A Twist on Nick's Situation

In an earlier post, Nick mentions a terrorist who might be a threat to 1,000 people. If we were to “[seek] and [terminate]” this terrorist, we could stop the mayhem. Let’s change this up, though. Suppose this terrorist is the leader of a major fear-instilling organization. Now, we have one of two options: Kill the terrorist and any relevant information he may have regarding any future attacks, or press the terrorist for information. The twist is, the terrorist is the weapon. If the terrorist is killed, the weapon is deactivated and the 1,000 people survive. However, if the terrorist is pressed for information, potentially saving 10,000 or more lives in planned future attacks, the terrorist’s biological systems will detect he is alive and will trigger the weapon, therefore killing 1,000 people. How do we proceed? Kill the terrorist, save 1,000 people and wait for 10,000 people to die? Or do we press the terrorist, let 1,000 people die, and hope that the terrorist will comply and give us information about future attacks? 

Kill One to Save a Thousand?

To build off of our discussion about the trolley problem I am curious as to whether or not we believe it would be justifiable, as my title suggests, to kill one person to save a thousand others? The scenario I am inclined to think of is terrorism in the modern day. If, lets say, a terror plot was uncovered to commit another large scale attack on the United States and we were able to determine  who the mastermind behind the plot was, would you be able to justify the active seeking and termination of that individual in order to possibly save thousands of American lives? Would the number of lives saved necessarily have to be as many as 1,000? Could it be as few as 100? Or even 10? To further this thought a little more, could you justify "torturing" someone for the same outcome? Can you justify cruelty and pain inflicted upon one to save many others? Initially the logic doesn't seem to be all that different from the trolley problem but I am curious to hear what everyone else thinks.  

Trolley Problem

Today in class we had a very controversial discussion about the trolley problem and, at the end of the discussion, the bystander example was brought up. Although we talked about the decision of whether to change the track of the trolley as being completely up to the bystander, what if the decision could be up to the bystander or the trolley driver. This would change the scenario because, if the bystander were to respond, he/she would be intervening on the situation. Do you guys think that the bystander is obligated to intervene or should he/she walk away and leave the decision up to the driver?

How liberal should our "arts" be?

As discussed in class and in the post before, we are placing so much emphasis on getting a job right out of college that it would seem as if we, as a generation, are placing increasing emphasis on jumping right into your major and ignoring other types of classes. While this is not so much of a trend at Villanova, I am sure everyone can think of friends at other schools who may have had to declare a major as soon as they got in and began their courses for that major right away. We all like this idea to a degree because it eliminates many classes from our schedule that we deem to be unnecessary, but at the same token we all seem to recognize the value in a liberal arts education. While we may not always be enthralled by the idea of taking Ethics, I find this class to be more mentally stimulating than many of my other classes. To my mind many of the things we talk about really matter and I see an application for them in my everyday life. The principles of Ethics are present in all areas of life and it is important to contemplate them and understand them as best we can. Should students be required to take a set of core requirements that cover things such as philosophy and ethics? If so, would you model your ideal conception of the core requirements in a similar way to Villanova or would you change it?    

Where does the modern student attitude come from?

Today as we discussed student's attitudes and goals during college, we discussed that students are more focused getting a good GPA to then get a good job rather than actually learning and perhaps exploring new subject matters. It got me thinking well who is responsible for this attitude students have? It could be the students themselves, but I think it is more accurate to say that it is society's fault. Society has conditioned us to get good grades and do well on standardized tests, but they are never saying I hope students are learning a lot. Do people agree with this or do they think this student attitude is due to something else?

Positive Responsibilities

I was very interested in our discussion today on the Corporate Social Responsibility and the Common Good. I particularly enjoyed our discussion about positive versus negative responsibilities. Personally, I think it would be very difficult to promote a "positive responsibility" culture where we are tasked not just with doing or not doing various things outlined by law, but rather going beyond and doing those "good samaritan" things because we deem them ethically just. I wonder if we will ever experience a society which will not just applaud those praiseworthy actions (i.e. driving a fuel efficient car), but rather condemn us if we do not. If our concept of unethical actions was extended to include certain measures to promote sustainability, for example, perhaps we would live in a "greener" world. Do you think we can ever reach a point where people take on those positive responsibilities for the sake of living a more ethical life?

