Summary Of Being Bad.

0702701

My age: 19 years of age.

Female.

My degree subjects: Philosophy and Religious Studies.

Does ‘Being Bad’ relate well to the other modules you are taking?
I feel that the ‘Being Bad’ module has related well to my other modules: mainly in ‘Critical Thinking’. I felt that one could apply the situations of immoral, dangerous, unhealthy and ‘bad’ behaviours to critical thinking. The ability to critically analyse the debates on these topics have helped create the end result.

I found the topic interesting and enjoyed the assessment pieces as I could apply my knowledge. However I believe that with the introduction of more philosophers (in lectures) in relation to the study of being bad, may have made the subject more appealing.

Do you think the list of topics covered on the module was appropriate?
I feel that the list of topics covered on the module was appropriate. I think that the topics included on the module are those I would have chosen to want in a lecture, had I been able to chose.

Do you think that the format for classes has worked well?
I feel that the format of the classes worked well.

What did you think of the module team?
I thought they worked well.

Do you think it would have been better to have had more:
Small group discussions?
Yes.
Discussion and debate among the class as a whole?
No.
Information and talk from lecturers?
No. (Although maybe more information of more philosophers).

The approach taken in the module is interdisciplinary (drawing on perspectives from English Literature, Film Studies, Creative Writing, Philosophy, Religious Studies, Media Studies and Politics): do you think this a useful way of approaching the topics covered in the module?
I feel that because it touches on so many topics it helps our overall understanding of the topic of being bad.

Do you think that interdisciplinary modules are a good idea?
Yes, should be applied more widely.

Do you think you have benefited from the interdisciplinary approach taken in the module?
Yes.

Would you like to see more modules that cover this kind of subject matter?
Yes.

Are you planning to take the follow-up module PH2004 ‘It Shouldn’t Be Allowed’ at level 2?
Yes.
Would you recommend ‘Being Bad’ to a friend?
I have done.

Do you think that the blogs (web logs) were a good idea?
I found that it was the best assessment this year as it helped me apply my thoughts to the knowledge.

What did you think of the other assessments (e.g. would it be better to have one longer assessment rather than two shorter ones?)?
I’d have preferred a longer essay.

What have you learned from the module?
I have widened my knowledge and understanding of people’s behaviour and that perhaps looking at a situation and judging that it is an act of being bad would be incorrect without an argument against the situation.

What parts of the module have you found most useful and why?
I found the further research of the module for my web blog most helpful.

What parts do you think were a waste of time and why?
None.

Are there any other comments you wish to make regarding ‘Being Bad’?
I feel that there should be more philosophers involved when relating the topics. I thoroughly enjoyed the layout and application of the module and hope that the way in which it was taught will be applied to further modules.

Safe Drugs.

Weed
Pot
Grass
Dope
Draw
Joint
Blow
Gear
Hash
Marijuana
Puff
Spliff
Wackybacky

Cannabis has a variety of terms, but why do you suggest people use them? Social group use it? Peers use the term? Only your social group know what it means? In my belief people change a term into slang because the term is used by a certain group to communicate internally, and to further exclude those who aren't members of the group.

With drug taking there are certain attributes that can go alongside using; to generalize there are things such as; secretive nature, extremes of personalities and short temper because of addiction…

There are large amounts of disadvantages to drug taking, so in the initial first use of a drug, what possesses a person to do so?

What makes certain drugs ‘safe’ enough to be legal? And who gets their say?
‘Drug abuse costs society up to £18.8bn a year - or more than £300 per person - in England and Wales, according to new research for the Home Office.
The figure, which is far higher than previous estimates, includes the costs of crime, social security and bringing drugs offenders to justice, as well as the bill to the NHS.’-BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1816215.stm.

What makes drug taking so attractive?

Life's No Joke.

How can something be labelled ‘bad’ when so many people find it funny and entertaining? Does this not mean that the term bad comedian simply does not qualify for its meaning?

In relation to comedy, such jokes on the topic of racism, cultural identity, sexism jokes, people who are less off and so on should not be at the end of a joke. But in making such topics light hearted it can make taboo topics easier to talk about.



