“Ethical statements are merely an expression of emotion”. Discuss.

Meta-ethics is a different field of ethics do normative ethics. The term Meta derives from the Greek word above or beyond. This Meta-ethics looks further than ethical theories by looking at terms used in ethics, such as “good” and “right”. Whilst normative ethics decides which things are right or wrong, giving us a moral guide, Meta-ethics attempts to make sense of the concepts the theories purport. In order to fully understand theories such as Utilitarianism, one needs to understand the terms used. Meta-ethical theories fall into two main groups. Firstly there is ethical cognitivism, which holds the belief that ethical statements derive from sensual experience and are objective. Secondly there is ethical non-cognitivism, which states moral values cannot be derived from sense experience, so cannot be described as either true or false, so are thus subjective. One non-cognitivist theory is emotivism, which holds moral statements are based on emotion. Either way there are serious implications. If morality is indeed based on emotion, than morality is not entirely rational, as emotions are often not based on reason. Perhaps then, moral statements are meaningless is based on irrational emotion, and should not be followed, especially as emotions are so variable and thus entirely subjective. If there is no divine guidance behind emotions, morality could instead be traced back to simply being an arbitrary evolutionary concept.

Ethical naturalism or logical positivism is an example of a cognitive theory. Ethical naturalists, such as F.H.Bradley would state ethical statements are not merely expressions of emotion, and instead need to be verified by fact. Ethical statements in the eyes of ethical naturalists are the same as any other type of statement, in that they can be verified with facts, or falsified with contradicting facts. This is somewhat similar to Hume’s belief that things can only be real or meaningful if verified by the sense. Because of the emphasis on fact, ethical statements become objective and not relative as a statement based on emotion would be. An example of an ethical naturalist reasoning is “abortion is wrong because it kills a foetus”. This holds the factual support of death, and the statement that it is wrong. The main criticism of Ethical naturalism is the naturalistic fallacy argued by G.E.Moore. Moore in Principia Ethica argued that attempting to identify goodness with a natural quality is a mistake as moral statements cannot be defined by using evidence. He based this from Hume’s philosophy, in particular his idea that you cannot “derive an ought from an is”. According to Moore, goodness is a “non-natural property” which is indefinable. Ethical naturalism fails as it cannot fully justify why something is wrong. Stating “abortion is wrong because it kills a foetus” is insufficient, as it does not explain why killing a foetus is bad. It is just as logical to say “abortion is right because it kills a foetus”, as this too gives no further justification. Therefore ethical naturalism cannot fully counter the idea that ethical statements are merely expressions of emotion.

Instead of ethical naturalism, Moore puts forth his own concept of meta-ethics, called intuitionalism. Moore states good is an unanalysable property, as indescribable as the colour blue. Intuitionalism’s versions of good is indeed similar to a colour, in that it cannot be broken down any further than what it is, and is just recognised with intuition. Moore summarised this idea by saying “If I am asked “what good is?” my answer is that good is good, and that is the end of the matter”. I feel that this is not a suitable approach to ethical statements however as it attempts to verify good by intuition, which cannot really prove anything by itself as good so Moore fails by his own standards. H.A.Pritchard is also an intuitionalist. He says ethical statements are based on intuition as well all recognise the properties of the word “ought” even though it has no definition. According to Pritchard, our intuition will show if a particular action is right and where our moral obligations lay in any situation. Pritchard attempted to overcome the criticism that people had differing intuitions by saying some people had furthered their moral thinking, but I find this is not an apt way to overcome the criticism as he fails to explain why. He also seems to be suggesting that intuition cannot be used by everyone and is not universal, but it seems impossible to say whose intuition is right. Intuitionism does not seem to justify ethical statements being based on something other than emotion.