Enhancement Usage

The other day in class we talked about the use of enhancements such as medicine, prosthetics, glasses and so on. I thought it was interesting that most of us agreed that enhancements were not a bad thing if they were necessary to bring people back to a state of normality. However, I think there is still some controversy as to what society's definition of normal is. The way I look at it is, if someone is uncomfortable or unable to function as they usually word, perhaps enhancements are acceptable in order to bring that person back to their comfortable state. It would seem unfair to allow someone to suffer if there was something that could be done to help. Therefore, is it only unmoral to use enhancements if they are being used to gain an advantage over others? Or are there other instances you guys can think of that would make enhancements unmoral?

Cyber Relationships

There was an interesting point in class about how the “present body” provides some truth to an online relationship (i.e. the first interaction over skype) confirming if the person is who they claim to be in reality.   In this instance comparing the online relationship to one that is formed through physical interaction, is there one relationship more truthful than the other? In other words, can an online relationship be more deceiving than one in reality? Or can they both be deceiving in a similar manner? I just wondering you guys thought.  

Does our body control us?

The book I mentioned in class today is What Every BODY is Saying: An Ex-FBI Agent's Guide to Speed-Reading People by Joe Navarro. In this book, Navarro details what he knows about the human body and body language. The biggest takeaway point from this book is: How we think we act outwardly may not be the best indication of what we actually feel on the inside. If a murderer is confronted with evidence regarding a murder case, then the murderer can try to deny the claims until the cows come home. However, this is a pretty cognitive function. When looking at limbic and emotional responses, humans really don’t have much control over any ticks which may give up the truth (mainly because limbic functions are primitive and control acts such as fear and aggression).
Here are some questions I have: Does the body really try to defy us? Clearly, our limbic system can give away anything we hide from others. If we remove outliers such as sociopaths and those with limbic system issues, people, for the most part, can have their bluffs called with some diligence. If this is the case, why bother entering relationships for long periods of time without meeting face-to-face? Also, does this mean we have little control over our body? If our emotions can give away our darkest secrets, what is the point of having them? 

Eros & Venus

After Wednesday's discussion on the body, I began to wonder about the roles eros and venus play in our lives today. It seems to me that an ideal romantic relationship would involve both components, but I was wondering whether you think that eros and venus can exist individually. Is it possible to be in love without expressing sexual love? Is it possible to express sexual love and feel no genuine love at all?

Friendship as a Development

We have talked a lot about the different categories of friendships and it made me start to analyze my relationships with my friends. I took a look at how they all began and why I've remained friends with some people while others have drifted away to mere acquaintances. It got me thinking that, although there are friendships like we discussed in class (utility, pleasure, true), a friendship is a constantly developing idea, even with our closest friends. In my personal experience many of my closest friends have at one point been some of the people that I tried to avoid at all costs. We have discussed that point and came to the conclusion that as we age (not necessarily in years but in maturity) our interests change and certain behavior that repelled us before is no longer present and therefore the differences have resolved. Even now one of my close friends is going through a phase where he is distant from the group and even though I still consider him a close friend I wouldn't necessarily place him into any of the three groups. Neither of us get any utility out of the relationship and though we can have fun times in a group I wouldn't call it purely a friendship of pleasure, he has simply drifted away for the time being and so it isn't a true friendship either. In conclusion, I think some friends don't fit in to the groups we have talked about in class and each case varies based on many criteria.

Second essay assignment

The second essay assignment is available on Blackboard.

Being a Christian

Reading your essays had made me do a lot of thinking about happiness, which I hope to be able to write something about. However, in the meantime it has posed a question I in turn want to pose to you. 

The question is: can you be a Christian if you do not understand the depths of human suffering?  

Now by Christian I mean specifically someone who clings to the teachings of Christ, not merely someone who reads and "follows" the Bible (for the latter can do many "Christian" things that contradict the teachings of Christ). 

My question is not if understanding the depths of human suffering is a sufficient condition for being a Christian, but only if it is a necessary condition. 

Secondly, my question assumes that you can understand things without living them, for if lived experience were the condition for understanding, this might mean that everyone understands all of their own experience (and that is clearly false). 

Which is stronger- a male or female friendship?

