indeed, a unique figure that revolutionised both religion and humanity as a whole.

The first way in which we clearly see Jesus’ uniqueness is in the Chalcedon Creed of Christ. This definition sees Jesus’ nature as a hypostatic union- meaning that Jesus is both wholly human and wholly divine. This definition is now widely accepted by Christians and the evidence for this nature is seen throughout scripture. His divine nature is immediately obvious in the Gospel; the heavens declaring Him at his baptism (Gospel of Matthew), the concept of Him being the Word incarnated in flesh (Gospel of John) and the idea of Him being carried up into heaven after blessing his disciples

(Gospel of Luke). His human nature is also clearly present within the Gospels upon further reading.

The mere concept of the Word being put into flesh in the Gospel of John suggests that the divine has been placed into the human form. Furthermore, we see the humanity of Christ in his emotion and action for example when “Jesus wept.” (John 11:35). The juxtaposition of something being both wholly godly and yet wholly man is unfathomable and doesn’t fit within the confines of human logic.

The allusion to Jesus’ humanity is one way in which we see an aspect of Jesus’ miraculous nature (which will be referred to in more detail later). Our understanding of Jesus’ being is not only that he is unique, but also that he is a miracle in and of himself, not simply that he performs then - this can often be overlooked. The concept of Him being both divine and human immediately sets him apart as unique because He cannot be the same as any man who has lived as they were not divine.

He also cannot be the same as any other divine being for they were not human- it is explicitly stated within Christianity that although they are all one God, The Father is not The Son and The Son is not The Holy Spirit. So, for Christians, the fundamental belief in Christ consequentially leads you to the conclusion that He must be unique.

The second thing that gives Him a distinct, unique character is the role that Jesus took up in society. Jesus was not just the Son of God, but He was also a form of a political revolutionary, liberator of the poor and a teacher of wisdom

and morality. Jesus was able to adopt all these roles due to the nature of his authority. For Ludwig Wittgenstein (a lapsed Catholic Christian) Jesus’ authority was built in his role as a teacher of wisdom. Wittgenstein admired Jesus because he affirmed authentic human living. Wittgenstein was particularly impressed with Jesus’ commitment to the truth and his willingness to speak out against authority in the name of righteousness and challenge hypocrisy.

The Sermon on the Mount is the primary example within The Bible of Jesus spreading moral teaching. Jesus’ teaching does differ from the previously accepted teaching of the Jewish community of his day; though it would not be correct to say it is entirely unique as it builds on the word of prophets before him. Christ himself says on the mount; “Do not think I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil.” (Matthew 5:17). So, it is not in this religious teaching that we can say He is utterly unique, but instead it is the description of the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus describes.

Throughout the teaching that he gives he references a Kingdom of God, that he has unique knowledge of; for example, “Blessed are the persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:10) and “Therefore, whoever then breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same so, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19). Jesus’ incarnation of the word becoming flesh and dwelling amongst us is understood to Christians as the kingdom of God drawing near to earth. Jesus imparts wisdom of this kingdom that no other teacher of wisdom was ever able to, in this sense, his wisdom is unique.

What is more commonly overlooked, is Jesus’ role as a revolutionary and liberator of the poor and persecuted. Before, I speak of the importance of the purpose of Jesus’ death and resurrection, it is first interesting to consider its causation. Christ is put to death because of his controversy and conflict with the Pharisees and Jewish community. Jesus immediately becomes a figure of outrage and change due to his abstract teaching and his overwhelming sense of authority.

He called the Pharisees ‘blind guides’ and the Pharisees were considered the highest figures within society scholarly people who could lead other towards righteousness. Jesus went against them without holding back in words and actionfor example, his breaking of the sabbath (Luke 6:1) and then declaring “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath” (Mark 2:27). He revolutionised and changed the way people considered the authority of the Pharisees and this type of political challenge was extremely unique.

The next unique aspect of Jesus’ life on earth which is particularly striking to me is his capacity to perform miracles. The Gospels give frequent examples of Jesus completing miracles effortlessly. Prophets in the past have been in the presence of miracles with God’s power but Jesus (uniquely) is able to conduct multiple miracles. For example, Jesus calming the storm and raising Lazarus from the dead. Not only are miracles obvious indicators of Jesus as the divine Son of God, but it is also an indicator of his unique sense of authority. While other humans may have authority over people or communities, Christ seems to have authority over people, nature and even death. As the disciples marvelled; “Who then is this, that even the wind and sea obey him?” (Mark 4:41).

Jesus’ miracles set him apart as a figure that has a sort of power replicated by no other person in history.

However, the miracle that truly proves Jesus’ uniqueness and is the crucial argument for Him being a figure like no other is his resurrection and ascension. Jesus’ death is completely incomprehensible to human logic. It is a miracle, it is seen by Christians as a proof of the Chalcedon definition, it is an event that is incapable of being replicated and is the foundation of the Christian faith. The belief within Christianity is that after Jesus was crucified and breathed his last, he was placed in a tomb which was then closed by rolling a large stone in front of it. When Mary Magdalene visited the tomb after the sabbath, the stone had been rolled aside and Jesus’ body was gone. Jesus had been risen from the dead and would go on to appear to the disciples and bless them before being carried up to heaven (according to the Gospel of Luke). The events that occur after Jesus’ crucifixion are described to be unlike any other event and seem to prove Jesus’ divine nature after his human death. Just as his incarnation onto earth is an astounding miracle, his ascension into heaven is just as miraculous. With faith, the resurrection and ascension are the main proof of Jesus’ nature and what sets him apart from any figure over the course of history.

Of course, there are people, even Christians, who argue that it isn’t entirely integral for Jesus to be unique and that, in many ways, He is not. Firstly, it is important to say that the Chalcedon definition for the nature of Christ is not wholly accepted and the debate over the true nature of Jesus is still a topic of controversy within the faith today. For example, Nestorius argued that, despite being wholly human and wholly God, the two natures of Christ were separate and that he only became at one with his divine nature when he took his place beside God. Meaning that during his time on earth, Jesus’ nature would not be unique to the nature of anyone else around him.

A further example is the belief of docetic Christians, who believe that Jesus only has his divine form and cannot be fully human rather due to his divine omnipotence, he was simply appearing to be human to us. While Nestorius’ definition can be quite easily countered by saying; “How can Jesus not have been in touch with his divine nature if he was able to perform divine miracles?” The docetic idea seems to be completely, logically possible. If we are to believe that Jesus wasn’t fully human, then his nature is not separate or unique to God the father, and we can no longer class Jesus as a distinctively unique figure based off this definition. It seems that then in this respect, his uniqueness of nature is a matter of definition and belief.

The second issue that arises with Jesus’ uniqueness is that previously we have looked at the character of Jesus through a strictly Christian lens. E.P. Sanders (a New Testament scholar) argues that we do not have enough historical evidence to surely say that Jesus was indeed unique. He makes it clear faith and history are two separate categories and to group them together is to be naïve.

So, as a result he can only base Jesus’ character off his miracles, teachings, and hope which is not sufficient to class him as unique. Sanders does not consider Jesus’ resurrection or ascension because he believes that it cannot be historically and objectively analysed.

To strip away acts such as the resurrection or moments of divine revelation is to leave Jesus with his human impact which is simply substantially different to other people at the time, but not necessarily unique. To someone who doesn’t believe in Jesus as the Son of God, Christ suddenly seems

to lose an aspect of his distinctiveness. Instead, what we are left with is Jesus as a political figure (revolutionary), a liberator of the poor, and a teacher of wisdom. It is a fair comment to make, to say that there have been many other revolutionaries, many other liberators, and many other teachers.