As people have different “intuitions”, a non-cognitivist theory is implied. An example of this is emotivism, which suggests ethical statements are simply expressions of emotion. Emotivists say there is no objective ethical knowledge as ethical judgements are not the sort of statements that van be true or false. Emotivism does not say what you should do to live morally, and in the words of A.J.Ayer “ethical terms do not serve only to express feelings. They are calculated also to arouse feeling and so to stimulate action”. In short, ethical statements are simply an expression of approval or disapproval. Any empirical truth according to Ayer, who was heavily influence by the Vienna circle, can only be understood through linguistic analysis, and any universal statements are “nonsense” without meaningful significance. As ethical statements according to emotivism are no verifiable they are essentially meaningless and can only be understood as an expression of feeling. Thus emotivism is sometime known as a “boo/hurrah” theory, as we simply boo actions we do not like, but hurrah what we say is right, for example “hurrah for war in Iraq”. James Rachels criticises this saying it is “simple subjectivism”, and “where morality is concerned, there are no facts and no one is “right”’. Hare claimed humans are to complex for morality to be reduced to simply “boo/hurrah” and morality needs to involve reason. Hare claimed he cannot accept acts such as the holocaust as imply being reduced to “It was wrong because I feel killing is bad”. Although simplicity is not wrong by default, Hare makes a poignant point. Stevenson, another Emotivists, avoids this criticism somewhat, as he would claim emotivism is not arbitrary, i.e. not simple subjectivism as our emotions are closely linked to our experiences and how we want the world to be. Whilst it is still subjective, there can be rational reasons for it. My emotions may tell me something is wrong, but this is based on previous experience which tells me this something leads to bad effects. Stevenson’s approach is perhaps the one I feel is closest to me own views, because essential morality is relative, and can be traced to emotions. He supports me in the belief that emotions are not arbitrary, but have developed over an evolutionary and maturity period, and are thus based on some reason.

Hare rejected emotivism due to its apparent lack of rationality. Instead Hare advocates prescriptivism, the idea that ethical statements are meaningful by prescribing a course of action, similar to a Dr’s prescription to a patient. Hare attacked the distinction between facts and values and attempted to show that ethical language is prescriptive, in that the role of ethical statements is to say what ought to be done. This prescriptions are moral because of the their universal value.

Freedom!

Critically assess the claim that people are free to make moral decisions (35)

Free Will is a controversial issue, with vast ethical implications on either outcome. According to the hard determinist standpoint, every action and event in the world has been predetermined. Thus James Rachels’ view that “true morality requires autonomy” becomes truthful, as we are not free to make moral decisions. However, the views of the libertarians and compatibilists would say humans are in fact free. Therefore, we have a responsibility for our actions, as we could have done otherwise and therefore this choice and possibility means we can make moral decisions.

The viewpoint of hard determinism states that as humans are not free, moral decisions cannot be made. As a hard determinist, I find that the philosopher Ted Honderich agrees with me about the implications on morality if hard determinism is to be accepted. Honderich gives an analogy of a walker on Hampstead Heath. The walker’s legs do not move about on their own accord, they are not free because the entireties of the actions of the leg are caused by something else. In the case of the walker the brain is the cause, the state of the brain causing the leg to move in a certain way. The leg cannot be compatibilist, it is not simply influenced by the brain and still “chooses”, but is directly and utterly the product of the brain’s thought pattern. As such the leg has no responsibility, and is not free to make any moral decisions that a leg may face, such as whether or not to tread upon the snail beneath it. As such, choice is an illusion. Determism does not necessarily denote the concepts of good and evil to arbitrary concepts, but rather the idea that humans can be good and evil in themselves. We cannot be blamed for a course of action that we could not have changed or prevented, as we are simply subject to cause and effect- it is just as irrational to blame the universe or Richard Dawkins for something that has gone wrong. Surprisingly, some Christians, such as John Calvin, founder of Calvinism, suggests people have no free will as far as their ethical decisions go. In Institutes of the Christian Religion “life is fore-ordained for some, and eternal damnation for others… he is predestined to life or death”.  However I feel Calvin’s point is irrational and contradictory. His argument for predeterminism and the lack of ability to freely make moral decisions requires the existence of Yahweh. It would be irrational to suggest Yahweh would send people to hell, when they had no choice of their actions, which had been predetermined by Yahweh himself.

John Hospers is another Hard Determinist who agrees with my views on the subject. We both agree there is something which compels us both externally and internally to act in such a way that we consider is our own “free will”, but is in fact not. He used Freud’s psychoanalytic views to support hard determinism, saying we are simply predestined by past experience and the effect of this on the unconscious mind. We act in a certain way because we are caused to by our genes, and societal values pit upon us. We cannot act freely as we simply follow our “programming”. From the views of Hospers and Freud then, we are little more than computers, which common sense dictates cannot make free moral decisions. One academic who has similar, yet differing views us novelist Anthony Burgess, author of A Clockwork Orange, which deals with the consequence of having freewill removed upon morality. Although not a hard determinist, Burgess writes about the consequences on morality if our freedom is removed. In A Clockwork Orange Burgess uses the character of the Chaplain to forward his own views on the morality of the “Ludovico treatment” which via drugs and violent clips removes the victim’s ability to choose good and evil. “Choice, he had no real choice does he? He ceases to be a wrongdoer. He ceases also to be a creature capable of moral choice”. Burgess is suggesting here that without an ability to choose, we cannot commit acts of evil, and thus cease to be able to be free moral agents. Without being able to commit evil acts, we cannot essentially be good if we have no choice in performing good actions, like the character of Alex in the novel. Burgess however faults hard determinism on the grounds we are free unless we are physically forced to behave in a certain way, like Alex under the Ludovico treatment. Burgess goes as far to say that “when one ceases to be able to make moral decisions one ceases to be a man”. According to Burgess, being free is what constitutes us as human. Therefore as humans we are free to make moral decisions.

