LAYLA
Evaluate the claim that the soul is distinct from the body. The claim that the soul is distinct from the body must be rejected on the grounds that our identity, consciousness and reality (soul) is bound and shaped by sense experience. Any reference to a separate metaphysical entity that moulds our individuality is contrary to experience and our mind/soul, as we know it, is the product of the functioning of the brain, a physical thing. As a dualist Plato maintained soul and body are separate entities, the former being immortal whilst the latter mortal. Plato’s understanding of the soul is deeply rooted in his concept of the Forms, arguing that the soul is both ‘simple’ and essential to obtaining knowledge of the Forms. For Plato, the body is an impediment to obtaining true knowledge, a ‘source of endless trouble’ and subject to change, therefore an unreliable guide to truth. The chariot analogy is used to demonstrate the conflicting nature of the body and soul. The soul is compared to a chariot driver attempting to control two horses that pull in different directions, the mind and body. The body consists of desires and emotions that distract humans from the basis of existence, truth. Kenny uses an example of a young child throwing a tantrum to illustrate the disharmony between the soul and body. The desire that causes the tantrum is driven by irrationality, as is the human body. Plato uses the argument from knowledge to substantiate the claim that the body and soul are distinct. He describes learning as remembering what the soul has known previously in the world of Forms. Our grasp of concepts such as beauty despite not encountering the Form of beauty is used to prove the eternal nature of the soul. However, this argument relies on the assumption that the world of Forms is real. Just because there is an understanding of certain concepts like Justice, it does not entail that it exists in a metaphysical realm. Our differing standards of beauty across the globe surely also undermine the idea of an objective ‘Form of beauty’. Secondly, Plato suggests that the soul could exist as a separate entity because it acted separately from the body when engaged in pure thought. This coincides with Descartes view that the separateness of the body and soul could be determined if humans could prove their existence without reference to their physical bodies. For Descartes the statement “I think therefore I am” established that he existed, without matter. However there is clear scientific evidence to support the claim that thought is impossible without the brain, a physical organ. Identity theory supports the notion that the identity of a person is intricately linked to the physical body as chemicals can alter mental processes, removing the link to an immaterial soul that shapes us. Additionally thinkers such as Russell have explained the popularity of ideas such as immortality of the soul as being stemmed from fear of time and death. Monists adopt a materialist perspective and assert there is only one ‘substance’, matter. For Aristotle the body and soul are one entity, the body is matter and the soul is its form. The form is the function of a living thing and the nature of a living things soul/form is contingent on type of living thing. At the bottom of the hierarchy are plants that function to grow and reproduce whilst animals’ function also consists of appetites. The human soul has a unique quality, the power of reason and ability to develop a moral compass. Aristotle uses the example of an axe to explain the soul and its mortality. The matter would be the wood and metal and its soul would be the function that enables it to be an axe. This function is the capacity to chop; once this is removed it ceases to be an axe. In the same way, when ‘humans’ die the function that characterises human existence, the capacity to reason no longer exists. Therefore the soul is bound by time. The body and soul are inseparable and the functioning of the human soul cannot exist without a physical brain. However it should be noted that whilst the soul is inseparable from the body Aristotle made an exception for reason. Aristotle’s theory is based on the notion of the final cause, which can be criticised. The idea that universe has a purpose is disputed by Camus and Sartre who describe the universe as ‘absurd’. Nonetheless, you can both accept that the universe has no purpose as well as believing that certain living things engage in different types of activities e.g. animals operate on pleasure contrary to plants. Additionally Aristotle’s understanding of the soul differs greatly from Plato’s. Aristotle concept of the soul is concerned about the material function of each object as opposed to Plato’s soul, which tries to reconcile with the metaphysical, world of Forms. Therefore, Aristotle theory is very compatible with modern science contrary to Plato. John Hick rejects dualism and unlike Plato, is able to explain the link between the mind and body through a ‘psycho-somatic unity’. By this Hick means that humans are an inseparable unity of body and soul, which defends the idea of resurrection. Hick argues resurrection is a divine act whereby a ‘replica’ is created and is only observable by God. Paul Davies argues that if a replica version of oneself was created post-mortem it ‘would be no consolation’ as they would still be dead. Hick defends this objection by distinguishing between a replica and a copy. Whilst hundreds of copies can be made, the term replica rests on the premise that if the replica has the same consciousness and memory, it is no different to the original. Hick uses the example of someone disappearing from London and reappearing in New York, what enabled them to be identified was their character and physical bodies. If the same were to occur in another world, they would also be recognisable. Hick uses the supernatural world to substantiate his claims e.g. ghosts, suggesting that their existence affirms that physical resurrection is possible after death. This form of evidence is questionable, as the use of mediums to contact the supernatural is not widely respected in the field of science. This is not to say such practices are absolute fabrications but contacting the supernatural world, is highly unlikely. Hick also faces other problems as he fails to clarify at which state we will be replicated and surely we must be in a different state from death for replication to occur but then are we still replicas? Overall, matter is required to facilitate thought processes therefore to argue that the soul exists separately from the body would be contradictory experience.

