Philosophy and Death.

 Socrates views death as a good thing. He views it as becoming god's possession. The only exception to it being a good thing is suicide, he views it negativity because you leave the earth before you are called upon. When you die you are released and free from evil. You become one with philosophy. Socrates says that death and life are opposites and are connected in a way. After death you loose your body, but your soul is not lost. Instead it's put somewhere safe so that you can be reborn. I have mixed emotions about how I feel about his argument. I view death as neutral. I grew up catholic and I was always told heaven awaits you after you die and you're reunited with you predecease relatives. That to me isn't a bad thing because you get to be with your loved ones, however nobody genuinely wants to die if they feel that they have unfinished business on Earth. Not to mention the loved ones you leave behind here, which I look at negatively. I also believe that our souls are reborn. I strongly believe in past lives and believe there is a connection to them and who were are now.

Darby's views.

 In the article Darby discusses the racial injustices and inequalities in the world. Black and white people are divided and black people are at a disadvantage. Throughout the article he talks about how no reparations have been made to fix the past injustices. Darby mentions an approach of corrective justice. This means readdressing the past issues and getting rid of them completely. I agree with Darby that racial injustices should be eliminated and reparations should be made. 

Environmental Degradation, Reparations, and the Moral Significance of History.

 Caney agues that climate change has had negative effects on people, but especially on those who live in low income places. There's a social and environmental injustice that effects people in low income housing because they don't have the same access to certain resources.  Throughout the article he talks about reparations for climate change and who is responsible to pay them. Those who may be morally responsible are not around, so the question of who it falls on arises. That goes with the reparations of slavery. Those who should be held responsible aren't around anymore. Society says that when someone makes a mistake they should be held responsible for it, but in this case we can't do that. Caney brings up a few ideas of how we make make reparations, but ultimately they're not effective since the people truly responsible are not here.

Making Time.

 A second is defined a a measure of time. The article defines time as, "The duration of exactly 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to a hyperfine transition of caesium-133 in the ground state." Seconds are waves produced from atoms. A second is known as a ticking which measures atomic time. A standard clock measures frequency, stability, and accuracy. It uses atomic time to measure standard time. Time was standardized by syncing frequencies to create regularity and stability.

Relativity of Simultaneity.

 Relativity of simultaneity is when observers disagree over weather or not two events happened at the exact same time or not. There are two theories that can explain the reason for relativity of simultaneity. the first one is light signals and the second is motion. If the observer was moving when the event occurred it could change the timing they say it. However there is no way to prove two events spaced out happened at the exact same time. Relativity of simultaneity is not the effect of an event. It's also not based on how we perceive it. Going back to the question is time unreal, I'm still perplexed about it. I think time is real, it just depends on how we feel it at times. A event is always past, present, future, it just depends on the time.

The Unreality Of Time.

 Before reading the McTaggart article I presumed time as past, present, and future. Depending on a certain event and when it happened I would place it in one of those categories. Reading the article I did see my own view in one of his arguments. He said that a lot of people would change one thing if they could go back in time, which is something I usually say. However he shocked me when he said time goes together in events. If A didn't happen then B didn't happen and then C and so on. That makes a fair point because the time leading up to a certain event determines how you react in the moment and then the aftermath. Going back and changing one thing won't work as well where as if you change the past, present, and the future. He also said that the past, present, and future are all time series and relations in an endless cycle which I found interesting because I never looked at it like that before. I viewed time as always moving forward not in a cycle of past, present and future, but reading it now I understand that idea and it makes sense.

Justice, Responsibility, and Global Climate Change.

 I think that we do have a duty to protect people from global climate change. We as the humans on Earth do daily activities that can cause harm to the planet without even realizing it. Today scientists have warned us about harmful pollutants that cause global warming. Years ago nobody knew about the effects from fossils fuels and other chemicals. Now that we know about them toady and are seeing the effects of it, I think it's our responsibility to use less of them or find other sources that don't affect the planet. There are a lot of substitutions for certain fossil fuels that are safe for the environment. I know that there are some things that we can't replace just yet, but hopefully there will be substitutions. We can't fix the damage that has already be done, but we can prevent it from becoming worse. What we do now affects future people and how they live, so it is our job to do what we can to keep the planet from falling apart. Future people shouldn't be held responsible for what this generation does to the planet, just like we can't be held responsible for what our grandparents did.