In a biological context, philosophes such as Richard Dawkins would argue against autonomy. Dawkins believes we are little more than survival mechanisms for our genes. Our actions therefore are a result of our genes and the evolutionary desire to protect the species. This lack of free will therefore, leads to nature becoming “pitilessly indifferent”, rather than immoral or moral. Another biological determinist is Steven Pinker who states “I do not believe in free will in the sense of a ghost in the machine, a soul that somehow leads the TV screen of the senses and pushes buttons and pulls levers… Our behaviour is a result of physical products in the brain. When you have a brain made of one hundred trillion neurons connected by one billion synapses you get a vast amount of complexity, which results in a multitude of actions which cause an illusion of freedom”. Pinker’s view is similar to Dawkins’, our behaviour is result of biological makeup, which is beyond our control and thus not able to freely make moral decisions. Pinker’s view is a convincing one in terms of the title statement, as unless evidence for the soul can be accurately verified, free will must be, in the words of Gordon M.Orloff, “unnatural and magic”.

Continuing with being able to make free moral decisions in relation to science, behaviourists such as Ivan Pavlov conducted experiments that may seem useful in answering the question. Pavlov is famous for his experiments involving dogs, and that he could cause them to salivate with the sound of a bell. This form of “conditioning” influenced John B. Watson who suggested our behaviour can be predicted and controlled, due to humans living in a determined universe, so every action including ethical decisions is controlled by prior causes. Therefore our ethical decisions are a product of societal conditioning, and we cannot thus make free moral decisions.

Baruch Spinoza would argue we are not free to make moral decisions, going as so far as to question morality itself. Spinoza claimed everything happened through “the operation of necessity”. Everything must happen the way it does, as nothing is contingent, so humans have no free will. His view can be summed up in one of his letters “"men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." Spinoza claimed you could not make an immoral decision, because everything that happens is “excellent and divine” due to the nature of God, things only appear as evil because of a flawed understanding of nature. So, Spinoza rejects humanity’s ability to make free moral decisions on the ground everything is determined, and that morality is a somewhat meaningless concept.

Someone who suggested that human actions are results of both Dawkin’s biology and Watson’s society is Clarence Darrow, the defence lawyer on the Clarence Darrow case. Darrow argued that the two boy’s murderous actions were a result of their upbringing, ancestry and wealthy environment, all factors they had no influence upon. “He was not his own mother; he was not his own grandparents. All this was handed to him… He did not make himself. And yet he is compelled to pay”. According to Darrow’s logic we are unable to freely make moral decisions as our actions are a result of events we cannot control.

However there are viewpoints that suggest we can make moral decisions freely. Immanuel Kant was a strong advocator of moral autonomy, which was one of his three postulates of practical reason. Kant believed he had proved the existence of free will via rationalism. Kant observed (empiricism?) that morality existed in the world. Kant stated morality would be an arbitrary concept if we could not freely choose, therefore as morality exists we can freely choose. By this logic then, Kant believes we can make free moral decisions, purely because morality exists.

Soft determinism is an approach that suggests free will is compatible with determinism.  Arthur Schopenhauer said "Man is free to do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills” By this he means someone may act freely according to a certain motive, but the nature of the motive is determined. Hume, a compatibilist, claimed “every event is the sum of a prior cause”, and that there is only one available outcome, alternatives are purely hypothetical. Responsible or morally free actions are caused by our own willings, whereas unfree actions are brought about by causes external to the agent. According to Hume, humans are indeed free to make moral decisions. Hume’s views seem to be mere wordplay however. Free will by definition is being able to choose between too possible outcomes. If there is no more than one possible outcome, as Hume suggests, then we cannot have free will. Kant is a critic here, (?) describing the idea as “word jugglery” and” wretched subterfuge”. William James, who came up with the perhaps derogatory term of “soft determinism” is also against the views, in The dilemma of determinism, accusing them of creating a "quagmire of evasion" by stealing the name of freedom to mask their underlying determinism. These scholars support my view that soft determinism cannot aptly prove that humans are capable of make free moral decisions, as the compatibilist view simply relies on corrupted definitions.