Now that we have discussed both male and female friendship in class, I was wondering if we can classify the friendship among one of the gender stronger than the other. Female friendships were said to have a more superficial beginning but they then grow to have a deep emotional connection. Male friendships are more focused on competition between one another or achieving some goal together. The friendships are definitely different in what they entail, but is one better or stronger than the other?

A little bit more on men and women

To elaborate a little bit more on the point I mentioned at the end of class today, I would like to provide a little background information on where I got idea to pose the question. I was reading a magazine article (I don't remember exactly which one) but the article was written for a female audience to attempt to explain some sources of misunderstanding between men and women. The article pretty much asserted that based on the differences in the way that men and women think we are bound to arrive at certain misunderstandings. The article described the differences in the "wiring" and structure of the male vs female brain and stated that men are wired to naturally be problem solvers, a trait that has its roots back in the days of hunting and gathering. It is this reason why women are frequently frustrated when talking to men, they want to be able to just express themselves and have somebody there who can listen to their problems instead of attempting to solve their problems for them. When men listen to the problems of their female friends/girlfriends/wives they will naturally attempt to solve the problems that they hear in the stories they are being told. This point was a little strange to me when I first read it but when I thought about it in greater depth it actually made a lot of sense based on my own experience and observation. Does anyone else agree with this point? If so, do you feel that it influences the manner in which we understand male friendships and female friendships? Would my original statement that most male friendships in movies and stories seem to revolve around the accomplishment of a task seem more justified with this background?

Dialecticals

So there's this concept in Sociological Theory called a dialectical. In this theory, society and the individual interact with each other, which explains why stereotypes and social norms are perpetuated. Society sets these norms (whether they're gender roles, class norms, etc.) that dictate what it takes to participate within society. The individual then internalizes these norms and acts accordingly. When a group of individuals collectively all act based on the same norms, those norms are perpetuated. This is how children become socialized. Lexi's example of the couple of young girls talking versus the couple of young boys talking is a perfect example of how children are socialized. Girls are subliminally taught at a very young age to be gentle and emotionally open, hence sitting facing each other and having a discussion that way. Boys are subliminally taught to be more physically relaxed but reserved with their feelings, hence the sitting side by side while talking. This same concept of a dialectical explains a lot of how we perceive female and male friendships to be different. Thoughts?

Friends

In going off the discussion we had in class about friendship, an interesting point that was brought up was regarding the question, "do our friends determine our happiness?" This was an interesting question for me as I argued in the recent essay happiness is individually determined. However, I believe here that friends play a great role in determining our happiness. This question was kind of passed over but this question really ties into what we have been discussing the entire semester. So, what do we think? Can you be happy with miserable friends? Can you be happy with no friends? Can you be miserable with great friends? I'm very curious what you all think!

The Friendship of Perfection?

Aristotle says that in a friendship of virtue “there are no accusations or fights” because this friendship is based off of mutual love and reciprocated goodwill, as well as the enduring virtuous qualities (134). It seems that Aristotle is describing a perfect friendship. With this in mind, can we say even those whom we consider our “best friends” are friends of virtue? I have definitely had disagreements with my best friends, so does that automatically disqualify our friendship as being labeled a friendship of virtue? Furthermore, is this type of friendship, in which there are no fights, realistic? 

The Stone: The Reign of ‘Terror’ http://t.co/tXHkeIdwKJ via @nytopinionator

— Ashley U. V. (@ProfVaught) October 20, 2014

Positive and negative freedom and nihilism

I have alway thought of nihilism as a type of choosing in which all options are equally valid, ... which would mean that nihilism is a form of negative freedom.  And yet it has also seemed to me that there must be some distinction between nihilism and negative freedom.

Negative freedom is the concept sustaining basic libertarianism, in which all human action is promoted insofar as it does not interfere with others, but libertarianism does not mean all choices are equal.  In fact, it merely establishes that law should work to protect all action, while society will approve or disapprove of human actions (and by the latter, distinguish values).  It seems a good model for comprehending historical change.

And yet, positive freedom implies a correct path, action, idea, against which our approximation is a measure of our freedom.  Who clings more closely to the idea, is more free.  The most prudent person  is the most free person.

Whereas, nihilism seems to impair choice, such that the action of choosing is pointless.  In that respect, it would be separate from negative freedom?  Negative freedom celebrates choice, without affirming any particular choice over another?

