In these readings and the podcast, topics of controversy and possible areas of change were discussed. In the first reading, (Flannigan 579-586) it was argued that patients should be regarded as the ultimate authority when it comes to decisions. For me, I had never really though about prescription medicine in this light. I have always thought it’s important to be prescribed medicine in order to access it, so that one wasn’t abusing it or using it when they shouldn’t. While this probably remains true, I see another side after reading this. I’ve realized that while it is still advised that patients receive advice from a professional, they should not receive so much to the point that they feel like they are being pressured to give consent to a certain medicine. For instance, if someone at school runs out of their prescription and goes to a pharmacy to have it refilled, but doesn’t. have a doctors note, they may have to wait. What this paper argues is that these people should be able to receive this medicine without a doctors not, because patients know their body best. This is something I now agree with.

In the second reading, (Hidalgo 1-22), it discussed immigration restrictions. It mentioned the fact that they are unjust because they take away liberties of citizens. While this has always been something I agree with, something new was mentioned. The author mentioned that people who comply with interaction restrictions are contribution to rights violations. But the risks of not complying are dangerous because if one disobeys the law and authority, they themselves could be punished. While this makes sense to me, I’ve never really thought about what I may be doing that is complying with laws I don’t necessarily agree with. Both of these readings gave me a new and interesting perspective on topics that I thought I had already formed a full opinion about.

The IAT test I took looked at whether I implicitly associate exercise with positivity or negativity. Going into it, I asked myself if I knew the answer to this question. I would think I associate exercise with positivity because for the most part, I like to exercise because it keeps me healthy, makes me feel good, and is a way I like to relieve stress. At the same time, there are many times that I dread going to the gym, but I go because I know I’ll feel better after. Just today, I really didn’t want to go to my workout class, because I was feeling tired and stressed about the work I have coming up. I went, partly because they’d charge me if I didn’t, but also because I knew I’d feel more focussed and less stressed. Now, here I am sitting at my desk doing some homework.

After taking the test, my results were that I implicitly associate exercise with positivity. While I believe this to be true for the most part, I’m not a huge fan of these tests. I’ve taken them in high school and last years psychology classes, and every time I feel like I am trying to be tricked. I also know how these tests work by now, so I can see where they are calculating the results. The first IAT test I took was in my high school psychology class and it was about if I liked old people. It asked me questions about older people’s health, moods, etc. Just because I had answered that yes, older people’s health deteriorate, and some old people can be cranky, I was told I have an implicit bias against old people. I know this to be false, but the test only knows what I answered. I think these tests are a good starting point, but they are not getting the full picture.

In this reading, as well as the podcast, stereotypes were discussed. In this reading, the author primarily discussed mind bugs, which essentially are stereotypes. They are defined as, “Ingrained habits of thought that lead to errors in how we perceive, remember, reason, and make decisions.” I like that the author brings light to the fact that everyone has stereotypes. They are built from the time we are young by our culture and those in our surroundings. No matter what we do, and how well we are raised, everyone has stereotypes about certain things. When stereotypes, or as the author says, mind bugs, become a problem, is when they are applied in life because they come with many consequences.

The part that stuck out to me most was when the author discusses how hard they are to get rid of. (personally, I believe that is the meaning behind “mind bugs”). The author says that the reason stereotypes are so hard to get rid of is because they are put into play without us really having a personal vengeance towards everyone. Another reason I believe they are so hard to get rid of is because some stereotypes, as Dr. Bezio mentioned in her podcast, are rooted in truth. For example, she discusses her German background and while yes, if you went to a German dinner, typically beer, sausage, and bread would be involved. While this is true, Dr. Bezio mentions being a vegetarian who wouldn’t normally eat a lot of sausage. So, while this stereotype is partly true, we cannot just assume that because Dr. Bezio has a German heritage that all she likes is beer, sausage, and bakery items.

The author ends by discussing where we go from here. If we know stereotypes, or mind bugs, can come with consequences, yet some are rooted in truth, how do we fix it? The author says it comes down to identifying situations where hidden bias mind bugs operate to then be prepared to shut them down.

In today’s podcast, we learned about normative and relative frameworks of ethics. A normative framework is where everyone believes there is a universal truth to the rules, so essentially, everyone agrees on what is good and bad. This is similar to religion because religion discusses how one is supposed to live their life. The difference is that ethics don’t include a ritual practice. In normative ethics, we know that just because people agree, that doesn’t mean they won’t try to convince other people that they are wrong.

In a relative framework of ethics, people believe there is no universal truth to what is good and bad, with a few exceptions. For example, the podcast discussed that some things are decided universally, such as murder, which everyone can agree is a crime. Other things, individuals make their own decisions. In relative ethics, people don’t judge one an another for their different moral beliefs.

If these are the two macro branches, where do we go about compromising in between these two? Ethics gets messy, because most of the time we don’t believe what the person next to us believe. At the same time, can we really say that we don’t judge people for their moral beliefs. For example, last year in one of my psychology classes, the topic of spanking a child as punishment came up. Many said this type of punishment has become outdated because people now realize is is morally wrong. But, what’s changed since then? It can’t be people because my guess would be that the people who now believe it would be wrong to spank their child as a punishment would believe the same thing years ago. Many people who believe this action isn’t okay are likely to judge parents who do spank their child as punishment.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that there is no way that people will agree on moral beliefs. We know that. But, it also doesn’t seem practical to think that we live in a world where people don’t judge others for their moral beliefs. So where do we go to find a happy medium?