While Jesus may have been the sole revolutionary against the Pharisees within his time, revolution was, to an extent, common throughout history and the progression of inclusivity has required many different liberators. Giving an example, if we cannot objectively prove Jesus’ divine quality, how does he differ from Siddhartha Gautama, the teacher that bought forward the Buddhist tradition.

There are two ways in which I would respond to these accusations. Firstly to say that, while there are other example of revolutionaries and liberators and wisdom teachers, it is not these individual attributes that I claim to be unique, but rather the combination of all of them that build up Jesus as a figure of unique and different authority. This is different from the authority of a French revolutionary or a liberator like Martin Luther King. Then the second response comes to the objection that Jesus is not dissimilar to other religious figureheads such as the first buddha. However, I would directly dispute this due to the followship of Christ. The Buddha, though inspiring generations of Buddhists, inspired them with his teachings and taught how to be a good person. Christ, on the other hand, inspired Christians with not just his teaching but also appeared with such authority that he became an idol of the Christian faith part of the holy trinity. This is seen when Jesus gathered the first disciples; “At once they left their nets and followed him”

(Matthew 4:20). The sense of authority and guidance that Jesus had over people was immediately more obvious than that of the buddha. In this sense, it is ignorant to suggest that Jesus is not unique to the buddha.

Finally, it could be argued that Jesus’ purpose is to not seem unique and that his role relies on being like us so that he could suffer just like us and we could try and act just as he did. Jesus never explicitly refers to himself as the Son of God in the Gospels, it could be argued that his humanity is what was important to him as it allowed Jesus to bridge the epistemic distance between humanity and God.

This point is convincing as a Christian myself, but it does not counter the question of Jesus’ distinctiveness. It perhaps suggests that Jesus’ uniqueness is not the aspect of Jesus, which is necessary to focus on, but it does not prove that he is not unique.

To conclude, I think it’s clear that Jesus is indeed unique. Whether or not you believe that he was the Son of God and that he has divine qualities I think it is clear to see that his incredible influence of the people around him and the influence he still has to this day, combined with the combination of his roles as a teacher, revolutionary and liberator proves his status as quite possibly the most unique figure in history.

Can we love someone more than we love ourselves?

Dylan Shah, Year 12

Currently, the question of what it means to love is in limbo; with who and how we can love becoming a deeply divisive issue, as well as being somewhat of a taboo topic in many communities. Many do not know how to love but all can sufficiently say that they know what it feels like to love or be loved. Whether a love for someone else must be underpinned by a deep love for ourselves is true or not; it is very significant as it links to the focus of our mental health. Philosophically, does it conceptually and logically work to love someone more than ourselves? This essay will argue that we can love someone more than ourselves, and ultimately, we ask this question to provoke a greater acceptance of the human condition which is fundamentally being vulnerable.

To be able to answer this question, one should be able to define love which poses a problem. Physical Determinists try to define love by suggesting that it is an extension of the human biological condition. Whereas behaviourism would suggest that love is defined by the fact that it is observable and quantifiable. For example, it is simple to see that A loves B more than C. However, both positions fail in some respect. Determinism cannot explain romantic love, as this can be spontaneous, whereas Determinism follows a linear cause and effect relationship. Moreover, Behaviourism fails to explain the intention of one’s love. For example, one may be

acting or playing a facade when professing their said ‘love’. As a result, I have tried to come up with my own definition: Love is observable and quantifiable but the reason for it is through a spiritual connection with the person which one must outwardly profess. One could argue that self-love is needed for love of all people because self-love underpins it. It is the fact that if you did not love and value yourself then you are not truly loving someone else, but only moving need to belong onto them. Take NeedLove (the ex to their partner) - the needy person clings to someone who does not love them and does not know how to love anyone because neediness is their addiction, not the spiritual connection. Moreover, Romantic love could be argued to be false if one does not love themselves. This is an infatuation or obsession so much that it induces raging hormones the same as obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). Receiving and giving love without a respect for yourself is transactional, not true connection. As a result, one may argue that the individual lacking self-love doesn’t have enough love to give; they play a facade, and thus cannot truly engage in a meaningful connection with anyone.

However, many would object to this claim. The most famous Philosopher who suggested that we can love someone more than ourselves was Immanuel Kant. Kant suggested that genuine love involves selflessness and a motivation of prioritising the happiness and well-being of another person over yourself. True love is a devotion and desire to promote the happiness and flourishing of the loved one even if this contravenes your own happiness. This has an intuitive appeal to humanity and seems convincing as one would agree with this position, a notable quote being, ‘true love for oneself is achieved in the selflessness towards others.’

In addition, C.S. Lewis, in his book The Four Loves, expressed four ways in which one loves another person which cover all bases and thus seem relevant to look at. The first love is affection. Affection is both a need-love and gift-love, for example when you are a parent, it is presented as a gift love for your child, but as a child it is a need-love for your mother or father. Affection binds us together and it teaches us to be familiar and how it must be going on for some time. Affection is about needing a reason. One must need a reason to affectionately love someone and as a result affection can love the unattractive.

With reason taken in, your love for someone can be greater than love for yourself. The second love is friendship. While this is in Lewis’s book, the great philosopher Plato mentions this: “Love is revealed to the great divine madness through the wings of the lover’s soul may sprout allowing the lover to take flight.” Platonic love is based on respect, understanding and shared interests and/or values but ultimately, it is an ability confide in one another. So, Lewis builds on this, by suggesting that friendship is about how people see their interest. The key question is, can you see the same truth? Friendship is the ‘method instrument to create all the beauties of other people’ suggesting that the love you have for your friend (from a common ground) allows you to flourish. This conveys why the love of someone else can be significantly powerful.

The next chapter is about Eros – romantic and passionate love, characterised by an intense desire and longing between two individuals who are attracted physically and emotionally. Eros is a powerful force that can elevate or debase human relationships and has the potential to inspire devotion or selfishness of people. A healthy eros is both a need-love and gift-love because the partners reciprocate and fulfil each

other’s desires. Eros is a glimpse of the divine and when properly understood and channelled, it does not need love of themself to give to someone else. Lastly, one love is agape. Agape is often referred to as selfless or unconditional love, like God’s love for humanity. Agape is a transformative love that moves oneself to a greater appreciation for their own life. This love allows one to perform unconditional love beyond personal preferences and as a result, change their outlook on life. Overall, Lewis concludes that one can love someone more than themselves, clearly shown by Agape love, which goes beyond self-interest and the desire for personal needs as it involves sacrificing one’s own desires and interests to ensure another’s well-being.

This can be built upon by suggesting that it is farcical that we can conceive of having to love ourselves before someone else. Self-love and self-care are important as the action of those in our everyday life are ongoing, thus providing a vital foundation for how humans function. Nonetheless, this is not a standard for when we should enter a relationship or find a connection. We can love someone more than ourselves because this love is temporary. Our human condition needs to be amended, as the fact that this position exists is an example of the humanity searching for independence, and a stark need to be independently free of support.

Lastly, love is a privilege and by even asking this question, it shows that we do not accept the human condition. When independence is defined as needing no one and avoiding an intimate connection with others, it is lonely; one of the worst places to be in as a person. We are made as people to be loved and love others; it creates stability and security. Only once the human condition is adjusted to interdependence will we all truly be able to have an emotional, physical, and

spiritual connection with ourselves and someone else.

To culminate, this essay his firmly argued that we can love someone more than ourselves and this only implies that we need to accept who we are as open and vulnerable creatures. We live in a society that searches for independence, but instead we should search for interdependence.