Freedom is an Illusion

Professor Vaught made the argument this morning that freedom can’t exist. He says the reason for this is evidenced by cause and effect relationships. Considering it is extremely difficult to determine the beginnings of the universe (we’re almost there!), it would be premature to assume there was some sort of premeditated thought or driving force behind the Big Bang. However, if we don’t look at the Big Bang and look at other examples (such as the condensation of space clouds to create heavier elements and even the decision to swerve left to avoid an accident), it seems pretty obvious that there are always driving forces behind all actions. Even if we take the example of the water which spreads out across a field, we know that the water does not act on its own accord. It moves as a result of hydrogen bonding, adhesive and cohesive forces, and gravity, among other forces. If we address the point that making a choice is completely free, we can show that it really isn’t. Remember, the reason why we are placed in a situation where we can make a choice is ultimately not in our control. Why do I have to choose between apple pie and an ice cream cone? My choice is sort of up to me, but I have the choice primarily because two people decided to set up shops which sell apple pies and ice cream cones right next to each other. The decision would not exist without external forces.

So…Any thoughts? I was thinking that we really can’t have freedom in these situations, because, as my chemistry teacher in high school used to say: “Everything is connected!” There can’t really be anything which comes out of nowhere; everything comes from something else.

Of course the big question here is: “Where did the universe come from?!” I’ll let you guys battle that out, if you wish to.  

Freedom on the Streets of Philly

I was very perplexed and intrigued by our discussion in last week’s class about how external forces, such as a community, a neighborhood, one’s parents, and one’s upbringing can either contribute or even hinder one’s freedom.  It was stated that kids and teenagers from certain parts of the Greater Philadelphia Area could never get out of their lives of poverty, welfare, crime, and violence because it was a physical restriction that hindered their own abilities and achievements.  It was also argued that those who are in those difficult current conditions are not free because it confines them to that particular state of living without the chance or even ability to be free from it – that they aren’t able to attend colleges other than their city community college or get jobs that are far from minimum wage.

I grew up and have lived my entire life in the Olney section of North Philly, where the crime and violence rate is about as high as the number of teenagers in that area who don’t finish high school.  In comparison to the people in Olney who can’t afford college or even the chance to get out of the neighborhood, there are a plethora of people who still strive to attain and assert themselves in order to combat their poverty-stricken lives and the drive-by shootings that occur right on their street.  I personally know more than a handful of parents in Olney who have respectable jobs and send their own children to likewise respectable colleges and universities.  I think that there are times when one does feel as if he/she can’t do or even achieve better due to their current lifestyles.  However, anyone, including those who live in difficult communities and situations, can and is very able to leave their current harsh conditions because the mentality of an individual is stronger than his/her own surrounding environment. 

- Camille De Ramos 

Nihilism - happiness/freedom

In class on Wednesday we talked about Nihilism and the characteristics of it. We discussed the four types of Nihilism but existential nihilism stood out the most to me. After learning that existential nihilism is the rejection of an intrinsic meaning or value to life, I was wondering how this belief affects happiness and freedom. I think we were able to discuss this question for a few minutes towards the end of class but I am still unclear as to how specifically happiness and freedom are affected.

Language and Nihilism

As we were discussing how Nihilism is the belief in nothing, I couldn't help but wonder what nihilists think of language. Based on the conclusions we came to in class today, I would say that nihilists (I'm thinking specifically political nihilists) would reject the idea of language because it is a social institution. If that is the case, could we say that nihilism is highly individualized to the point where not even thoughts are thought because they require language in order to materialize? In which case, I agree with Professor Vaught that nihilism doesn't even seem possible. Help me figure this one out. -Meaghan F.

Reason & Desire

I was very intrigued by our discussion of freedom in Friday's class. Topics like reason and desire seemed to play a major role in Augustine's concept of freedoms and I found this to be very thought-provoking. Augustine explains that men are free to make their own choices, and this sometimes results in "order" and sometimes "disorder." If in a state of "disorder" desire overcomes reason, I am curious why terrible tragedies and poor decisions can stem from premeditated actions. I brought up the example of 9/11 at the end of class and I am curious to hear what others make of this example. In the case of the 9/11 attacks, did reason not precede desire? If you think that desire acted alone, should you not consider the role of religious zeal in the attacks? Is this not also a form of "reason"? I obviously believe what happened that day was an absolute tragedy and a direct encounter with evil, but I cannot help but wonder how Augustine might explain this event. To me it seems evident that reason in some sort prevailed, so why then was tragedy the result?