The logic behind bad comedians is quite complex. A large majority of people enjoy listening to jokes on taboo topics, and likely to involve excessive swearing and inappropriate language. Here is a link from the Times that approaches anti-Jewish jokes: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article609132.ece

In a society so 'free,' why do we find it difficult to talk about certain topics?

The Price Of Perfection

Why do people feel the need to ‘enhance’ their body image?
Pressure from the media
Feel more feminine
To attract attention from the preferred sex
To ‘fit in’

But why then would some people choose to surgically decrease the size of their breasts?
Health reasons
Fit better into clothes choice
Don’t like the excess attention
Want to be treated differently


Should health be of higher priority than vanity?
The dangers of surgery have never been so severe with the increase of people wanting body modifications and an increase of cheaper surgeries available.
Here is a link of an example of the number of cases against surgeries: http://www.tmz.com/2007/11/13/patient-to-dr-adams-you-botched-my-boobs/

Due to the fast way of life in Western culture people are looking for short cuts around such things as breast enhancements. An example of this is: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/health/s/204/204033_quickfix_boob_jobs_over_lunch.html. The link shows the new phase whereby the patient is put under local anesthetic and the breast augmentation procedure lasts one hour.

Are such enhancements due to personal choice?

Have the pressures of Western Society become ‘harmful’ to our impression of body image?

Criminal Defense?

When is a criminal more than a criminal?

Whilst studying the topic of bandits and outlaws I came across one of the most difficult findings. I would hence suggest that being a bandit/outlaw is in itself not being bad. But being a bandit/outlaw is in general the act of being bad.
In this I mean that all of the attributes that contribute a criminal’s persona is being bad: hence fulfilling the intentions of being a criminal. So affectively the criminal is a good criminal because he/she completes the aim.
But I believe that an act, no matter how little can affect the society on the whole and the act of taking someone else’s choice is being bad: refer to ‘utilitarianism’ by John Stuart Mill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism.

Is a criminal always a criminal?
In the example of John Clavell from the 15th Century: he was notoriously known as a highwayman. When he was caught he was imprisoned and sentenced to death. But upon imprisonment he wrote a book on his remorse and was later released.
I on the other hand do not believe that a criminal can fully recover from such acts of being bad. As it is a mind set. Here is a link on John Clavell's work: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1036926&pageindex=1


What makes a criminal? Or is it a state of mind? In which case do we have a right to label someone 'criminal'?

Growing Old Disgracefully

The social implications of wearing visible body modifications are immediate to the wearer: such problems as lack of employers who allow ‘mods’ and hassle from those who dislike the modifications.

Eyebrow piercings, ear piercings and lip piercings are all common modifications, commonly worn in western culture. Yet ear piercings are largely the only piercings allowed in such places as the work place and schools. Could this possibly be due to safety precautions?
But why then are ear piercings ‘accepted?’

Conversely, controversial body ‘mods’ as hooks and bolts beneath the skin are collectively held by the view that the wearer is drug addicted, an alcoholic, prone to criminal acts, stroppy, uneducated, and unsociable. The immediate stereotype is perceptibly a disadvantage of acquiring body ‘mods.’

The following link: http://www.bmezine.com/ritual/bme-ritu.html shows numerous types of rare body modifications, which more than likely attract such prejudices, whether wanted or not.

When an individual ‘enhances’ their body do they enjoy the attention?When contemplating a visible piercing, implant, tattoo or any other body modification one must assume the prejudices of the society.


In my personal opinion body modifications can be an act of rebelling, although I have two tattoos’, both of which are symbolic to sentimental moments. Whilst designing my tattoo’s I chose to have them hidden, so as to be exempt from the prejudice of those who dislike them or the prospect of tattoos.

‘Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment’ (John 7:24).

The Advantages of Smoking

Advantages of smoking:

• Can make a person relaxed.
• Companies tied to the making and selling of cigarettes make money.

Disadvantages of smoking:

• Cannot smoke in certain areas (hence going a further distance to smoke).
• Physical changes such as discoloured teeth and fingers.
• Cancers, Emphysema (Reduced immune system).
• Premature aging.
• Harms those around you.