We should seek to build a symbiotic relationship between one and another, initially starting from a deep self-love of oneself. However, right now we can love someone more than ourselves because we do not understand the privilege of being loved. The opportunities it gives for people enables humans to flourish and live without restriction. Once we do this, we will finally accept the human condition of the need to embrace the vulnerability of oneself while engaging in intimacy with someone else.

Is idealism true?

Sacha Tobias-Tarsh, Year 12

If I were to ask you if you existed, what would you reply? Most likely yes. Descartes established that he was certain he existed because he thought; ‘cogito ergo sum’ (‘I think, therefore I am). If we take the premise that you exist, we must then ask how/where you exist, or on what plane you exist. If I asked you what the components of your existence are, you would likely say something along the lines of ‘my mind and my body’. There is no debate about the notion that our minds exist, however, there is considerable debate over the notion that our bodies do.

Bishop George Berkeley, a famous 17th - 18th century philosopher suggested a theory that all exist are minds and ideas. He says what we think of as physical objects- chairs, tables, even the moon- are just bundles of what he calls ‘ideas’. Bertrand Russell says ‘those who are unaccustomed to philosophical speculation may be inclined to dismiss such a doctrine as obviously absurd. We think of matter as having existed long before there were any minds, and it is hard to think of it as a mere product of mental activity’. Now, all of us reading this are most certainly accustomed to philosophical speculation, so we must take a closer look at Berkeley’s proposition and decide for ourselves.

Berkeley begins his quest by rejecting the idea put forth by John Locke of primary and secondary qualities. According

to Locke, primary qualities are properties that are ‘utterly inseparable’ from a physical object that the object has ‘in and of itself’, whatever changes it goes through, even if it is divided into smaller and smaller pieces, such as extension, shape, solidity, size, motion etc) and his secondary qualities (properties of physical objects that are ‘nothing but powers to produce various sensations in us’, such as colours, sounds, tastes, smells, temperatures, effectively the senses. Berkeley uses an argument called the argument from perceptual variation, to attack this distinction. This argument can be expressed as follows:

P1. What looks small to me may look huge to a small animal.

P2. What looks small from a distance looks large when viewed up close.

P3. What looks smooth to the naked eye appears craggy and uneven under a microscope.

P4. If you look at a circle straight on, it looks circular. But if I am looking at it from an angle, it looks elliptical. We see it differently, but it does not change.

P5. Even motion is not constant. We measure the speed of motion by how quickly our minds work- to a creature that responds much faster than us, e.g., a housefly, our fastest movements appear leisurely.

P6. In the case of colour, when an object appears to have many colours, depending on how it’s perceived, we can’t say that it has one real colour that is independent of how we perceive it.

C1. Therefore, (P1) – (P5) show that we cannot say that an object has one real shape or size or motion, independent of how it is perceived.

C2. Therefore, the primary qualities of objects are just as mind dependent as secondary qualities.

The issue this poses for Locke, is that if there are no mind independent qualities, why would we suppose that there are any mind independent objects as opposed to thinking that all qualities and objects are mind-dependent. We therefore would have no basis to assume that physical objects exist in an external world. We now have this simple argument:

P1. Everything we perceive is either a primary or secondary quality.

P2. Both primary and secondary qualities are mind dependent.

C1. Therefore, nothing that we perceive exists independently of the mind; the objects of perception are entirely mind dependent.

Berkeley’s final argument against the possibility of the objects of perception being mind independent has come to be known as his ‘master argument,’ since he sets great weight onto it. Thus, Philonous says, ‘I am willing to let our whole debate be settled as follows: if you can conceive it to be possible for any mixture or combination of qualities, or any sensible object whatever, to exist outside the mind, then I will grant it actually to be so.’ Hylas responds that he is thinking of a tree existing unperceived by anyone. He is not actually thinking of a tree that exists independently of any mind; he is imagining a tree standing in ‘some solitary place’ where no one perceives it.

But all the time, he is thinking of such a tree. When he thinks of this tree, he must be envisioning it from a certain perspective,

either flying over it, from the foot of it, or even a mile to the left of it. Berkeley argues that if we cannot conceive of something, it cannot exist. We cannot think of a tree that is neither perceived nor conceived of. We can think of the idea of a tree, but not of a tree that exists independently of the mind. Now, one could respond to Berkeley by saying that just because something is inconceivable does not mean its existence is impossible. Maybe it is just a reflection of our cognitive limitations that said tree is inconceivable and it just exists outside the boundaries of our perceptual abilities. It is far less attractive to say that things exist outside of our perceptual abilities though, as this existence could be unlimited, and it would lead us to a new realm of unknowing and make us very sceptical of what we think we do know. Because of this, many may still choose to side with Berkeley.

Now, there is one final piece left of this puzzle that Berkeley is putting together. What explains the regularity of our experience. When I look at the chair in the corner of my room, and you look at the same chair, if there is no mind- independent object there, why do we see the same thing? Furthermore, if there is no such thing as a physical object, when I trip and fall, or someone hits me, why do I experience pain? What explains the regularity, complexity and systematicity of our experiences and perceptions. The argument Berkeley puts forward for this is as follows:

P1. As (the ideas that comprise) physical objects are minddependent, there are three possible causes of my perceptions: ideas, my mind, and another mind.

P2. Ideas (including the ideas that comprise physical objects) do not cause anything.

P3. If (the ideas that comprise) physical objects depended

on my mind, then I would be able to control what I perceive.

P4. But I cannot. Perception is quite different to imagining; in perception, we are more passive. The sensations just to occur to us, and we cannot control them. Imagination is voluntary, but perception is involuntary.

C1. Therefore, (the ideas that comprise) physical objects do not depend on my mind.

C2. Therefore, (the ideas that comprise) physical objects must exist in another mind, which then wills that I perceive them.

C3. Given the complexity and systematicity of our perceptions, that mind must be God.

Berkeley is fully aware that his idealism is counter-intuitive, and as Russell says, potentially absurd, but one must concede it does follow from his previous arguments and there is nothing impossible about his conclusions. So, to sum up Berkeley, he argues that all we perceive are primary and secondary qualities, both of which are mind-dependent qualities. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that anything we perceive exists independently of the mind; the objects of perception are entirely mind dependent.

He then shows that it is impossible to conceive of anything that goes unperceived, and from this establishes that anything inconceivable cannot exist. Therefore, mind-independent objects, or the external world as we would call it, cannot exist. Finally, to explain why we see the perceive the same things, at the same times, in the same ways, in the same places, he argues that all ideas are held in the mind of God, and God transmits those ideas into our minds with perfect regularity

and systematicity. It might sound a bit crazy, but in many ways, it makes a fair bit of sense.

Now, there are many objections that Berkeley encounters of which he must deal with. The first of this is an objection to the role of God, some argue that because God does not perceive as we do, and does not undergo sensations, such as pain, and furthermore that because God’s mind is unchanging and eternal and our perceptions are constantly changing, that we cannot have the perceptions we do due to God. However, Berkeley deals with this easily by clarifying that what I perceive, which changes, is what God wills me to perceive. The whole of creation exists in God’s understanding, eternally. The next objection concerns how idealism can explain hallucinations.

Berkeley discusses these in the form of dreams. Hallucinations are products of imagination. Normally, imagination is voluntary, and perception is not. But hallucinations are involuntary, like perceptions, so Berkeley provides two other criteria that mark off hallucinations from perception. First, they are ‘dim, irregular, and confused.’ second, even if they were as vivid and clear as perceptions, they are not coherently connected with the rest of our perceptual experience. To this, we might object that these criteria mark a difference of degree, perceptual experiences can be clear or dim, coherently connected with other experiences.

