Female genital mutilation.

Female genital mutilation. 

the arguments shown in page 224 for the FGM, are debatable. I think the most important one is that even though it is awful and I don't agree with it, it is a cultural practice and it should be respected. If the girls that are being mutilated feel bad about it they should do something about it, but they are the ones that should do something. Other cultures should not be involve just the way they don't get involve with our culture wearing tattoos and piercings and awfully short skirts. it is something that really depends on the culture and it should be respected even though i myself agree is awful. 

But, as said in page 224, it is immoral because it inflicts pain on girls and removes potential for pleasure. Pleasure is free, everyone should be able to have it and by them being mutilated, they are deprived from it. it also inflicts pain and without anesthesia  or something that numbs them out is just violence. Both arguments are equally strong and they have both a good point. Ethics is hard to debate but looking at both sides show different perceptions. 

The source of morality is observation and reasoning.

The source of morality is observation and reasoning.

We, as human beings use reason all the time. For example my mother tells me not to write on the walls with a marker. I do it several times and she always screams at me. So then, i reason that I don't have to it anymore because my mom told me not to. We also use the observation skills to assume thing around us. For example, we observe that no one is naked walking around so we use clothing just like everyone else. Both observation and reasoning are linked together because through observation comes reasoning. 

Our morals depend on what we see in our family, our culture, our friends, the TV, and other ways of communication. We see what others do and reason if it is a good decision, action, motive or not. For example if in my family I saw that they were against killing, I will reason that I don't have to kill (or if i see someone being sentenced to 35 years in jail because he/she killed someone). And if in my house I see my dad raping my mother, i will deduce that raping is okay, and do it.

It all comes down to education. Morals in the end depend on what you learn through observation and reasoning. Children should have a stronger base (look into their learning not only in school) if society really expects them to be "great" adults... 

To what extent is knowledge gained in Mathematics similar and/or different to knowledge gained in History?

the knowledge gained in mathematics is different than the one gained in history.
history is words and the past, math is numbers and abstract concepts.
the only thing in which they are similar is that both are not certain. you can't know if 2 + 2= 4 and you can't know if hitler existed because we weren't there. we can only trust it and look at facts that "show" it is true.
the knowledge gained is used in many different forms and they are not  applied in the same subjects or materials.
math and history are both ways to gain knowledge but different knowledge.

Is Mathematics discovered or invented? Argue your point of view.

mathematics was both.
i think that math was already there abstractly (discovered) off course there were no numbers walking around. because the golden ratio is everywhere.
but then again it was invented (calculus and the falling apple) because it was not that magically the numbers started to appear.
humans discovered and invented math. it was a mixture of both and it could be called discovered or invented.
but it is not certain just like everything else.. we will never know.

What do you understand by George Orwell's observation, 'Who controls the past controls the future, who controls the present controls the past'? To what extent do you think it is true?

the observation be george orwell means that who controls the past control everything. i agree because if you apply to yourself it is true. if you control what you do now you will also control what the consequences are in the future. and by the present, it means the time period between the past and the future.  it might also apply to historians because if you control what happened in the past, you control the future and if the historian controls the present, meaning having a lot of power, he might also control what happened before. for example stalin, he controlled everything. when trotsky left he removed his information and also removed him from every picture he was in. he controlled the past, the present and the future. by controlling the future, he knew what future generations had to learn. I agree with the quote but definitely there are other factors affecting the past, present and future.

'Who controls the past controls the future, who controls the present controls the past'

three history knowledge issues.

1- when can we trust emotion and reason to test the reliability of history? 


2- to what extent does perception affect the way we see history? 


3- to what extent is the quote “History is a set of lies agreed upon.”  agreed with using perception, reason and language?