The World without Art

In class we discussed the repercussions of child who was to grow up without any forms of art. The child would expected to grow up abnormally and be unable to function properly. But what if all art forms were suddenly taken away from us? How different would the world and its people be?

This may seem childish and a little out there but this is the only thing I can relate this hypothetical situation to:

If art was suddenly taken away, I feel the people would become blank. I can't find the word to describe it. In the Disney movie, Halloween Town II: Calabar's Revenge, Calabar puts this "gray spell" over Halloween Town. Everything is black and white and bland, the citizens lost their original fun and crazy personalities and they become boring people wondering around town with no purpose.

If there art was ever banned from the world, I think it would be very similar to if a "gray spell" was put over the earth.

Art Conforming to Human Nature

At the end of the article Art and Human Nature: Some Thoughts on Steven Pinker's Critique of Contemporary Art by Derek S. Sanderson and Stephen K. Sanderson, the statement "for art merely to conform to human nature, as Pinker is simplistically suggesting, would result in its death." I had a hard time understanding what this statement meant exactly. I had to look at several definitions of conform before having a brief understanding of what the sentence is saying. The definition of conform being - behave according to socially acceptable conventions or standards, kind of makes the sentence make more sense. For art to behave to socially acceptable standards, it would result in it's death. If art had a limit, it wouldn't be art no more. Art can't have a limit. It evolves everyday and changes from artist to artist.

Logical Socialists

The idea of a perfect world sounds so appealing. But let's be realistic here, it's not going to happen. As nice as wishful thinking is, socialists need to take into account the facts. They can disregard them all they want, but they're there. I fail to understand how, not only socialists, but several types of people can formulate these beliefs when they go against so many hard facts. These people can't back up their beliefs, nor can they reach their goals. 

Socialists and Biological Interference

As I was typing up my Q&A on the topic of Socialists View on Human Nature, I found myself using a lot of biological facts to argue against socialists and their goals of becoming "perfect." Apparently, in order for there to be perfect people, there needs to be a perfect environment. Now, I don't know the socialistic definition for perfect, but going off my general meaning, flawless, then there are several issues that run into this process of creating perfect people.
Let's say we have a heritable gene that codes for disease X. In order for a person to have this gene, they must have 2 dominant forms of the allele in the genome, XX. If carries of this gene, Xx, and those who have the disease, were to die out completely without producing offspring first, then eventually the disease will be nonexistent. So why not do this for all diseases like so and bam, there'd be our perfect world? Well an extremely large proportion of the human population would be wiped out. And also, many diseases or disabilities can arise from genetic mutation. Random genetic mutation that is. Due to random assortment of nitrogenous bases, our A's, C's, T's and G's, some unfortunate people suffer from disabilities such as Down Syndrome, caused by an extra gene on chromosome 21.
So, there could never be a "perfect" human population. There will always be genetic mutations.

Altruistic But Not Morally Good?

Altruism, generally defined as "an unselfish concern for the welfare of others," usually goes hand in hand with morally good, which differs from culture and beliefs. It seems likely an act could be morally good without necessarily being altruistic, but can an act be defined as altruistic without being morally good?
I believe the article mentioned that being self interested or altruistic can mean an act for one's own self that does not impact a negative connotation on others. Does this confirm that all altruistic acts are morally good? Suppose a person belongs to this hypothetical religion where they are required to cut them selves in order to sacrifice blood to their higher being. He thinks he is doing a good act, despite hurting himself, and this doesn't have a negative impact on anyone else. Is this morally good? Perhaps in his religion but most of us wouldn't agree. 
I find this to be a challenging concept to debate and understand, along with providing examples. I'm going to conclude that deciding whether an altruistic act is morally good or not, depends a lot on culture and point of view.

Top Priority: Family?

Everyone always says family comes first. And I certainly agree with that claim. But in my Q&A I proposed an example of person X who was working out of his home town in a weekend charity event. He received a call saying his sister was in a car accident and in ICU at the hospital. The doctor says she will recover. X is left with the decision to head home to help his family with emotional support, or stay at the shorthanded charity event where he could be helping hundreds of unfortunate people. I know if I was in this situation, I would rush home, no thought about it. I'd be choosing my sister over hundreds of strangers. Seems logical. But then again, I'm letting down the other staff, who now have to pick up my slack as well which could cause a backup in the event and possibly resulting in some people not being aided. Which act leads to the morally good and altruistic consequence? I feel like I should be saying the option to stay at the event but I still would choose my sister.

"Good Grounds" of God's Existence

Martin, I believe, argued there are no "good grounds" of God's existence but theists say otherwise. Which leads to, what are those grounds? According to Wikipedia's Existence of God article, there's several reasons supporting God's existence. First mentioned is the Aquina's Five Ways (Thomas Aquina) of which I simply summarize. First is the motion in the universe meaning we transitioned from potentiality to actuality, so there must be an initial mover because whatever is put in motion has to be done by another thing. Second, it's impossible for a being to cause itself, therefore there must be a first cause, uncaused by itself (which makes little sense to me). Third, Aquina's argument asserts that all beings are contingent, it's possible for them to not exist. At a time, nothing existed but with everything existing now, there must have been a necessary existence who is known as God. Fourth, all things that are good are called into a relation of a standard maximum of goodness, which then causes all goodness. Fifth and lastly, Aquina's argue that unintelligent objects cannot be ordered unless done by an intelligent being, God. 

There are many other arguments and examples for believing in a higher power such as God, much more than disbelieving in Him. I find this to be due to human history and the strong focus on the religion that once was.