But surely the difference between hallucination and perception is a difference in kind. In perception, you experience something that exists outside your mind; In hallucination, you do not. In response, Berkeley could agree- the ideas you perceive originate in God, but in hallucination they do not. His criteria are only supposed to indicate how we can tell.

This would remain a compelling argument as God is needed to explain the regularity, complexity and systematicity of our experiences and perceptions, but hallucinations do not contain these qualities and therefore stem from a different source, a different place within my mind. So, once again, Berkeley can survive the objection.

Unfortunately, though, the final objection from our good friend Bertrand Russell, exposes the fallacy that idealism lies upon. Russell says that when we take the word ‘idea,’ there are two distinct things to be considered whenever an idea is before the mind. These are: the thing of which we are aware, for example, the colour of a table and the actual awareness itself, the mental act of apprehending things. Russell says Berkeley’s view, that obviously the colour must be in the mind, seems to depend for its plausibility upon confusing the thing apprehended with the act of apprehension.

Either of these might be called an idea; probably either would have been called an idea by Berkeley. The act is undoubtedly in the mind, hence, when we are thinking of the act, we readily assent to the view that ideas must be in the mind. Then, forgetting that this was only true when ideas were taken as acts of apprehension, we transfer the proposition that ‘ideas are in the mind’ two ideas in the other sense, i.e., to the things apprehended by our acts of apprehension. Thus, by an unconscious equivocation, we arrive at the conclusion that whatever we can apprehend must be in our minds. This seems to be the true analysis of Berkeley’s argument, and the ultimate fallacy upon which it rests. So, the original premise of Berkeley’s argument, that ‘ideas’ are mind-dependent, is groundless, and therefore the entirety of idealism collapses.

After rigorous reflection and scrutiny, we may have found flaws, but idealism is most certainly not absurd. As mentioned before, it makes far more sense to us that idealism wouldn’t be true, we think of matter and the physical world of having existed well before there were minds perceiving it. We must commend Berkeley for going against his intuition and exploring possibilities, but I will conclude that idealism isn’t true.

Is taxation theft?

Avi Dodhia, Year 12

Introduction

The notion that “tax is theft” has been historically popular with libertarians and has been supported by the argument that the government dictates that each person must pay their taxes, or face imprisonment. This seems to give an indicator of the forceful nature and immorality of tax. Many authoritarians have frequently responded with the claim that tax is justified, because it has redistributive purposes and serves for general wellbeing.

Alternatively, they refer to Hobbes’ social contract referencing that citizens agree to pay taxes in return for protection. Libertarians generally reject both arguments and refer to the involuntary nature of taxation, which will be discussed. Throughout this essay I will argue that overall taxation can be considered as theft but is a necessary evil for the functioning of society.

Nozick’s view

Robert Nozick is a key defendant of the claim that any state enforcing more than a minimal state is morally unjustifiable. He argues that indeed tax is theft, stating that “taxation of earning from labour is on a par with forced labour.” The basis of the argument lies in the involuntary nature of taxation, as well as how part of the earnings from one’s work is taken and

used for someone else’s purposes. Nozick goes further than other philosophers who claim that taxation is intrusive and restricts individual liberty. He argues that the theft of labour occurs regardless of property rights and draws on a slave analogy: when a slave creates a product and their Master demands part of the produce, Nozick argues that the slave is being thieved, as the slave is continually working for purposes other than their own.

Pro-taxers argue that if the state controls all resources, then work is done using elements which the state owns and so they are justified in taxing labour. However, this indicates a totalitarian and unsustainable society; Nozick assumes that individual citizens have some property in a liberal democracy. This means that people rightfully own their work and so income tax is theft for Nozick.

Many argue for tax by proposing that the state recognises that employees are due income from their employers, so are not stealing money, rather just taking what they’re due in return for provision of a service. Hence, they argue that the detraction of liberty is an acceptable price to pay for the benefits provided by the state. However, these arguments are unable to rebut the central tenet of Nozick’s argument: the involuntary nature of tax. They merely focus on the strenuous burden of such labour, which is insufficient.

Nozick proposes the thesis of self-ownership, an intuitive concept that the individual owns his body and his labour, deriving from Locke’s theory of property. Nozick emphasized that anytime one works, they are involuntarily benefiting someone that isn’t themselves (those who receive the most from the state). This indicates that the state and its

beneficiaries have an enforceable claim to one’s labour because they directly benefit from the taxes which arise from it. Since the state can claim one’s work, they have a partial property right in one’s labour. Consequently, the thesis of self-ownership means that the state has part ownership in the person working which entirely contradicts autonomy and seems deeply immoral. Here, Nozick suggests that tax is immoral and is theft.

Nozick’s argument forces those in favour of taxation to refute the thesis of self-ownership. Cohen (a pro taxer) attempts to do just this. He argues that everyone has an obligation towards others, and the state must enforce this via taxation. This derives from egalitarian principles and duty-based ethics, where we ought to play a communal role in society.

Cohen then goes further in rejecting the thesis of selfownership. He says that all taxes are slave-like as one is undertaking forced labour to help the needy, and so he says if one accepts the thesis of self-ownership, they must reject all taxation, even that which allows a minimal state to run. Cohen argues that this is impossible and so we must accept tax. He also shows that self-ownership can be denied because of the eyeball lottery scenario, where one eyeball is forcefully taken from each individual and redistributed to other people. Cohen uses this example to suggest that our objecting to the eyeball distribution is due to the excessive interference into people’s lives, not due to ownership. Hence, humans do not care about self-ownership, so it is meaningless if tax violates this thesis.

Nozick may respond by arguing that excessive interference is a large part of the issue, but this does not mean ownership is not a problem, because in the eyeball example the owner

of the eye will feel more pain than the person who gains it. He would conclude that tax is theft because self-ownership is important, thereby providing a convincing argument.

Eastern Philosophical Views

Eastern philosophy approaches the debate from an alternative perspective, as the notion of autonomy is very different in eastern cultures; this is especially true of Buddhism and Jainism. Different schools of eastern philosophy have differing viewpoints.

The first perspective being discussed is the eastern philosophers that defend tax. A central idea to Buddhism is the concept of “anatta”, which refers to all sentient life forms as “substanceless”. This is because they believe that every constituent part (such as physical form, consciousness, or mental formations) in a human constantly changes. Eastern philosophy concludes that this impermanence addresses issues surrounding the identity of a person; the constituent parts of a human constantly change meaning that the notion of the “self” is illusionary. Advocates of eastern philosophy such as Thich Nhat Hanh may therefore argue against the concept of self-ownership.

They would support this by referring to “dependent arising” (that all beings are interconnected and dependent on each other), “anatta”, and the idea of complete equality. As a result, “self-ownership” is illogical because no single being is independent, meaning the result of their labour should be equally shared and not individually owned. Hence, eastern philosophy is seemingly arguing that tax is not theft, rather is justified and morally advisable.

For tax to be theft, you must seize others’ possessions. As philosophers like Nhat Hanh may be inclined to argue against the thesis of self-ownership, it seems that tax is not theft because one does not own the “fruits of their labour”, indicating that there are no initial possessions which are being stolen. The moral acceptability of taxation is compounded by the belief that the act of taxation will result in positive karma (desirable future consequences).

Peter Harvey would emphasise a further, possible eastern philosophical perspective on the issue. He would agree that tax is fair, and it is not theft. However, he may focus on the regressive nature of taxes (especially, for example, VAT) and suffering. Regressive taxes are the same for all people, and so affect the poor the most as a higher proportion of their income is taxed. This fundamental principle declares that any tax which implodes excessive suffering on individuals is morally impermissible.