‘The environment suffers because business has no ethics’ Discuss. “The purpose of a business is to make…money” (Milton Friedman). Whilst businesses contribute greatly to environmental degradation, whether or not businesses have a moral obligation to care for the environment is disputed. The idea that businesses should be held accountable for the environmental predicament we face detracts from the real problem, consumers. It must be remembered that businesses operate on a supply/demand framework controlled by consumers; therefore it would seem odd to impose moral standards on businesses that merely cater to these demands. Surely with the right to choose, it becomes the consumer’s duty to choose consciously. Many would disagree with economist Friedman’s assertion that the purpose of business is to make money. Social contract theory proposed by Rawls argues that businesses have a duty to ensure operations act in the interests of society and are not harmful. It is important to note the distinction between society and the environment, as what benefits the environment may not necessarily benefit ordinary citizens. For instance, the development of LEDCs rests on trade, and whilst carbon dioxide emissions degrade the environment, should our concern for the environment outweigh the conditions of the poorest in our society? Deep ecologists such as Naess would argue that humans should not be prioritised over the rest of the environments wellbeing. Others would suggest future generations must be considered as they are affected by our current attitude to the environment. Whilst our attitude to the environment should change, this does not necessarily make it the responsibility of business. Also, the ‘future generations’ argument is unclear and is subject to the same criticism as the utilitarian approach to the environment. How far in the future must our actions be based on? For instance, hybrid cars are currently viewed as the “environmentally friendly” alternative to regular cars however it only reduces emissions by 10%. In 200 years, hybrid cars may be considered damaging. So should possible conditions in 200 years prevent us from adopting hybrid cars? What becomes clear is that the statement the environment suffers because business has no ethics is problematic. It is either based on the incorrect assumption that environmental wellbeing constitutes to human wellbeing or ignores the good business brings to society. Therefore, environmental suffering should not be used as criteria to assess whether or not a business is ethical. The statement is also problematic as businesses are scapegoated for environmental suffering; it neglects the role of regular consumers as well as governments that are willing to facilitate these actions. In recent years there has been an economic incentive for businesses to take into account the environment. Businesses often want to present themselves in the best light possible therefore the idea of corporate responsibility is more often than not central to a businesses marketing strategy. Corporate responsibility encompasses the environment as well society therefore many businesses have been built on the ethos of ‘no animal testing’ or other environmentally conscious ideas. The Body Shop is a notable example of a business that catered to conscious consumers by not using animal testing. Some have used this example to argue that there can be a balance between profit and ethics. What it does reinforce is that consumers create demand and the Body Shop has catered to that demand. Businesses are not established to protect the environment rather they are used to generate profit therefore it is the role of the consumer to ensure that they are purchasing goods that limit damage to the environment. Kant would find practices of the Body Shop problematic as he emphasised the purity of our intentions in acting morally, but even the actions of Body Shop are based on the belief that such actions are profitable. The deontology of Kant makes it impractical to apply to business and environmental ethics as both are concerned with the end result. If the Body Shop contributes to a more humane society, does the intention truly matter?
The reason as to why oil companies thrive is because non-renewable technologies such as HEP are less economically viable. More demand, which is created by consumers, will mean that businesses are more inclined to invest in sustainable projects. Consumption ‘acts as a direct ballot sheet which can always and everywhere applied politically’. It falls under the consumer’s responsibility to ensure that what he/or she is buying is ethical, to create demand for sustainable products and diminish those that are not. If the CEO’s of all major oil companies miraculously decided that the oil business was no longer for him/her, the use of fossil fuels and oil drilling would not stop permanently. A wealthy person would decide to invest in oil production because demand still exists, however if demand were to miraculously fall, it would no longer be economically viable to sustain the oil business. The market and business is a manifestation of human needs and desires. The ‘unethical’ practices of businesses are reflection of society. When we assert that the environment suffers because of business, who is actually is held morally accountable. It is easy to blame the CEOs or CFOs but consumers are complicit in perpetuating a consumerist culture that disregards the environment. It becomes clear that businesses are not inherently bad or good rather they can be used as forces for evil or good and it is moral incumbent on the consumer to ensure that business is used for good Overall, the statement that the environment suffers because business has no ethics is inaccurate. The environment suffering on behalf societies welfare is not always negative and business operations demonstrate the lack of ‘ethics’ and concern consumers have