Here the disadvantages outweigh the advantages of smoking. So could this suggest that smoking on the whole is the act of being bad?

Some may suggest it could depend upon what one is smoking. On the other hand some suggest that it is an accepted action to 'social smoke': http://www.ipcvision.com/page05/phil-smk-01.htm.

I personally agree with social smoking as the smoker must choose when smoking is appropriate; depending on whether they are with compliant people, alike smokers and within a legal smoking area.

Is nicotine any different from any other drug? In my opinion i think that eventually the disadvantages of nicotine, such as; expenses, physical and mental dysfunctions are shared with similar drugs. I believe it is simply wrong that such an addictive drug is so widely available. But I do believe that society is turning in the right direction with designated smoking areas; and although alienating people by doing so, on a wider scale they’re doing a greater good.

Shouldn't nicotine be illegal?

Sex Sells. But Why Sell Yourself?

Coming from a female perspective, I’d quite like to watch a good action pact film minus a sex scene or nude scene. Very few film producers take the risk of putting an 'unattractive' actor in their film. Perhaps this is because sex sells: but does it anymore? Here’s a website that discusses that sex has become boring in film; http://arts.guardian.co.uk/filmandmusic/story/0,,1955156,00.html#article_continue

Sex sells effectively in today’s Western culture, why is this? I believe sex sells because when we watch film it’s primarily because we want to get away from our world and view someone else’s: and would we not all prefer to look at an attractive person? Not only this but Western culture is very much wound up on personal appearances and look up to the actors and actresses in film. Although, through many media reports; it is the very media that is taking a bad effect on people today; even to the extremes that people get such illnesses as anorexia nervosa, just so they can look like their idol.



Has cinema gone too far?

In general the large amount of slim, attractive and fashionable people in the media is setting unrealistic standards for citizens. But not only does film attempt to sell by putting sex in their work but numerous western films take racism too far.

Such as Borat:


In addition has horror gotten too realistic? Most of new horror films truly bring horror to meaning and studies suggest that some may even leave people psychologically harmed, not only is this a problem but people may be influenced by the ideas of the film. An underlying problem is that can people define real from what is not real anymore?
http://www.helium.com/items/708154-recent-years-hollywood-along

Masturbation- The Mass Debate.

Surely everyone of age knows the meaning of the term masturbation. But why is it that we tend to not use the word masturbation?

On the whole most people tend to keep the replacement for the word masturbation ‘clean’ or use euphemisms, when referring to women.
Or on the hand, women tend to use ‘cleaner’ terms. While men are notoriously known for using ‘dirtier’ and ‘ruder terms.’ Why is this?

Perhaps the term we use for masturbation depends on our age and influences. Such influences from friends and media:



Whilst i was searching for music that relates to masturbation i found this link further down the page: http://rateyourmusic.com/list/tibul/50_pieces_of_music_to_masturbate_to_on_a_desert_island/
The ludicrous description of the site was far too humorous to not click on it. This is a pure example of the exposure of a perfectly normal human action.


'It's not masturbation, it's sex with someone you love'- Woody Alan.

'If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off'- Mark 9:4-3

Seventh day Adventist’s once believed that masturbation would turn a man into a 'cripple and an imbecile.'

How did such a 'natural' action become so detested? Or is it still a sin to masturbate?

A Roman Catholic would argue that because masturbation does not involve vaginal penetration yet ejaculation takes place; this is a wrong doing because it prevents potential life. Although a Roman Catholic would consider masturbation wrong, does the action really result in being bad?

In which case, does the ‘bad’ action of masturbation mean you become a bad person?

Comments I Have Made On Other Blogs:

<http://mattward502.blogspot.com/> [Bad Blogs: Ward, Matthew].
I believe stealing is a serious offence because how a person comes to having a thought wave of stealing something, (which they are aware of as an act of breaking the law) is a sure sign of something ethically wrong.
I believe that in any case whether a person gets hurt or not, the crime that accounts the most; is the ethical code that everyone mutually accepts when they live within a society of morals, virtues and law; which exist to keep society within boundaries.

