final blog December 11, 2008

for my final blog i would like to discuss the least favorite topic that we discussed in class. That would be the ideas of Kant. They were so confusing and took a lot of analysis. normal i like doing research but not so much on philosophical theorists. My favorite topic in this course would have to be the divine command theory. It encouraged a lot of class participation among everyone rather then a select few. Over all this course was fun and this is the end of my random blog post!!!!!!!
Happy winter vaca all!

Thinking with aristotle’s thinking cap. December 7, 2008

What is the moral worth of murder according to Aristotle? Murder itself would not have moral worth but the person committing the action would be deemed immoral. Our actions are said to be mere branches of our character or inner virtue. So those who kill would be immoral. Also, once the act is done, the chances of it happening again would increase. The true intentions and moral worth of a person can only be seen through their actions.

the extent of a social contract November 23, 2008

A social contract should include all of the people in its area. Children should be included under the social contract if they are able to understand what they are supposed to abide by. so an appropriate age clause should be attached to said contract. as for the people who are unable to leave the sovereign dude to financial or other limitations. They are left to live under the contract. those who can leave and want to leave can but they are only leaving to enter another contract. As we discussed in class every society has some sort of contract, so moving wont allow a person to escape contracts in general but they are just moving into a different set of constraints.

mill vs kant…..

If i had to choose which philosophers theory of morality to live by I probably would choose Mill. Although they both have their flaws, mill’s theory deals with the consequences rather than motive. actions should be moral when happiness or a a greater good is created. even with bad intentions an action can be morally good.  this may put the people with good intentions in a bad light but  good intentions 89 % of the time are followed by good consequences and thats a big percentage. Kant breaks up actions into too many different categories that are later linked when analyzed so i think it makes it difficult to understand morality under his theory. personally i think i would spend too much time thinking about the morality of my actions if i lived by kant’s theory.

Is the government subject to moral judgement? November 19, 2008

Logically from my view point, the government shouldn’t be subject to moral judgement. This may sound bad and unfair but Hobbes said himself that the sovereign force of a contract should have the power to scare the people who gave their rights to them. In order to have that power they shouldn’t be classified as normal civilian, and should therefore have noticeable leverage over those not in the sovereign force. the this exemption from moral judgment isnt in place to make people feel inferior but it is a deterent from acting immoral or going against the promise stated in the contract. For example in our case int he class room. I took the philosophy class inorder to learn. there is technically a mentalcontract when i entered the course and was given the syllabus that i would do the work and complete the course. Even after the withdrawl date i am obligated to finish the cours ein order to recieve credit. When taking the sourse i give up my right to be boisterous, my right to sleep for that period of time, the right to be a leader ( because i have to learn rather than teach) and several other rights, so that Boone can teach. If i had the same rights as boone I would get up infront of the class and create my own lesson plan. This example deals with the point that boone has more power then me when in the classroom and it would be illogical for him to be set to the standard of a student such as writing paapers and taking notes because we are supposed ot be learning from him, a person in authority..

Kant and morality. November 10, 2008

rationality, self interest and self love are interrelated concepts especially when trying to justify Kant’s point. These three factors create a sense of morality. Using example three included in Kant’s passage, the inclination is not to practice your talent which therefore causes you not to cultivate your  talent.  Example three is plausible dude to its capacity to be universalize but it is contradicted when  Kant states that we, as human beings,  strive to enhance our talents because of human nature. If we have a good sense of self love we would want to make ourselves better, by increasing our talent  as well. Rationality requires us to desire the cultivation of useful abilities. therefor enot cultivating out talents or abilities is immoral.

When looking at example 1, the inclination is for a person to end their pain and the best way they see fit, is to  commit suicide. In this situation rationality and self interest i  linked because everyone want to live a long life as well as self love playing a major role. the purpose of self love  is to further your own life.  this situation is immoral as well.

if an action contradicts the laws of human nature such as rationality, self love or self interest then it is automatically immoral because those inner properties are permanent in human psyches.

u can cheat but we all cant :-( ! November 3, 2008

According to the categorical imperative a person should act only in such a way that he or she can will their maxim into universal law. In other words, an action is deemed acceptable or appropriate if done by a person, but also if tat person peers were to do the same action at the same time. according to Kant, the morality of can action is judged by the extent it can be universalized. When it comes to the example of cheating on a test, If every student in a class room cheated, they would have the same  answers which acquire the same grade, and therefore make it obvious that the cheating took place. So, since the action of cheating on a test can not be universalized, it is immoral.

Does happiness have intrinsic value? October 29, 2008

If intrinsic means the inherent or essential value within itself…. I would have to say that happiness does not have intrinsic value. In order to calculate or understand happiness, it has to be combined with something else. Happiness is combined with a person because it is an emotion and a person normally isn’t happy for no reason. its impossible. Something has to make someone happy, therefore making happiness a property that has extrinsic value. Mill thinks directly opposite of my though as well had Kant’s view as well. He believes that happiness is good within itself.

My questions to Mill.

Later within the second chapter of ultilitarianism, Mill says that it doesn’t matter how you get to happiness, just as long as we get there. In another section he also says that what matters overall is our immediate surroundings when calculating the degree of happiness after an action If those two points are accurate, I would like to know: Why he is standing up for utilitarianism so much? He feels the need to approach utility’s nay sayers by disproving there points, but if happiness is acquired by another theory, why does following utility matter? Is ultiliy the only way? Also why isn’t the word immediate included in the theory of utility? that may not be a question for him, but he can say that that his altered version of utilitarianism should include the amount of happiness in the immediate sense… that would make understanding utilitraianism a lot easier…..

standard of utilitarianism is too high October 15, 2008

The objection against utilitarianism discussed in class stated that the standard of utilitarianism is too high for everyone to consider overall happiness for each of their actions. This translates that it is very time consuming and burdensome for people to consider the outcome and aftershock of each of there actions on a global span. Mill says that  motive or intent doesnt have to do with the consequence of someones actions. just the action itself matters. mill also states that it is sort of unrealistic to consider the happiness of the whole world when an action is private or personal and has no effect on others across  the world. Therefore a person’s immediate surroundings should be the basis to jusdge overall hapiness in the context of that action.  Mill’s response to the objection also says that those who have wealth and power have more effect on morality. I agree with that statement to an extent. Those who have wealth and power may have a higher capacity to do more good then someone of a lower stature but it doesent  mean that they or obligated or will do so. Also thoses who have wealth a power may be eailt or more readily recognized for their actions even if they are minimal compared to someone who isnt on their moral or authoratiative level.