One point of view, libertarianism, holds that we are completely free. According to C.A.Campbell, “A man can be said to exercise free will in a morally significant sense only in so far as his chosen act is one of which he is the sole cause or author”. If one is caused to act in a certain way, then that action is not free. Therefore to make free moral decisions, our decisions must not be caused, but be the cause in themselves. Jean-Paul Satre would agree with the libertarian stand point. He would say we make our own actions, and could have gone down another path. According to Satre we can always make a choice, e.g. suicide regardless of the situation. Sartre believed we show our freedom in our aim to be free and act freely; as a result “one is doomed to this eternal freedom”. Because of this freedom then, we can make decisions that could not have been made, so we are responsible for our actions and can make moral decisions freely. However this view may be flawed, as being you own cause seem illogical, deciding to do something must result from a certain state of mind, or else it would appear random- which is still outside one’s control and thus not free. Sartre’s ideas just seem to be wishful thinking, attempting to escape the moral nihilism that Sartre believed hard determinism brings.

Continue reading the main story

'M' is currently being fed artificially

Related Stories

• Mother seeks to let daughter die

The sister of a severely brain-damaged woman has told a judge that she would not have wanted to live a life totally dependent on others.

The Court of Protection is hearing an application that feeding tubes be withdrawn from the 51-year-old woman known only as M.

M, who is lives in a care home in the north of England, suffered brain damage in 2003 after a viral infection.

She is in what is known as a minimally conscious state.

The court heard that M receives "exceptional and dedicated" treatment at the care home.

The family lawyer said they were here because of the clearly and consistently expressed views of M, who was not religious, that she would never want to live a life dependent on others, even if she retained her mental faculties.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

What can she possibly get out of life? She can't move, speak and she's fed through a tube. She can't even enjoy a cup of tea”

Sister of M

The family are asking a judge at the Court of Protection to allow M to die through the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration.

The official solicitor, who opposes the application, said he was satisfied that M's mother, sister and partner love her a great deal and they genuinely believe they are acting in her best interests.

M's sister wept as she told the court that she missed her very much. She described how, prior to her illness, M had been a very active woman.

She said M had been fiercely independent.

"I know in my heart she would not want to live like that" she said.

"What can she possibly get out of life? She can't move, speak and she's fed through a tube. She can't even enjoy a cup of tea.

"She has no pleasure in life. There's no dignity in it. It's not a life, it's an existence and I know she would not want that."

When told that care staff think that M can communicate by opening her eyes she said it was not anything meaningful.

The hearing is being seen as a test case.

In 1993, the House of Lords ruled that doctors need not keep someone alive if it was viewed that it was of no benefit to the patient. That case involved Tony Bland, a survivor of the Hillsborough football disaster, who was in a persistent vegetative state or PVS.

Patients in PVS have no awareness or consciousness of their surroundings.

But the key difference here is that M is not in a vegetative state but is minimally conscious. Although she is unable to talk, it will be for the court to establish whether she is able to communicate in any meaningful way.

A crucial point for the family is that they believe M is suffering and experiences pain.

The case continues.

Mark Stroman, due to be executed for going on a killing spree, now describes hate as "pure ignorance"

In the nine years Mark Stroman has been on death row in Texas, he says he has watched 208 people walk past him on the way to be executed.

This week it is his turn.

But fighting to save his life is the man he shot in the face and blinded in one eye.

In the days following 11 September, 2001, Stroman attacked three people, killing two of them.

The attack left Rais Bhuyian blind in his right eye

He was targeting anyone he considered an "Arab", calling it revenge for 9/11.

"What Mark Stroman did was a hate crime, and hate crimes come from ignorance," said Rais Bhuiyan, 37, the only man to survive the shooting.

"His execution will not eradicate hate crimes from this world, we will just simply lose another human life."

'Uneducated idiot'

It was a Friday lunchtime when a gunman walked into the petrol station shop and pointed a double-barrelled shotgun at Rais.

He had been robbed before and knew what to do. He offered the money from the cash register, but that didn't appear to be what Mark Stroman had come for.

"He asked me 'where are you from?' and that's a strange question to ask in a robbery. As soon as I said 'excuse me?' I heard an explosion and felt the sensation of a million bees stinging my face."