Change in schedule

Former Schedule:

According to the syllabus:

Oct 6th, we will be talking about the Pratt essay on "Nihilism", and Khalil will be presenting.

New Schedule.

Because we have made a switch,

on Oct. 6th we will do in-class Peer Reviewing.

On Oct. 8th, Khalil will give his presentation on "Nihilism" and on Oct. 10th we will have a discussion about freedom.

Is Happiness Permanent or Temporary?

As we discussed Sosa a few classes back, a comment was made that really stuck with me and helped tie everything about happiness together. Someone said that if one is truly "happy" then one or a few bad experiences cannot alter their happiness. We talked about it in the context of a boy talking to a girl he thought was attractive and thinking it went great, when in reality the girl did not enjoy his company. This is a very minuscule experience, but I wanted to know if people thought that this perception of happiness has its limits or if that experiences cannot alter that state of happiness. So, is happiness, once achieved permanent or temporary. Will one experience like a loved one passing away change that state of happiness?

Freedom

One of the discussions from a previous class on freedom really intrigued me. According to Augustine, our virtues don't achieve happiness, its consistently a struggle with our desires. Our internal war is amplified by the concept of positive freedom. In positive freedom we are only free because our will is oriented to what truly is, whereas in negative freedom we are not constrained, yet only free when we turn toward god. This brings up the topic of tranquility in the order of succession. As our reason shapes our will which shapes our desires internally we are in order. In a state of disorder our desires overcome reason or our will overcomes reason. I'm not sure if I believe in this order, because sometimes our desires could be shaped by our faith which precedes reason as a transcended idea. Prompting, is turning to reason less significant to turning to faith?

Clarification About Peace

I am still a little confused about Augustine's concept of peace. It would seem that based on the description of Chapter 12 that his definition of peace extends beyond the notion of just a lack of conflict but rather a certain type of order that is established. I found the example of the man in his home that strives for peace yet may achieve that through being brutal while rebuking his children rather interesting. Augustine continues to discuss the peace of wild animals and of the creature in its cave that each live by their own desired order. Finally, he moved on to the idea of peace for mankind which seems to be the ability to live in a right relationship to God. I feel like I am still missing a piece of the explanation for the peace between God and man and I was hoping someone could clarify this for me.

Is it selfish to want eternal salvation?

One thing we discussed in class Wednesday which I found to be particularly thought provoking was the question of whether or not it is selfish to hope for eternal salvation. During our discussion of Augustinian theories and beliefs, Professor Vaught pointed out that the traditional views of “good” or “faithful” Christians suggest that acting selflessly for the benefit of others here on earth is most admirable. He pointed out that a figure of excellent moral standards like Mother Teresa might not even hope for eternal salvation because doing so would be selfish, and this perplexed me. This is a concept I had never considered. I would think that someone like Mother Teresa who so obviously did God’s work selflessly on earth would not only hope for eternal salvation, she would expect it. Aren’t we taught after all that if we adhere to a certain moral code or standard of living that we will be rewarded? If under our God the faithful cannot even hope for eternal life, why should we even serve such a God at all?

The Augustine Discussion

Today's class undoubtedly sparked many questions and ideas however left me with many questions. Looking at my notes I have many question marks all over the pages. Due to the numerous question marks I decided to make this post and hopefully reach some clarification. Augustine finds that virtues are bad because they lead to internal conflict, which is very much frowned upon. These virtues are also bad because we have endless desires.Vanity is as well frowned upon because wanting to be made happy by your own actions implies independence. I do not understand how this could be a bad thing? Why does Augustine not applaud the individual on not finding happiness from oneself? What if one finds happiness from doing service at their Church alone. This is in a way helping God and his Church but by his own actions. I feel as though this should be applauded enough to perhaps go to heaven. If God does not approve of independent actions while alive, will he then not grant the opportunity to go to heaven?

New Presentation Rule, in effect beginning Friday, Sept. 26th.

You cannot use more than 2 quotations in your presentation and neither can be more than 20 words.  You should try to explain these quotes when you use them.

You should still cite page numbers when paraphrasing.

Happiness as "natural"

If we do not have a concept of the soul like Aristotle's, can we have a similar concept of happiness?