Although the above arguments in favour of taxation seem plausible, the second perspective being discussed is the stronger eastern philosophical arguments that tax is theft. Those against tax can critique the link between not having a self (anatta) and owning one’s labour. Just because eastern philosophy states that there is no permanent self, this does not mean people cannot have property. People can still rightfully own things, such as their labour, and so eastern philosophy could take the viewpoint that seizing the products of workers’ labour through tax is theft. This is very convincing.

A final viewpoint against tax may come from Jeffrey Morgan. Although Buddhism in particular rejects the idea of the self, they do not reject autonomy. Hence some may argue that

a tax which affects autonomy (namely income tax) can be theft: it robs the subjects of freedom. Buddhism’s stance on this specificity is generally considered counter intuitive. Buddhists argue that the notion of the self prevents autonomy because when one is unable to realise that they are merely a combination of everchanging parts, they become overly attached to other humans. These people are deceived by the “self”, and ultimately their autonomy is restricted. As a result, any tax which restricts autonomy is unjust, and some eastern philosophers could even consider it to be theft.

The Social Contract and Kant

Jean-Jacques Rousseau would argue that tax is not theft, referring to the social contract: one give’s up a part of their individual liberty in return for civil liberty, a form of protection from the state. Yet anarchists and libertarians disagree with this idea on the basis that there never was any written legislation, hence one cannot be bound by a theoretical agreement that they did not sign. Moreover, they may claim that not everyone is represented within the social contract.

Pro-taxers such as Thomas Jefferson have argued that each generation does not have to be bound by the previous generation’s commitment, and so it ought to vary depending on the age. However, libertarians proclaim that, governments are independent of generations and so the social contract is an intergenerational phenomenon. Most people do not have the ability to opt out and so the arrangement is involuntary and unfair.

Immanuel Kant could have supported the libertarian viewpoint that tax is theft, especially in cases of corrupt governance.

Kant’s humanity formula states that one can never merely use other humans as a “means”; however, when the government taxes people and does not specifically use the revenue for redistributive purposes, it is evident they are taxing for selfbenefit and so violate the categorical imperative. An example of this could be Hungary in the 21st century, who have been found to be the most corrupt government in Europe. Kant would be inclined to agree that tax, especially of this form, is theft.

The initial acquisition of resources

Murray Rothbard, an extreme libertarian, and anarchocapitalist entirely rejected all forms of taxation. Rothbard recognized how generally pro-taxers mention the idea of original acquisition, where previously unowned resources in the natural world can only come to be possessed in a just manner. Pro-taxers develop this by insisting that most resources in the natural world are owned unjustly, meaning that those who currently have them should not. As a result, they argue for continuous taxation as reparation for the initial unjust ownership of resources.

Rothbard and other libertarians believe that an initial unjust allocation of resources is insufficient justification for continuous taxation. They refer to Locke’s theory of property where he stated that “he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property”. Locke asserted that one possesses their labour and therefore they can mix this labour with a previously free resource to attain it. During this process, possession of another resource is terminated, allowing other people to have that resource. This leads to a continuous cycle of people acquiring different property in a free market setting, meaning that the initial

unjust acquisition is negated through subsequent free shifting ownership of resources. Consequently, taxation is unjustified because it is compensating for an act which has already been atoned for. A modern example of this unfair tax could be property tax, where sellers are charged a capital gains tax, and buyers are charged with a stamp duty.

Michael Otsuka, who was in favour of tax, suggested that the initial acquisition of previously unowned resources can only be deemed as just if it allows for equality where everyone has the same opportunity to utilise the resources to flourish. However, libertarians strongly disagree with Otsuka and provide the response that it is deeply implausible that the fairness of the acquisition of resources is dependent on generations which were not alive at the time, and who do not have a tangible perspective on the matter. Otsuka’s proviso could lead to a scenario where any initial acquisition is wrong due to its future implications (that are impossible to determine at the time of acquisition), which is counter intuitive.

Aristotle’s theory of justice provides an alternative viewpoint on the initial acquisition of resources. Aristotle would deem it to be an “unjust state of affairs” rather than an injustice because no individual previously owned the resources. Aristotle may conclude that tax is theft, primarily because it cannot be defended as rectifying the initial unjust acquisition of resources.

The ethics of inheritance tax

Inheritance tax seems to be theft because citizens have fulfilled their duties for the entirety of their life and the receivers of their money are taxed further for a seemingly redundant

reason. Compassion is not unjust. The desire to bequest to one’s children reflects family devotedness and is not unjust.

Many, however, argue that inheritance is unfair. Ernest Solvay concluded that inheritance is unequally distributed and is the main cause of intergenerational inequality. John Rawls argues that an inheritance tax is not theft, stating that “no one deserves his greater natural capacity nor merits a more favourable starting placed in society”. His veil of ignorance supports this, and he believed that inheritance tax is not theft because it undoes the intergenerational injustices; rather inheritance tax is restoration. J.S. Mill believed in high and progressive inheritance taxation, and argued it was justified because the fact that people have earned lawfully due to equality of opportunity does not give them the right to worsen inequalities in the following generation.

These are plausible theories supporting inheritance tax. Nevertheless, these arguments do not tackle Nozick’s key claim: tax is involuntary. Regardless of injustices which are being amended, an inheritance tax does not give individuals the opportunity to do otherwise, in which case they do not have free will and are being unwilfully stolen from.

Why tax is a necessary evil

This essay has extensively discussed how taxation may be theft. Yet, taxation is a necessity for the functioning of modern society. The 20th and 21st centuries have seen increasing interconnectedness, meaning nearly all modern citizens of developed countries are reliant on others for survival. This reliance must be facilitated via taxation, and if people are unwilling to be taxed then they must be self-subsistent. This generally equates to living on a rural farm, producing one’s own food, as well as being devoid of any societal influences.

This is increasingly uncommon and impossible in the modern climate. Hence, it is clear how our lives are dependent on taxation and so it is required.

Conclusion

Various stances on the ethics of tax have been considered, yet Nozick’s argument that tax is involuntary seems to be the most fundamental claim. Although the revenues from tax can be used for social benefit, tax violates the thesis of self-ownership which is an extremely intuitive theory. Protaxers such as Hobbes or Rawls fail to address the issue of the involuntary nature of taxation, as well as the fact that when being taxed one effectively submits to the idea that the beneficiaries of the state own the worker. Overall, I think that tax can generally be thought of as theft; however, society’s wellbeing is dependent on it and so taxation is essential.

Should we believe in free will?

Evan Ning, Year 11

Throughout the history of humanity, the topic of free will is one of the most controversial and heavily debated topics, over which many wars have been fought. In this essay, I will argue that it does not matter whether free will exists or not and it is intrinsically valuable for humans to believe in free will, as it is an integral part of our humanity.

People can argue that even though science may have proven that free will does not exist, they should still believe in it since it is more beneficial both personally and for society to believe in the concept of free will. The idea of free will, whose creation is credited to the Greek philosophers Aristotle and Epictetus, is the notion that we have the powers to want to control our actions and do anything we wish. If people understand that they can determine the outcomes of the events of their lives with free will, they will care about their actions more positively and be more conscious of the results of their actions, compared to a deterministic society in which people believe that every event would be just a part in an inevitable chain of fate caused by previous actions.