Rais Bhuyian, a Bangladeshi-born naturalised US citizen, played dead until his attacker left.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

If I can forgive my offender who tried to take my life, we can all work together to forgive each other and move forward”

Rais BhuyianVictim

He needed many operations, has lost the sight in his right eye and still carries shotgun pellets in his face, but is now campaigning hard to prevent his attacker from being put to death.

Mark Stroman killed two other men in a similar way - Vasudev Patel, an Indian immigrant who was Hindu, and Waqar Hasan, a Muslim born in Pakistan. They were both shot as they stood behind a counter.

"I was an uneducated idiot back then and now I'm a more understanding human being," Stroman said through the black telephone handset, from behind a thick pane of glass in the death row visiting room at the Polunsky Unit, Livingston, Texas.

It was a week before the death sentence was due to be carried out, and his last opportunity to speak publicly about what he did, why he did it, and what he thought about the man he shot who was now fighting for his life.

"At that time here in America everybody was saying 'let's get them' - we didn't know who to get, we were just stereotyping. I stereotyped all Muslims as terrorists and that was wrong."

Stroman is shaven-headed and covered in tattoos. He made a point of putting up a small American flag on the counter behind the thick glass as the camera started rolling for the interview.

Mark Stroman is due to be put to death by lethal injection

At 41, he has lost some of the muscle he had when he appeared in court nine years ago, when he proudly held up an American flag and gave the thumbs up to the courtroom cameras.

"I had some poor upbringing and I grabbed a hold of some ideas which was ignorance, you know, and hate is pure ignorance. I no longer want to be like hate, I want to be like me," he said.

"No matter what I do or say is going to change the fact that even you are going to view the Muslims as suspect," he told me.

"If you get on the airplane and you see one, you might not be wanting to, but you are going to watch that person - we live in different times now, but it's not right to stereotype them and I'm the first to admit I did that."

Offering forgiveness

Rais Bhuyian is a Muslim, and on what he feared was his deathbed, he promised Allah he would make a pilgrimage to the Hajj in Mecca. There he thought more deeply about what had happened and what he wanted to do.

"This campaign is all about passion, forgiveness, tolerance and healing. We should not stay in the past, we must move forward," he said.

"If I can forgive my offender who tried to take my life, we can all work together to forgive each other and move forward and take a new narrative on the 10th anniversary of 11 September."

He had been in touch with Stroman, who he would like to see as "a spokesperson, an educator, teaching a lot of people as ignorant as him what is wrong".

Stroman says he has asked himself the question a thousand times - would he be able to forgive the man who shot him in the face? He said he would find it very hard.

"I tried to kill this man, and this man is now trying to save my life. This man is inspiring to me.

Rais Bhuiyan says Stroman could have a role as an 'educator'

"Here it is, the attacker and the attackee, you know, pulling together. The hate has to stop - one second of hate will cause a lifetime of misery. I've done that - it's wrong, and if me and Rais can reach one person, mission accomplished.

"If this is what my purpose in life is, let's do it - rock on, saddle up it's rodeo time as we say in Texas."

It seems very unlikely that the governor of Texas will issue a stay of execution - the state is known for its regular use of the death penalty - but Stroman seems resigned to it.

"To be honest, the closer I get to death the more at peace I am," he said.

Rais Bhuiyan's desire to forgive and to stop this execution is a small step towards bringing communities together.

"He did what he did, but now he is a different person, and can talk to the people - those who are as ignorant as him - so there is a chance we can live in a better society. Execution is not a solution in this case."

Mark Stroman is due to be put to death by lethal injection on Wednesday 20 July at 1800 Texas time (0000 GMT on Thursday).

Momento mori

Since the dawn of time mankind has pondered the verisimilitude of the concept of post-life actuality. Across the eons of the space-time continuum many cultures and societies have some sort of belief in a transcendent plain. As the Native Indian proverb, attributed to Chief Seattle says "there is no such thing as death, only a change of worlds". Although recent scientific explorations may counter this, attributing it to psychology, a Freudian style subconscious fear of the unknown, "out of body experiences" suggest our human understanding may not fully understand this concept we view as death.  

To answer the almost clichéd question of "is there life after death", we must first consider on what the definition of life is. Do our feelings make us alive? But can someone in a coma, or a plant feel?  In popular culture with the BBC TV series Life on Mars, the bar tender Nelson tells the protagonist Sam Tyler that you are only alive if you can feel. When Tyler awakes in the "real world" he cannot feel pain when he accidental   cuts his finger, he then has the notion he was more alive in the "70s world". So are there "degrees" of life, could we classify a human being as being more alive than a vegetable, or a squirrel? Is life just a concept? As humans we tend to view it as the opposite of life. Nietzsche comments on these views, claiming “Let us beware of saying that death is the opposite of life. The living being is only a species of the dead, and a very rare species at that”.  

