Connection 5 Reflection 5

Reflection #5

I think it is a very cool twist in the plot to have Sophie and Alberto be figures of Albert’s imagination, but there is one thing that does not make much sense to me. Alberto and Sophie are hoping to save themselves from being trapped in the story by manipulating the plot before Albert has thought of it. To me this is confusing because if Albert isn’t focused on the characters, then how are they able to interact with each other and plan their escape? It does not make sense that the characters are able to act outside of the plot that Albert wrote. Sophie and Alberto should not even be able to think of such a plan to seek independence because their thoughts are made by Albert. If the lives of Sophie and Alberto are truly figments of Albert’s imagination, then Albert must be making the characters seek an alternative fate. These different levels of consciousness in the novel clash and make me wonder if Albert really has complete control over their lives. This idea made me compare Albert to God. Maybe Albert does control the lives and fate of the characters, but Alberto and Sophie are still left with a bit a free will. This would make sense in the context of the story, but I am still convinced from the Hank Green video that humans are not capable of having free will. The more I think about it, the more I realize that not only is this novel teaching the reader about philosophy, but it also challenges the thought of perception and free will that each individual may have.

Connection #5

After watching the Crash Course video on Utilitarianism, I immediately thought of the death penalty. While I do agree that saving the most people in a given situation is probably the better choice, I still wonder about the person or people that had to lose their lives for that to happen. Does the sacrifice of some justify for the saving of the majority? Growing up I was taught that no person’s life should be worth more than another’s. This was mainly taught to me in the context of slavery. A person can not be owned by someone else because their life is worth just as much as the other person’s life. With social status aside, we are all equals because we are all human. Now that I am older I apply this concept to all living beings. I don’t think my life is worth more than even the ants that make their way into my house in the summertime. In my eyes valuing your life over another’s allows for heinous actions such as killing to be justified. This is why I strongly disagree with the justification of the death penalty. While I do understand the utilitarian thought of killing one person to potentially save the lives of many others they could harm, I don't agree with the taking their life. We, the spectators, are not worth anymore than the person who committed the crime. Yes, that person has done terrible things and they probably are a terrible person, but that does not constitute a right to kill them. I think the utilitarian philosophy can still be applied by letting that person have their life waste away in misery behind bars. That way the majority are being saved, but not at the cost of another’s life.