Indeed, the idea of free will has been heavily linked with our own morality – free will is obligatory for moral responsibility

to exist as an idea. Therefore, someone who believes in libertarian free will would normally be more willing to make choices beneficial to their community. This is because they believe in a future of multiple choices based on their own decisions through free will, they realise that they can impact the outcome of every situation. Most people in this case would opt for the morally superior option, either because of their own personal beliefs, or the fact that making these options generally lead to a happier outcome for everyone. On the other hand, people who believe in determinism may develop a fatalistic worldview, leading them to reject more actively morality in their own choices, since they conceive all actions to be pre-determined effects caused by other actions in an unavoidable destiny. They would then tend to care less about the impact of their own actions and as a result typically would not make as morally justified choices as those who believe in free will and be more dismissive of their own actions, due to the belief that none of their actions ultimately matters.

As German philosopher Emmanual Kant said, “If we are not free to choose then it would make no sense to say we ought to choose the path of righteousness.” - human actions are bound by their sense of moral responsibility, and fear of punishment; however neither of these would apply for a fatalist, since they believe in an unavoidable destiny, so as such, they would not be afraid of punishments, knowing that they are unavoidable, or be bound by moral responsibility, as they would be neglectful of the impacts of their own actions.

This theory of free will believers more likely to commit moral acts has been proved by multiple studies before. For example, in 2002 psychologists Kathleen Vohs and Jonathan Schooler conducted an experiment when two groups of participants were subjected to temptations and their behaviours were

observed, the difference being that one group had read an article arguing that free will is fiction, and the other having a read a passage that was neutral on the topic. The results show that the second group exposed to the neutral article tended to make more moral choices than the first group, whom when given an opportunity to take money from a bag, had chosen to take more than the other group.

However, with the rise of technology, modern science has grown increasingly closer to completely deciphering the enigma that is the human mind, and with it, proving that there is no such thing as the free will. In recent years, technology such as brain scanners are developed and used to examine our brain and find out that everything we do is caused by networks of neurones; when the brain instructs us to do something, we will act even before we use our supposed free will to make the decision.

In the 1980s a physiologist called Benjamin Libet, used an electroencephalogram which demonstrate the activity of the brain, to show that you can predict any thought a human will have 300 milliseconds before they actually decide in their consciousness; before we make a conscious decision, our brain in our sub-conscious has already made the decision for us before we even start to think that we made that decision through free will. Since our decisions have already been pre-made for us by our own sub-consciousness, the idea of free will would seem just like an illusion our brain has created, so why should we believe in an illusion?

People may argue that because science has proven that free will is fiction, it is pointless to still believe in free will as it is irrational and may cause extra pain and suffering

from when you discover it is unreal. They believe that even though following free will may lead you to make more moral choices and benefit society more; they do not benefit you in your own mental wellness and might even hurt you when you eventually discover that it is false – ultimately, because free will does not exist, people believe that you should not believe in a falsehood as it is fiction which cannot help you in your life.

An example would be how after discovering that for the majority of your life that you have been told a lie (such as suddenly discovering that you were adopted, and your parents had not told you so) you would generally be incredibly angry and experience other unpleasant feelings as well such as misery – even though whilst you believed that you were not adopted you had experienced lots happiness, suffering is inevitable for when you inevitably discover that it is a falsehood – if you do accept that free will is fake, there seems to be no reason for you to believe in it.

Nevertheless, I believe that even though this argument seems to be sound, it is a weak viewpoint because even though believing in a false idea that does not align with science may cause misery, choosing to believe in it will still earn you more happiness overall as it is not the idea that matters, but how this idea affects your life. Whilst belief in an idea proven wrong may sound pointless, through believing in free will, even though it is false, might bring us more happiness than if we had rejected it. Humans do often attempt to find more happiness through believing in ideas that disagree with science and thus can be considered “fiction” even though they might not be realistic.

A Harvard survey conducted in 2006 - 2007 found that religious people are often happier and content in their lives than non-religious people as about 28% of religious people described themselves to be extremely happy, whereas only 20% of no religious people do consider themselves to be so. I consider humans believing in false ideas for happiness to be similar to deceiving themselves to feel better to be normal as you convince yourself of what you want to believe and because believing in free will would generally lead to a happier outcome for the believer, I would argue that it is perfectly logical for someone to believe and maybe trick themselves into believing in free will, even if they realise that it is fiction.

Overall, it is essential for people to believe in free will, even if they might think that it is false because of how it is typical for free will believers to experience more happiness in life than determinists or fatalists since accepting free will would inspire people to make more active decisions that are morally superior.

The Rome Call for AI

Ravjoth Brar, Year 9

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is revolutionising the world at a rapid pace and the ethical implications of AI are very intriguing. Before I discuss the ethics of AI let me define what I mean by AI. Encyclopaedia Britannica defines Artificial Intelligence as, ‘The ability of a digital computer or computer-controlled robot to perform tasks commonly associated with intelligent beings’.

On the 10th of January 2023, representatives of the three Abrahamic religions signed a document called the Rome Call for AI Ethics. This document was monumental as it outlined six key principles which should be implemented in the future of AI systems. They wanted to guarantee a future in which AI is at the service of human ingenuity and creativity whilst ensuring that AI is transparent, inclusive, controlled and governed with human interests in mind. I agree with these principles and in this article, I am going to discuss some of the challenges in implementing them.

The first principle is transparency. A common misconception regarding AI transparency and traceability is that they are the same when they are actually very different. AI transparency is the concept that we should develop AI with the ability to understand how it works. On the other hand, AI traceability is the ability that the AI should be able to re-trace its journey backwards and record where it found its information and how it reached its conclusion. In my opinion, AI traceability is more

important. This is because the AI can then help to mitigate bias by explaining its logic and working back to understand where it went wrong if needed. However, in this document they seem to confuse these two concepts and definite traceability as the ability for the AI to be able to explain its actions. This may need to be investigated further as it is crucial that as society progresses to using more AI systems, the correct regulations are in place.

The second principle is inclusion. In this situation they define inclusion as everyone benefiting and being offered the best possible conditions to express themselves and develop. An example of this is AI being used to generate art. Shutterstock is suing a famous AI called Stable Diffusion. This is because Stable Diffusion’s AI was trained with data and images from Shutterstock of artworks without consent from the artists. This has resulted in a massive uproar from traditional artists as they demand to be reimbursed for their artwork.

The third principle is accountability. Accountability is the idea that there must always be a person who takes responsibility for an AI’s actions. This principle has already been implemented by the EU to ensure that people do not exploit AI systems and not be held accountable for what it has done. This will also encourage more companies to place better safeguards and regulations on their AI systems to prevent this from happening. This is very interesting ethically - if an AI system goes haywire and accidentally does an illegal act, is a person to blame for an illegal act that they did not commit?

This would technically be accusing an innocent person of a crime. The implications are immense because if this is properly enforced, then if an AI system develops on their own and then

commits an illegal act will the person who created the initial AI system be to blame or the AI system itself? Furthermore, how are you going to punish an AI system as it will feel no retribution for its actions and cannot be punished traditionally i.e., in prison.

The fourth principle is impartiality, the concept that AI systems must not follow or create biases. At first glance this may seem like a very strong principle however as you look at it more, the more you realise how difficult it is. To ensure that AI does not follow or create biases, the training data being relied on must be checked before it can be used.

This is extremely hard to do as to would cost a lot of money and resources to review. Currently, most training data used in AI systems are being trawled from the Internet as it is an easily accessible vast pool of data. However, some repercussions may be that the AI will not be as intelligent as it has not been trained on a lot of independent data. For example, this may result in bias in hiring applications where the AI has the potential to stereotype against a certain community due to their race being underrepresented in the training data. We must realise that the regulation of AI systems is still developing, and we all need to play a part in ensuring its equitable outcome.