One controversial topic in the scientific community is the validity of so called "out of body experiences". Many people have claimed to have   experienced such events, medical patients for exams can recount witnessing an operation being performed on their unconscious bodies from a position elsewhere in the room. Some patients can recall what occurred in the procedure, or the types of medical instruments the  doctors used. Of course, this arouses suspicion, many claiming out of   body experiences, or OOBEs to be "pseudo-science". You may ask   what this has to do with an afterlife. Well let's say OBEEs are true.  This implies the conscious can survive without the body. If this is true is there a need for food, water or things physical humans need? If the physical body is destroyed, could this "spiritual body", or "soul" survive in what  is effectively the afterlife. This form of existent could potential explain what society has labelled ghosts, poltergeist or spirits (if there is any credit to such claims). OOBEs also seem to support the Platonic concept of the soul; that the soul is a separate entity to the body.  

Although the concept of life after death is appealing, this concept of an afterlife may be down to the psychological sub conscious rather than truth. Humans often search for meanings, refusing to see things as arbitrary or without purpose. This craving for a purpose to life may just be down other Freudian concept of    the "Id", the part of the mind that constantly seeks pleasure, and what may want this pleasure to continue beyond death. The notion of an afterlife may also result from Freud's "Superego", the part of the mind that embodies parental and social values of justice and morality. The Superego wants justice to be served, which may account for why many religions and beliefs hold the views in that death leads to judgement, and later punishment of reward for moral behaviour.  

Immanuel Kant actually put forward and argument that attempts to postulate an afterlife through undeniable rationalism. Kant viewed morality as being absolute and existent. Kant countered the idea of moral relativism  by stating moral norms have authority  beyond what society states, for example William Wilberforce held the  believe, which Kant may have supported, that "slavery may be approved of by society, but it is morally  wrong". After accepting these moral absolutes, Kant went on to question why humans should follow them, and not behave arbitrarily. Kant also made the observation that there is little justice in the world, murderers can get away with homicide, and the innocent may be imprisoned under a false conviction or for preaching universal rights. Kant believed that as morality existed, there must be a reason for it, and we should follow it   because of justice. However as justice is not present in this life, Kant stated there must be a time after this life, an afterlife, where justice is carried out. Of course, morality may well e relative, and Freud's psychoanalysis above could be considered as a counterargument to Kant's postulation.   

Many religions hold beliefs in an afterlife. The Abrahamic religions, e.g. Islam, Judaism and Christianity state after death we will be judged (although Islam states this will not occur until the day of judgement) and what happens next depends on our actions during the time we were alive. Generally, if you have followed God and been a good person, you may go to paradise, or heaven. However if you have ignored God and been immoral, you may end up in hell, although this believe varies depending on religious denomination. What these religions do have in common though is that this life is not the end. The Qu'ran for example states in  

Surah II: 154 “And call not those slain in the way of Allah “dead.” Nay, they are living, only ye perceive not." Some religions believe what happens in the afterlife depends on what religion you follow. The Bible claims Jesus said the only way to get through heaven is through him, whilst the Qu'ran claims "there is not compulsion in religion". Personally I feel the Christian viewpoint of heaven is flawed. The Bible states, or at the very least, heavily applies that animals cannot get into heaven. However animals, such as cats, show high levels of sentience, and it seems arrogant, or speciestist that only humans are entitles to an afterlife.   

Buddhism has a different take on the afterlife, and what is an afterlife depends on    the interpretations of Buddhist teachings. Buddhists believe in anattā, the notion that there is no "self". Buddha taught that the idea of a permanent metaphysical self or soul is an illusion. If we are all one, not as separate individuals then the "self" cannot die, as there is no self to begin with. Therefore death does not exist in the conventional sense as there is no being to die. However Buddhists also maintain the belief in Samsara, a continuous flow of life, death and rebirth. Life  is not considered to begin with birth and end in death, but as a continuous existence in the present lifetime of the being and extending beyond. Each birth is   determined by actions in the last life, known as Karma. The individual normally has no knowledge of the previous life. However it is questionable whether or not   this is truly an afterlife. Malcolm X claimed "memories make us human. Without them we are demoted to the lower animals". If it is our memories that make us who we are, and in the afterlife we have no memories, we  are no longer the same person. Although Buddhism would not deny this, as this supports the three marks  of   existence. 