Book in class policy

I sat in on a French class years ago at Villanova, back when I wanted to improve my French, and I remember the way that the professor spoke to the students amazed me.  He talked to the students like one might high school students.  Obviously, you are not terribly distant temporally from those days, but when you are in college, a certain difference is expected and I was disappointed that this professor couldn't treat the students the way that he would have liked them to have acted.  Instead, his  relation was adversarial and patronizing.

I do not want to ask people to leave the classroom who do not have the course text, although I have said that I will do that, because I dislike conflict and more strongly I dislike treating students like children.  However, I've made it clear that you must have the course text and yet people still do not have the course text.

So from this point, if I see that you do not have the course text in class, I will be counting you as absent.  That way you are not missing a class, because you should be there.

Question of Happiness

I am currently reading The Hit, a book written by David Baldacci. It is a thriller about a government agent gone rogue and the mission to bring her down before she can cause too much harm. Anyway, I came across a passage that interested me and ties into what we are talking about in class.

"She [a ranking official in the FBI] had clearly survived much. But the suffering never really left you. It became a part of you, like a second skin that you could never shed no matter how much you wanted to.
It was the shell one showed to the world every day, hardened, nearly puncture proof, yet nothing really could be. That was not how humans were built."

That message is the same as what Aristotle says about happiness, it is a state that, once lost, can never return. Personally, I can say that I have not suffered any major tragedy and so I can not speak from experience whether or not a person loses happiness forever once something bad happens. However, I do have friends who underwent extreme tragedy. Although I can say that these people have gone through the grieving period and learned to at least control the pain, it is impossible to say how it has affected them. Most were optimistic and continue to be so, and I would say that they are happy and that I have not detected any major changes in personality but maybe we, as humans, just learn to hide the sadness.

-Alex McMullen

Questions, 9/3

1. Why is cruelty unavoidable?

2. Is cruelty excessive in relation to being feared, or is it what makes one feared? 

3. What is our (ethical) task if we are Machiavellians?  Are we still Machiavellians (having now read more of Machiavelli)? 

Final Exam Date

The final exam for this section will be held on

Saturday, Dec. 13th, from 8:00 to 10:30 a.m.

Please make arrangements accordingly. Make up exams will not be offered.

Teleology, Recap, 8/27

"The Good Life" refers to a eudaimonic, or virtue ethics, account of happiness.  By eudaimonia, the Greeks understood eu to refer to good, as in the words eulogy and euphoria; and daimonia refers to daimon, which is close to our demon, except without the negative connations, that is spiritedness.  So a eu-daimonia means good-spirited.

Eudaimonia is another way of saying "doing well and living well".  Thus, eudaimonia is not a state, but an activity.

Moreover, eudaimonia is the end or purpose or goal of human life, and all human life (all of nature), is for Aristotle, teleological.  Teleological means directed towards ends.  So we say that an acorn is directed towards the purpose of becoming a tree.

"The Good life" refers to the idea that happiness is the ultimate end, the end for which all other ends are themselves desired.  So all other ends are intermediate in relation to happiness.  Thus, we go to college for the sake of happiness, we take a nap for the sake of happiness, and we fall in love for the sake of happiness.  Everything is for the sake of happiness.

6 Strategies for Effective reading

The Millions : Back to School: Six Strategies for Effective Close Reading http://t.co/EbnpA22zVn via @The_Millions
— Ashley U. V. (@ProfVaught) August 24, 2014

Problems becoming an author on the blog

The cause of most problems becoming an author on the blog is in your browser (i.e. Internet Explorer if you use Windows or Safari if you use Mac).

The browser you normally use will remember your login information for your university Gmail account and try to use that for you to become an author on the blog.  

If that works, great.  

If not, I strongly recommend that you 
download a new browser 
that you will use only for the course blog.  

if you use Windows, check this page for a list of alternates:
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/five-apps/five-free-alternative-web-browsers-for-windows/

If you use Mac, check this page for a list of alternates:
http://www.icreatemagazine.com/top-5/top-5-alternatives-to-safari-the-best-web-browsers-for-mac/



And FYI, if you're concerned about the safety of your information on your computer, I suggest using separate browsers for separate functions (one for Facebook, news, sports, Twitter, etc.; one for shopping; one for school stuff; etc.).  

Chrome allows you to have different users on the same browser, as an alternative.