Noaz Heymann, Year 9

The Bible suggests God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Omnipotent means allpowerful, omnibenevolent means all-loving, omniscient means all-knowing and omnipresent means all-present. If God is omnipotent then that means whatever God “wants” will happen as God has the power to make it happen. If God is omnibenevolent, God has a perfect sense of morality and has unlimited goodness. This means God loves all living-beings, including humans. An omniscient God knows everything, and an omnipresent God is everywhere observing everything in the universe at the same time.

If God were omnipotent then God could do anything no matter how impossible it might seem. If God wanted to create a rock that God cannot lift there are two possibilities: either God couldn’t make it in which case God would not be omnipotent, or God could make it in which case God would not be able to lift the rock so God would still not be omnipotent.

There are other examples of what God wouldn’t be able to do as they would be “impossible”. If God were omnipotent, God

Is God omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscent?

would be able to do what human logic tells us is impossible, such as lifting an unliftable rock. If God is omnipotent then human logic prevents us from understanding all the different aspects of God. If God is omnipotent, then God also has the ability to be omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipresent. If it is not possible for God to be all those things, then it is not possible for God to be omnipotent. This means that the question comes down to: is God omnipotent? (This doesn’t answer whether God is currently omnibenevolent, omniscient or omnipresent.) If God is, then it is possible for God to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipresent. If God is omniscient then God knows everything. This would mean that God knows the future. If God knows the future, then the future is set in stone and will certainly happen.

This would mean no matter what we do, we cannot change the future. We wouldn’t be able to control what we do as it was always going to happen. If this is true, then we have no free will. All our choices are just illusions. In this case, people are not more or less deserving but more or less lucky, therefore we wouldn’t be able to blame anyone for anything as whatever happens would not be there fault, and there would be nothing anyone could do to stop it.

The main problem with not having free will is the loss of morality. People will lose a sense of moral responsibility and as people would not be considered responsible for their actions, there would be no point in stopping crime. One possible answer to this is that humans might not actually have free will. This means it is still possible for God to be omniscient. However, if God is omnipotent, God would still be able to grant us free

will but still know everything. If God is omnipotent, God would be able to be omniscient but we would also be able to have free will. We must live in a perfect world for God to be all loving and all powerful, as an all-loving being would “want” us to live in the best possible world. But what is a perfect world? Is it one where there is the most happiness or the most meaning or one in which we would like the most? Another approach is that a perfect world is subjective, and a perfect world is different for everyone as we all have our own ideas of what a perfect world is. None of these versions of “a perfect world” are true as none of them are currently true for everyone. (These are just examples of definitions, not necessarily the exact ones.) Not everyone in the world is happy, believes they have meaning or think they live in a perfect world because there is constantly suffering in the world.

Therefore, the definition of a “perfect world” must be something we already have live in or are currently living in. This would mean everything we have ever lived through and ever will is a perfect world. Perhaps a “perfect world” is one in which humans are continuously improving as a species, even if that means individual suffering exists. Even if this isn’t “the” definition of a perfect world, then there still must be a definition that describes our world even if we don’t know what it is.

God must know what it is as God is supposedly omniscient so if the answer to the question is yes, we would indeed live in a perfect world. However, some people believe that suffering is proof that God cannot exist because if suffering is bad, God cannot be omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

If God truly is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient or omnipresent, then we’d expect our world to be very different to what it is. Our logic isn’t perfect in even our most simple reasoning because everything would be possible so things that appear to us to contradict themselves would still be possible. Unless everything we think we know is incorrect, then God cannot be omnipotent. Therefore, the only way for God to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipresent is if our basic human logic is flawed.

Psychology of religion: Does it affect individuals in a positive or negative way?

Ishan Visvanath, Year 8

In the modern day, religion and belief stems from our mindset, environments, and genetics, shaping our personality and who we are as individuals. The compounding of such ideologies forms the basis of humanity, and in many ways, the society which we are part of. In this essay, I will be exploring the impacts of religion to an individual, delving deeper into the fine psychological and anthropological nuances.

For one, religion acts as a book of rules; for some, a way of guidance and mentoring to help strive for perfection and justice. Many religions, including Hinduism and Christianity to name a few, help to advocate positive actions, through conceptions such as Karma and of Heaven and Hell. By encouraging the process of widening one’s moral compass, religion helps to propel thought and goodness in the world, one person at a time.

In a 2004 research paper by Azim Shariff of the University of Oregon and Ara Norenzayan of British Columbia, it was found that fear of supernatural punishment leads the average religious individual to behaving in a more honest

and righteous way. Moreover, another experiment conducted by the association of physiological science found that from an ethnically diverse pool of undergraduate students, those who were non-religious cheated on a scripted computerised test (meant to allow people to cheat) significantly more than religious pupils. This shows that those tied to a belief in God seem to follow rules tremendously closer, resultant of the punishment they believe they could suffer as an effect of negative or morally wrong action.

On the converse, the concept of religion makes people lose the sense of control over their lives. Bertrand Russell, a renowned British philosopher, and social critic, along with countless others believe that the primary following of religion is to protect one against the fear of the unknown and the wish of a mentor to guide and protect one against life’s adversities. His diagnosis of religion strips back to two major elements: The first being that faith is a symptom of fear, for aware that our lives are precarious and uncertain, we seek protection and guidance. Secondly is the exact opposite. Russell preaches that the root of fear lies in the belief of punishment by supernatural being. This links back to his original point by suggesting that humans lose a sense of regulation, because of religion tying them down.

However, through the process of exploring deeper into the depths of both tandems of belief, I can form a conclusion that the impacts of religion are somewhat balanced. Whilst it may often give life a sense of direction and purpose, it could also lead one away from their core beliefs and values, painting a different picture of thoughts, ideology, and perspective.

My Bar Mitzvah Speech

Adam Narkis, Year 8

Hello everyone. This essay is about the Jewish outlook on the responsibilities of a person regarding other people. The reason why I am talking about this topic is because I believe that the world is becoming more and more challenging and competitive. Consequently, people tend to focus more and more on themselves.

The concept of saving another person’s life is valued across many beliefs, but Judaism has a broader message in this highly debated topic. The Torah tells us in the book of Leviticus that lo ta’amod al dam rei’echa – you cannot stand by idly when your fellow’s blood is being spilt. A person is not only responsible for their actions, but also for their lack of action. Interestingly, this iconic line is in the middle of a longer verse. The first half of that verse is lo telech rachil be’amecha – you shall not be a peddler of gossip, which is the Biblical source against lashon hara – slandering other people.

Therefore, it emerges that when the Torah tells us not to be “peddlers of gossip,” in the very same line, it tells us not to stand by when our fellow’s blood is being spilled. These two commandments appearing together seem somewhat asymmetric, one is active, and one is passive.

English law dictates that unless one has a duty of care, one would not legally be bound to help someone in mortal danger. In contrast, Jewish law expects a person to help save someone else if it is easily within their abilities. Lack of action can even be equivalent to actual murder where one is able to support but dismisses the responsibility to save a life. The same is also true in terms of reputation. When a person is belittled (regardless of whether that person is present) if no one else stands up to defend them, it will seem that there is an agreement with the damaging statement.

Rav Chaim Paltiel, writes in the thirteenth century that the positioning of these two laws next to each other is deliberate. This is to demonstrate that if one is in the habit of bad-mouthing other people, the same person is more likely to stand by idly when someone else’s life is in danger, because they are less sympathetic. In short, slandering others can makes us view human life more cheaply. Let’s now move on to the value of a person’s life.

The Talmud tells us in the story of creation that G-d created mankind with only one person, rather than many at once. It is to teach us that if one saves the life of a single person, it is as if they have saved the entire world. Let me explain this concept using the story of Cain and Abel, sons of Adam and Eve.