In a broader sense, perhaps it is obvious that we will live for ever, at  least to some extent. Those who are dead still live on within our  memories, or photos- some people will never be forgotten. This may  seem a nice thought but very few are actually remembered today. Plato  may have immortality, but his grandmother does not. As Nietzsche says  in a rather depressing way, “Only strong personalities can endure history, the weak ones are extinguished by  it”. However as long as you do remember someone, or have an idea of them, they live on, "Ideas are more  than flesh, a man can fail , he can be killed. But ideas do not bleed. Ideas are bulletproof", is one of the main  themes of the film "V for Vendetta". 

But what are the implications of an afterlife? Belief in an afterlife can potentially be dangerous, and be manipulated. People can sometimes do insane things in order to have a good afterlife, suicide bombers, for    example. But people can also turn to the extreme if they feel there is no life after death, that life is meaningless and Kantian justice is simply an ideal. Could an afterlife have implications on capital punishment? If we  disocver there is no life after death, and this is an undeniable truth, would it be an absolute wrong to kill  someone? Everyone is unique, and killing someone would be destroying them totally and completely erasing   them from existence. But if there is an afterlife, does it make it more permissible to kill, if they won't really  die? Perhaps it is better not knowing what happens after death. 

"So many great nobles, things, administrations, so many high chieftains, so many brave nations, so many   proud princes, and power so splendid; In a moment, a twinkling, all utterly ended" - Jacobus de Benedictus    

An interpretation of death made using Microsoft word 2003

Sequitur animam trans mortem

 Since the dawn of time mankind has pondered the verisimilitude of the concept of post-life actuality. Across  the eons of the space-time continuum many cultures and societies have some sort of belief in a transcendent               plain. As the Native Indian proverb, attributed to Chief Seattle says "there is no such thing as death, only a                   change of worlds". Although recent scientific explorations may counter this, attributing it to psychology, a                  Freudian style subconscious fear of the unknown, "out of body experiences" suggest our human                             understanding  may not fully understand this concept we view as death.                                                                                          

                                                                                                                                                                          

To answer the almost cliched question of "is there life after death", we must first consider on what the                         definition of life is. Do our feelings make us alive? But can someone in a coma, or a plant feel?  In popular                 culture with the BBC TV series Life on Mars, the bar tender Nelson tells the protagonist Sam Tyler that you are only alive if you can feel. When Tyler awakes in the "real world" he cannot feel pain when he accidental                 cuts his finger, he then has the notion he was more alive in the "70s world". So are there "degrees" of life,                could we classify a human being as being more alive than a vegetable, or a squirrel? Is life just a concept? As humans we tend to view it as the opposite of life. Nietzsche comments on this views, claiming “Let us beware of saying that death is the opposite of life. The living being is only a species of the dead, and a very rare                species."                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                                    

The spirit transcends the body

One controversial topic in the scientific community is the validity of so                  called "out of body experiences". Many people have claimed to have                 experienced such events, medical patients for exams can recount                       witnessing an operation being performed on their unconscious bodies          from a position elsewhere in the room. Some patients can recall what                occurred in the procedure, or the types of medical instruments the                   doctors used. Of course, this arouses suspicion, many claiming out of                body experiences, or OOBEs to be "pseudo-science". You may ask               what this has to do with an afterlife. Well let's say OBEEs are true.                        This implies the conscious can survive without the body. If this is true is there a need for food, water or things physical humans need? If the physical body is destroyed, could this "spiritual body", or "soul" survive in what  is effectively the afterlife. This form of existent could potential explain what society has labelled ghosts,                  poltergeist or spirits (if there is any credit to such claims). OOBEs also seem to support the Platonic concept  of the soul; that the soul is a separate entity to the body.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                           
Although the concept of life after death is appealing, this concept of an afterlife may be down to the                             psychological sub conscious rather than truth. Humans often search for meanings, refusing to see things as          arbitrary or without purpose. This craving for a purpose to life may just be down other Freudian concept of                 the "Id", the part of the mind that constantly seeks pleasure, and what may want this pleasure to continue                beyond death. The notion of an afterlife may also result from Freud's "Superego", the part of the mind that                 embodies parental and social values of justice and morality. The Superego wants justice to be served, which    may account for why many religions and beliefs hold the views in that death leads to judgement, and later                punishment of reward for moral behaviour.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                               
Immanuel Kant actually put forward and argument that attempts to postulate an afterlife through undeniable                  rationalism. Kant viewed morality as being absolute and existent. Kant countered the idea of moral relativism  by stating moral norms have authority  beyond what society states, for example William Wilberforce held the  believe, which Kant may have supported, that "slavery may be approved of by society, but it is morally                  wrong". After accepting these moral absolutes, Kant went on to question why humans should follow them,                and not behave arbitrarily. Kant also made the observation that there is little justice in the world, murderers                  can get away homicide, and the innocent may be imprisoned under a false conviction or for preaching                     universal rights. Kant believed that as morality existed, there must be a reason for it, and we should follow it   because of justice. However as justice is not present in this life, Kant stated there mus be a time after this life, an afterlife, where justice is carried out. Of course, morality may well e relative, and Freud's psychoanalysis                above could be considered as a counterargument to Kant's postulation.                                                          
                                                                                                                                                                               