Perhaps if the majority of individuals were utilitarian (the greatest good for the greatest number) less people would steal, prices in shops would decline, taxes would decrease and products would be easier to afford, therefore; less need to steal.
Although, Immanuel Kant would disagree with the utilitarian view and would argue his categorical imperative. Kant would argue that a hypothetical moral system cannot persuade moral action neither can it be equally distributed because the system is too reliant on one-sided considerations.

27 February 2008 14:07

-------------------------------------------

<http://thinkingaboutbeing.blogspot.com/> [AGA: Poznanska, Agnieszka M].
In my opinion infidelity is incorrect in most circumstances. I for one would dislike it if it happened to me. I'd really like to stand firm and say that it is wrong in all cases. But i feel that i'd be lying if i said so. Before i say it is completely wrong, i would first have to relate it to an actual incident of infidelity because then i could argue for both view points within the relationship.

For example; A man with absolutely no intentions of being faithful to his girlfriend what-so-ever may argue that he was not cheating because his intentions of being faithful were never there. The woman however was faithful through all of the relationship. In which case, she was misled by her partner. Surely, morally this is incorrect.There is however a growing problem in today’s Western culture; which i would argue stems from such activities as drinking in access and the mixture of nightclubs. Put together, is not usually a good outcome.

A psychological hedonist may argue that the deep rooted interest in infidelity may be due to an unhappy relationship, therefore the partner will perhaps cheat in order to maximise their desire for pleasure.
In contrast, an ethical hedonist would argue that one would try to maximise their ethical pleasure. So in relation to cheating, one would hope that a person would not cheat because it'd be on their conscience and therefore may maximise pain. (Perhaps search John Stuart Mill, also believed in maximising pleasure and minimising pain).
27 February 2008 21:41

---------------------------------------

<http://shoes24.blogspot.com/2008/03/masturbation.html> [beingbad123, Williams, Toni].

On your question; 'Is this why some people don't admit to doing it as they fear they will be laughed at?'

I believe that its actually a case of when masturbation is brought up in conversation, the immediate thought is it's a discusting act. Well in my mind anyway.

Yet i know it is not a discusting act. But the connotations that come with the act and term of masturbation are mostly negative: i.e. something you do when you're single, lonely, undesired, desperate.

All of which are harsh don't get me wrong.

Everyone has their own thoughts on the term and use of the term. I'm not a reserved person but i do believe that such topics are simply out of bounds.
05 April 2008 20:23

-------------------------------------------

<http://monkeyfeatures.blogspot.com/2008/03/drugs-and-alcohol-eastenders-and.html> [Greenwood, Lauren].

Drugs and alcohol is such a difficult topic. I'm indecisive as to where the margin is as to drinking this amount is wrong, and doing this drug is wrong.

According to the law such drugs as marijuana are illegal in the UK. So in relation to the law in the UK, it is being bad to use it.But morally, socially and ethically, is it truely the act of being bad?

Once one has added up the advantages and disadvantages of doing an act and the advantages outweigh the negatives i believe it can be seen from ones perspective as not being a bad act.

But in the eyes of others virtues, ethics and morals it could be completely opposite.

The decision of what comes under being bad will never be decided. And i sincerly hope this.
05 April 2008 20:40

Infidelity?

Porn and chat rooms: Fantasy or Infidelity?

In a society so widely made up of various attitudes and moral systems the word and meaning of ‘infidelity’ is not as straightforward as a dictionary definition. I would suggest that infidelity ought to be defined not only as an intimate, private/secret relationship but to fulfil the meaning of infidelity; one must apply the word to an example relationship.

What is infidelity?

• Lust?
• Flirting?
• Affair?
• One night stand?
• Being ‘forward’ in internet chat rooms?
• Porn?

What kinds of being bad are involved with infidelity?

• Scheming.
• Secretive behaviour.
• Lying.
• Dishonesty.
• Hypocrisy.
• Selfishness.
• Risk taking.

The effects of infidelity:

• Disinterest in their actual relationship.
• Heartbreak.
• Family break up.
• Depression.
• Further risks taken and risk of getting caught increases.
• 'Leading on' of unsuspecting partner.