When Cain murders Abel, God asks Cain where his brother was. Cain replies, ‘am I my brother’s keeper?’ taking no responsibility for his brother. G-d then rebukes Cain for murdering his brother, by using the words: kol demai achicha tzo’akimelei – the voice of the bloods of your brother are crying to Me. The plural word ‘bloods’ are used in the phrase

to further underline the point conveyed here – every person has endless, incalculable number of descendants.

In terms of human life, Judaism highlights both the importance of life, AND the potential of life itself. The idea of potential and the need to maximise it is applicable not only in terms of people, but also possessions. We cannot waste resources, and the paradigm example for not wasting within the Torah is the prohibition to cut down fruit trees. There are two quotes supporting this idea:

The Torah verse “man is a fruit tree,”, and then the ironic line “any fool can count the apples in a fruit tree, but only G-d can count the fruit trees in an apple”. This underlines how our resources, like people, have endless potential to produce.

The Talmud also tells us that a person should not spill the waters of their pit when others need them. In effect, wasting resources even when they are privately owned is still forbidden.

Just like we cannot waste resources, we also have responsibility to preserve our planet. Despite this responsibility, we often assume that we can hinder the growth of nature, as if we have full ownership over the world. However, it says in the book of Psalms, ha’aretz natan livnei adam – the earth was given to mankind. The world belongs to us, but not exactly, as G-d’s first instruction to us is to guard and preserve the Earth and all that’s in it. This is a responsibility imposed to the entire human race for all generations.

Our ancestors worked to keep our planet. If we don’t give the same to our kids, grandkids, or great grandkids, we will be known as the generation who didn’t fulfil this responsibility and destroyed our only home. Ironically, the prohibition of damage is not explicitly stated in the Torah. Instead, it instructs how we must compensate IF we cause damage, even if it is accidentally caused. So, what is the precise source which forbids damaging others’ possessions?

Rabbi Meir Halevi, a medieval Jewish scholar, argues that vandalising someone’s assets is like putting a stumbling block in front of a blind man... Of course, if you see a hazard in the street, you would be obliged to make sure no one is hurt by it, even if you were not the one who put it there in the first place. Likewise, when dealing with a person’s belongings, which is an extension of that person, everyone must try and save their property from possible loss or damage.

Another suggestion is the school of thought of RabbeinuYonah. He defines damage of property to be the same as stealing. If you cannot take what is not yours, you also cannot damage what is not yours. For example, if I steal someone’s mobile phone, the person no longer has it. If I destroy someone’s mobile phone, from their perspective, it is as bad as me stealing it.

In addition, RabeinuYona states that you cannot create a scenario where you allow other people damage someone’s property. So, if I see a mobile phone in public, I cannot just leave it. If then the mobile phone is damaged by someone else, I am equally liable for the damage.

Possibly an even stronger topic within responsibility for others is the need to protect another person’s public image. The theory of destroying a person’s reputation is one we can all relate to. Intriguingly, the Talmud says in more than one place that a person should rather be thrown into a fiery oven than embarrass another person in public. What does this mean? It sounds that You should be willing to die not to embarrass someone. However, many scholars’ debates whether this is to be taken literally or not, as there are only three cardinal sins for which we must give up our life in the Torah: murder, adultery and the idolatry. It’s clear the sin of embarrassing publicly is important in Judaism.

A dramatic story of saving someone from embarrassment can be found in the Talmud and involves Rabbi Yehuda the prince, who had a famed intolerance of garlic. He was teaching a large group and suddenly smelled garlic, which one of those present must have eaten before entering. He declared “Whoever ate the garlic should leave!” Upon hearing this, his primary pupil got up and left. The others took the hint and left, with the guilty party leaving disguised, being saved from embarrassment. This highlights how people in this story were willing to undergo shame so others would not suffer humiliation.

This story connects to a much broader question and that is the concept of “white lies” within Judaism, which the Talmud addresses. Crucially, the wording used there is that one is permitted to “change” one’s words for the sake of peace, as long as it’s not a lie.

Rabbi Elazar cites the story of Yosef’s brothers looking to gain forgiveness after their father has passed away. They arrange a message to be sent to Yosef in their father’s name. The

memo asks Yosef to forgive the brothers for having sold him, as if the father wrote the apology before his passing. We can clearly see that Rabbi Elazar confirms that one can adjust words for the sake of peace.

Let’s go back to the story of Cain and Abel; G-d reaches out to Cain without accusing him first, inviting him to “come clean” and admit his crime. However, when Cain lies and tells God that he doesn’t know what happened, G-d tells him how he has done wrong. This emphasises the importance of taking responsibility. We often find in life that the failure to do so is more unforgivable than the original crime itself. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks often spoke about the distinction between rights and responsibilities.

When a person focuses on rights, they will likely be more selffocused. Rights often involve seeing oneself as the starting point and how other people or things relate to them. In contrast, Responsibility is not about yourself, but about your obligations and expectations regarding others.

Here is an example of someone who just thinks about their own rights and not about their responsibilities to the world. Idling a car is when a person sits in the car with their engines running while parking. Quite often when I point it out that while their engines are on, they continue to pollute, the car owners claim it’s their car and that they have the right to do whatever they want with it.

What those people forget is that they don’t own the air they are polluting, and they are responsible for it. Viewing your life from a perspective of only rights is therefore quite selfish

and potentially dangerously destructive. In contrast, if you consider your responsibilities, that can be empowering and is something I hope to live by throughout my life.

So, what have we learnt by looking at the Jewish perspective on responsibilities? There is a common thread with all these topics. Whatever you decide to do regarding the scenarios that I’ve mentioned, there will always be consequences. Your actions, or even your lack of actions, will always affect other people. So, whenever you do something, please think about the outcome on yourself and others.

To save the world from natural disaster, we need to take extreme measures which is advocated by those who believe in deep ecology. This ideology emphasizes the value of all living beings and their right to co-exist and thrive in our world. Conversely, others reject this view in favour of adopting a more balanced approach.

People who agree with deep ecology believe that humans should have a more harmonious relationship with the natural world and that this can be achieved by seeing the world differently to how we do today.

If we recognise the interconnectedness of all living beings and the importance of preserving wildlife, our decisions will be influenced by protecting the environment and promoting sustainable concepts. Thus, as a natural consequence, we can prevent ecological disasters such as climate change, deforestation, and loss of habitat. For example, you may consciously choose to buy an electric car over a diesel one

‘Only by following deep ecology will the world be saved from ecological disaster’

Kayan Shah, Year 7

due to the carbon emissions emitted.

However, there are also issues of deep ecology, many argue that it is easier said than done and impractical. They point out that it may not be possible to eliminate the impact of human activities on the environment especially as there are many imbalances in the world. Using the point above, for an electric car, deep ecology forces you to consider how electricity is generated, from fossil fuels or from renewable sources. But it doesn’t end there. We need to consider the materials used to construct the turbines, the carbon footprint of manufacturing it and the spiral of questions can be never ending.

Deep ecology prioritizes the needs of non-human beings over those of humans, which could lead to conflicts and tensions. An example of this is competition over natural resources like fresh water. Without us limiting the population of animals through slaughter, animal numbers will grow and put more pressure on finite resources.

In conclusion, it is clear to me that we need to take urgent action to protect the environment and prevent further damage. Whether we choose a deep ecology philosophy or a more realistic approach, it is crucial that we prioritize more sustainable actions. I believe we should work towards a deeper ecological world but do it gradually so there is no sudden, unexpected change. Ultimately, our combined actions will decide if we can prevent ecological disaster or not.