What is the source of morality?

Source of Morality
In our group we discussed it and we voted "Social and political traditions" and I partially agree. However, there is another option that can be the greater source to it, "Human Nature". We humans are the ones that created society and politics, we are the ones that determined where, how, when, what, etc. We are the ones that created religion as well, which is for most people the source of morality. Which sometimes is emphasized by politics and society. We humans created/discovered science, religion, society, etc.
It is easy to say that religion is the source of morality, yes religion is because it shows whats right or wrong. Politicians do the same "He is doing wrong, I will do right...". Society says this wrong and the society believes it. But where is does society and politicians come from? where does religion come from? not from God, but from human beings. Yes there might be a superstitious belief that the human that created all these could be God, ofcourse its all a matter of believing, but we can never be too sure of that. But we can be sure that human nature is the one that created such things, hence is the source of morality.

"Eating meat is moral because people naturally eat meat for food"

meat/mēt/Noun

1. The flesh of an animal as food.

2. The flesh of a person's body: "put some meat on your bones!".

According to the definition above its flesh of an animal or person. Makes sense since we humans are considered as animals as well, obviously more evolved intellectually and physically than other animals. However eating meat is completely wrong, in my opinion. Since we are animals (according to 1) and its a person's flesh (according to 2) we are basically eating ourselves. In most countries we are committing a crime, which is physically killing other human beings for ur selfish desires, the law in certain countries can sentence to be hanged. We are eating meat, another organism...how would u feel if there is another evolved species that started to eat us human beings as food. We start to decrease in size, and that is whats happening...animals are becoming extinct or endangered because we choose to eat meat. Being a vegetarian is completely different, you can eat a plant by taking its seeds and planting it. Eating one and growing +/- 10 more! Have you ever heard of the famous phrase "Eat your green vegetables" the correct amount of those does give the correct of energy needed and its healthy for earth as well and for other organisms. 

Ask yourselves, if there is no one in this world and ur all alone surviving somehow and you have captured a chicken and to eat it you have to cut off its head. But before that u have to see it suffer, for it to tremble in pain because it knows that u will be killing it. Would u be able to cut its head off? and on the other hand u have a plant which u can plant its seeds to grow 10 more plants for ur further meals, would u rather eat the chicken, whose population would decrease as it takes more time to reproduce for animals than for plants, or a plant whose reproduction speed is faster and benefits both u and the earth!? 

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

Mathematics is not only PEMDAS or BODMAS, it is also involved in patterns. Similarly in History, we study patterns of same actions throughout the past. However the actions itself has nothing to do with Mathematics only the pattern of it does.

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

Mathematics is partly invented and partly discovered. In other words, it is developed. The principle bases of Mathematics is discovered because they were always there, however the theories and formulas have been invented to prove the principle bases of mathematics. Take 1+1=2 for an example, that is there....it has only been discovered. However, the Pythagorus theorem has been invented based on observation of a triangle and realization of patterns. In conclusion, Mathematics has been developed.

According to a well-known adage, 'history is written by the victors'. How different do you think it would be if it were written by the losers instead?

"History is written by the victors"
This statement is mostly true, most of the History we learn is written by the victors. Lets take the I.B DP History HL at European School for an example, all the text books used in class on the World Wars + Treaties are mostly written by Americans or British. It would be really different if it was a loser who wrote those text books, it might show the other side of the story of the situation. A student cannot find the truth by only looking at one side of the story, the student has to look at both ends to pick out the truth. Obviously if only the losers would write history, they would describe the victors as evil (most likely). Therefore its very important to look at the story from both ends with equal value.

3 History K.I

1. To what extend is science dependent on history.
2. To what extend is modern day truth dependant on history.
3. To what extend is history important to our lifes.

KI Essay

KI: To what extent do WoK give us the truth?

      The truth that each one of us know is given to us through Ways of Knowledge; Reason, Language, Emotion, and Sense Perception. In order to achieve truth, we need to keep a balance between each of these ways of knowledge and to have the correct assumption of the input that our ways of knowledge give us. Truth is a fact that can be verified in our eyes received from the balanced Ways of Knowledge; however this definition of truth is one of the various definitions on the globe, therefore this statement is only agreed by people with the same PoV (Point of View).

      Reason, Language, Emotion, and Sense Perception are all the Ways of Knowledge and therefore all need to be used equally creating a balance between them. If this balance is broken or unequal, information input in our brain wouldn't be as accurate as it would be when it is balanced. For example, "The European School Lunch Schedule" indicates that on Tuesday we receive Spaghetti for lunch; however, at the point of the entrance it smelled exactly like Rice and Beans . Due to the fact that it smelled like Rice and Beans, using Reason over all others due to the Schedule, we all sighed. In the end, we did receive Spaghetti. Another similar example, the Lunch Schedule stated there would be Pasta on Thursday; however at the point of entrance it smelled like Rice and Beans, we all quickly figured through reason that we are getting Rice and Beans. In the end, through reason that in the past similar situations occurred in which the Schedule didn't seem to keep its word, we assumed that there would be Rice and Beans and we were correct. However, it was a use of an unbalanced WoK which proved to achieve truth but with a little bit of luck because not always the reason above others can achieve truth. 

      If the balance between the Ways of Knowledge is maintained, then the information input in our brain would be more accurate then the opposite. For example, my girlfriend texts me saying, "I'm with my girlfriend shopping". If I use language, i'll assume that she is cheating on me with a girl. However if I combine Language with Reason, I'll assume that she is gone out shopping with her friend which is a girl due to the fact that she is straight. If I combine Language and Reason with Emotion, I'll assume that she is out with her friend which is a girl because she is straight and she wouldn't ever cheat on me because she loves me. If I combine Language, Reason, and Emotion with Sense Perception, I'll assume that she is out with her friend which is a girl because she is straight, won't ever cheat on me because she loves me and that her personality isn't identified as someone who would cheat because she is faithful and loyal. In the end, she was actually shopping with her friend which happens to be a girl. A witness to the shopping had verified it, and therefore truth was achieved by the combination and balance of all four Ways of Knowledge. 

      "Truth is a fact that is verified", this is a very common definition on the globe, however there are many other definitions and beliefs that contradict this definition. There is another common and skeptic definition of truth, "Truth is unknowable, because truth is a fact that can never be contradicted." This definition of truth is very valuable and therefore makes a point that, No WoK can achieve truth. According to this definition, it’s a fact, which has been proved throughout history that all the facts or discoveries that were verified were contradicted later on in time. People with Skeptic beliefs and people who share the same PoV, would be the ones to agree with this statement. Others who share the same PoV that truth, a fact that that is verified, can be achieved through the balance of the Ways of Knowledge, will be the ones to agree with this statement. 

Word Count: 687.