The internet has affected an enormous amount of relationships due to secretive flirting and forwardness to people in internet chat rooms. But at what point does flirting become cheating? In my belief in response to a male accessing an internet chat room and flirting to a female, I for one would not accept it, if it was within my relationship. However I do believe that the sincerity of flirting in a chat room exceeds when the partner chooses to flirt to one person in particular. Here is a link of identified signs of a cheating partner: http://everestgroupsecurity.com/cheating.html.

Is pornography bad behaviour or is it an addiction? The following link from Dr Phil suggests that the usage of porn is incorrect within a relationship: http://www.drphil.com/articles/article/54/ . I however believe against Dr Phil on pornography being incorrect. In my opinion porn is acceptable within a relationship, although perhaps if the person watching the porn is uncertain as to whether it is an incorrect act, they should confront their partner about it.

Furthermore I would suggest that porn is a mere fantasy fulfilment. Although I would like to add that if ever caught out surely if the person was in a relationship, they may feel inferior to whatever you’re watching? One must add that priorities are a large basis within a 'healthy' relationship, remember to make sure your partner is okay with pornography, and the usage of chat rooms. If you only like to forfil these things in private, perhaps there's a reason for it?

I don’t feel that porn should be something categorized as bad behaviour. But in cases where watching porn becomes addictive it becomes more complex. Here is a link to an actual story of how porn can affect a person’s life:
http://www.treating-pornography-addiction.com/pornography-cheating-spouse-a-37.html.

I feel strongly about a very fine line between idolization and fantasy. I would define porn as a fantasy, however I would also add that idolization of the person you’re watching is in fact bad behaviour due to the possible negative aspects that can derive from that. I would define idolization as a constant interest in someone, whether in porn, a chat room or in day to day life.

If you will not perform an action in public, does that suggest it is a wrong action?

Is it always right to do the right thing?

Can people’s behaviour be exempt from scrutiny on the basis that their circumstances are complex? Or is a circumstance simply an excuse?

Example:
A single mother of four has been going through with financial strains in both the upkeep of their home and the demands of her children. Yet to ‘make ends meet’ she fills out her job seekers allowance incorrectly. Is this bad behaviour?
I would imagine most people would suggest that this is a bad judgement on her behalf as the benefits she seeks is means tested, and although she may be benefiting from the extra money, somewhere, someone else or something else is lacking funding to function to its best ability.
In my opinion her circumstances should not been imposed on anyone else and perhaps she doesn’t realise the affect it makes on a wider scale. If she needs further support she ought to seek additional help.

Is it ‘right’ to do the right thing?

In addition and response to the latter question, I believe that as a population, we will never come to terms the ‘right’ thing to do when so many people have different views on ethics and virtues. Plus, referring back to the example above; how is it that a woman who is struggling to live, be crying out for additional help when her needs are supposedly means tested?

So can circumstances really excuse bad behaviour?

There comes a time in a person’s life when they double cross the thought of stealing: whether they gave into their temptation or not. By law this is bad behaviour and an offence to be jailed upon.
Children may feel that their need for sweets is all too much and slip a few sweets from a shop into their pocket, perhaps because of peer pressure. But what happens when stealing becomes all too familiar?

America inparticular have noted that of recent people are not only stealing because they want to own more, but because they're addicted. Here's a link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/21/earlyshow/contributors/melindamurphy/main650669.shtml

Large plots of robbery are far more dangerous than stealing a few sweets… so why bother?
Here's a link of woman who struggled with her addiction to stealing on a large scale:

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1190720&page=1

‘Four paintings by Van Gogh, Cézanne, Degas and Monet, worth an estimated SFR180m (£84m), have been stolen from a Swiss museum in what police said was the largest art robbery in the country's history.’ - The Guardian.
In this example I strongly feel that a robbery on such a large scale is not for gain of money on the pieces of art, but a personal gain of first being able to steal the paintings without getting caught and secondly possessing the art work.

Even though there is a difference in the types of taking of what is not theirs from both the examples… is there really a difference in claiming money that one is not entitled to and stealing possessions?

Suggestion Of A Bad Place To Visit.

A module field trip for 'Being Bad' in relation to being too religious...

• A Convent.


• Youths Church Camp.