Many religions hold beliefs in an after life.The Abrahamic religions, e.g.Islam, Judaism and Christianity state                after death we will be judged (although Islam states this will no occur until the day of judgement)and what                happens next depends on our actions during the time we were alive. Generally, if you have followed God and been a good person, you may go to paradise, or heaven. However if you have ignored God and been              immoral, you may end up in hell, although this believe varies depending on religious denomination. What these religions do have in common though is that this life is not the end.The Qu'ran for example states in                  

Surah II: 154 “And call not those slain in the way of Allah “dead.” Nay, they are living, only ye perceive not." Some religions believe what happens in the afterlife depends on what religion you follow. The Bible claims       Jesus said the only way to get through heaven is through him,whilst the Qu'ran claims "there is not compulsion in religion". Personally I feel the Chrisitian viewpoint of heave nsi flawed. Th Bible states, or at the very elast,  heavily applies that animals cannot get into heaven. However animals, such as cats, show high levels of             sentience, and it seems arrogant, or speciestist that only humans are entitles to an afterlife.                              
                                                                                                                                                                    

Buddhism has a different take on the afterlife, and what is an afterlife depends on    the interpretations of Buddhist teachings. Buddhists believe in anattā, the notion           that there is no "self". Buddha taught that the idea of a permanent metaphysical             self or soul is an illusion. If we are all one, not as separate individuals then the              "self" cannot die, as there is no self to begin with. Therefore death does no exist in the conventional sense as there is no being to die. However Buddhists also                    maintain the believe in Samsara, a continuous flow of life, death and rebirth. Life              is not considered to begin with birth and end in death, but as a continuous                      existence in the present lifetime of the being and extending beyond. Each birth is               determined by actions in the last life, known as Karma. The individual normally             has no knowledge of the previous life. However it is questionable whether or not          this is truly an afterlife. Malcolm X claimed "memories make us human. Without them we are demoted to the  lower animals". If it is our memories that make us who we are, and in the afterlife we have no memories, we               are no longer the same person. Although Buddhism would not deny this, as this supports the three marks of                   existence.                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                    
In a broader sense, perhaps it is obvious that we will live for ever, at                       least to some extent. Those who are dead still live on within our                    memories, or photos- some people will never be forgotten. This may                seem a nice thought but very few are actually remembered today. Plato          may have immortality, but his grandmother does not. As Nietzsche says                in a rather depressing way, “Only strong personalities can endure history, the weak ones are extinguished by  it”. However as long as you do remember someone, or have an idea of them, they live on, "Ideas are more             than flesh, a man can fail , he can be killed. But ideas do not bleed. Ideas are bulletproof", is one of the main  themes of the film "V for Vendetta".                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                       
But what are the implications of an afterlife? Belief in an afterlife can potentially be dangerous, and be               manipulated. People can sometimes do insane things in order to have a good afterlife, suicide bombers, for     example. But people can also turn to the extreme if they feel there is no life after death, that life is meaningless and Kantian justice is simply an ideal. Could an afterlife have implications on capital punishment? If we            disocver there is no life after death, and this is an undeniable truth, would it be an absolute wrong to kill          someone? Everyone is unique, and killing someone would be destroying them totally and completely erasing   them from existence. But if there is an afterlife, does it make it more permissible to kill, if they won't really                die? Perhaps it is better not knowing what happens after death.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                      
"So many great nobles, things, administrations, so many high chieftains, so many brave nations, so many               proud princes, and power so splendid; In a moment, a twinkling, all utterly ended" - Jacobus de Benedictus