Can we be trusted to take care of ourselves?

I think the real question we should be asking is, will society ever allow us the trust to take care of ourselves? According to Adam Curtis, we have the ability to be perfectly rational human beings if we are given the opportunity, such as President Roosevelt had. He also mentioned that by using psycho-analysis to try and conform human beings to go along with society it actually made the subconscious worst, such as the experiment conducted by Anna Freud on her friend Dorothy's children, which resulted in the death of two of them later in their lives.

Since Sigmund Freud's books, society has been sent on a whirlwind. Bernay's turned these theory's into a way of reshaping the world. It frightens me to know the different ways he manipulated American society. He not only did he do this for the corporations, but he did it with a disregard to any of whom was involved, be it the manipulated or those affected by the manipulated, such as the whole incident with the United Fruit Company and Guatemala. I was absolutely flabbergasted and shocked when I heard about this event. Is it even morally correct to be allowed to do such thing? I think that there should be at least one kind of law out there, that protests such an act. This event just legitimizes my abstaining (to an extent) from watching the news, reading magazines, and social media. Maybe, I am a little paranoid that there is going to be some "brain washing" per ce, but when there are past events that do (to an extent) "brain wash", it frightens me to know that there's a possibility that I could be manipulated in some way and not even know it.

Now this brings me back to my question, will society ever allow us the trust to take care of ourselves? Continually, since Freud's thesis, people have been scared of the subconscious and the "animal within". They have frequently wanted to subdue this in anyway possible, but I believe that in order to truly subdue the "animal within", one must accept it, realize that it is a part of them, and live with it. Just as if you were to lose a loved one or survive a traumatic event; you must accept it, and not try to forget it or fight it but learn to live with it. I believe that once you have achieved this, your mind will be at peace. Now, this "self-enlightenment", can only be done by the individual, each person having their own journey, and I have all the trust in every person to achieve this in themselves, but if society never lets go of the control it has over the individual, I have no idea if this will ever be fully achieved.

Definitions, definitions, definitions: the deeper you go, the more confused you feel, and yet, an answer is found?

When I was studying for the midterm, I decided to go into farther detail of the true definitions of the words given to us, but upon appraisal of the words I found myself digging deeper and deeper, into a giant hole of confusion. This "hole of confusion" came upon me when I got to the words 'applied ethics'. Now, we (the students within one of the 120 lectures) were given examples of what applied ethics was, but I was still confused on what the words actually meant. So, today, I pulled out my Oxford English dictionary, and looked up the word 'applied' and the word 'ethics'.

When I looked up the word 'applied' I got "(of a subject) practical rather than theoretical". Then I started thinking, what is practical, and what is theoretical? So, I looked them both up, and I realized that 'practical' is something that is "concerned with practice" and "feasible", where 'theoretical' is something "concerned with or involving theory rather than its practical application"; theory being "a supposition or a system of ideas". So, when I looked back at the word 'applied' I realized that it is (of a subject) more likely to happen rather then just an idea.

Then, when I looked up the word 'ethics' I got "the moral principles governing or influencing conduct" and "the branch of knowledge concerned with moral principles". Now, both of these definitions used the words 'moral principles', I already knew that 'principles' were things that you lived by and the basis of something, but I wasn't a hundred percent sure what the exact definition of moral was, so I then looked that up. The definition of moral was "standards of behaviour, or principles of right and wrong", which caught me a little off guard. I was then thinking, is to be moral, to go a long with society?

Then, I caught myself thinking, well, what is right and what is wrong? I felt a little stupid to be wanting to look up the definitions of 'right' and 'wrong', because these are things that we learn at a very early age. Although, if we think about it, we never really learn the exact meanings of the words, just the actions, and don't we learn these actions from other people and what they think is right and wrong? So, in retrospect, aren't we just going along with society?

So if I were to redefine 'moral', it would be to go along with what society believes to be right or wrong, and to redefine 'ethics', it would be the foundation of what society believes to be right and wrong, that governs or influences us.

Now if I was to go back to the original words I was trying to define which is 'applied ethics' my definition would now be 'something that can happen that concerns society's idea of what is right and wrong that govern's and influences us'. Now, this definition makes sense when applied to the examples given within the lecture, but it still leaves me in a hole of confusion. Is this really what 'applied ethics' is?

Socrates... One or the Other? (Topic 2)

I chose topic two, because I felt that it was the topic, in which, I could give and explain a full answer to. Then, upon reading it several times, I soon realized that my answer had become vague and scattered. I will first tell you what my conclusion was and then go into further detail.

Pertaining to the question asked within the beginning of the topic, I feel that neither of the statements is fully true nor false. Yes, I believe that he has his personal and philosophical beliefs, but willing to die for them? I personally am not fully bought on the idea. Then the whole idea of 'playing up' the martyr figure, I also believe that this is false. Although Socrates may be a bit of a martyr, I personally feel that he most definitely did not 'play it up'. He did not say that he was examining men on behalf of God, because he wanted 'sympathy or admiration'. He merely stated a fact for the reason of stating a fact; so everyone knew it.

So now, I come to a predicament. I fully believe in neither of the ideas put forward within the first question, so I can not give a definite answer to it. Now, when I first looked at the second, and final, question, I found myself saying, of course they're two different things, but then upon my second reading, my answer had become vague again.

I believe that the two ideas are interchangeable and can be joint, but I also believe that they can be separate, depending on the person in question. For example, if we were to take Socrates, I believe that his ideology is of his own creation, but his martyr being tends to over lap at times. Now, I am not saying that his beliefs and martyr being are one of the same, because I do not believe they are. I am just saying that bits and pieces are interchangeable, but not all of it, if that makes sense.

Now, I know that I have not really given a definite answer at all to either of the questions, but if I were to go into greater detail of my explanation, I would just become Socrates himself, going around in circles and making people even more confused. So, it is just better for me to stick to the nitty-gritty, and leave it in its vague and prime state.