Sunday, March 23, 2008

Van Wyk - World Hunger and the Extent of Our Positive Duties

It seems that Van Wyk's piece reflects somewhat closely to Singer. He seems to suggest that western, developed nations should produce aid for those in impoverished third-world nations. I feel that we should do what we can to help, but I have another aspect of the piece that I would like to see addressed. By the assumption of all of these moral philosophers, the United States is at the best position to aid other nations and their people in raising them above the poverty level. However, I don't understand how we can be the "world relief fund" when we have plenty of citizens within this county that are poor? It seems as though we should concentrate on our own people first. However, this leads into another issue when dealing with taking from the rich and giving to the poor. If we raise taxes, pool funds, and give money and resources to the poor, what is motivating them to do anything out their poverty? In the case of welfare, by giving money to those who have no other source of income, they have no incentive to help themselves unless they are forced to do so. If you were given free money for no reason wouldn't you quit your job? This is an extreme example of course, but entirely plausible.

I believe in the Kantian theory that people should be treated as means and not end, but if you are sacrificing your well-being for those who could be taking advantage of you, couldn't you argue that you are being used as a means instead of an end? I just feel that if we are to help those in need, we need to hold them accountable.

Certainly many corporations indirectly contribute to the poverty of others and I feel that they are morally accountable for their actions, especially if they achieve wealth in the process.

Monday, March 10, 2008

Ignatieff - Human Rights, the Laws of War, and Terrorism

1. Rights as Precommitments

I agree that human rights and civil liberties are a valuable part of our society and that terrorism is an act that attempts to displace these liberties. However, I think that in a time of crisis we may have to realize that out liberties can be strained in an attempt to protect society as a whole. I'm not talking about the sort of things that Ignatieff is suggesting such as torture, etc. but I think that this country fails to understand that when we are under attack, there are certain rights and procedures that we need to undertake in order to secure the nation as a whole. If that means that we profile Arab males, Caucasian males, or Asian women then we need to take those precautions, it would be foolish not too because life is a human right and these precautions are taken to ensure that. As for the human rights of terrorists, they do have some but severely limited to free individuals because the mere act of terrorism is a disregard for human rights and life in and of itself, so the individual clearly does not value these virtues. Therefore, we do not need to uphold theirs fully.


2. Emergency Suspensions of Rights

I agree with what Ignatieff has said here. A suspension of rights can only take place in times of emergency, however it is hard to tell when a President or government body has overstepped it's bounds as Ignatieff. I guess that when the rights of the American people are restricted so that a typical and reasonable way of life cannot be maintained, then they have overstepped their bounds. When the government oppresses its own people, it becomes a problem. However, it is easy for a select few to claim that they have been oppressed when they really haven't which is easy to do in today's society when the claim of oppression may lead to a law suit or fame in the media.


3. Two Precimmitment Strategies

All I have to say for this section is that terrorists and terrorism in general is a more complex war than any other fought traditionally. We don't know whether these terrorists act as civilians, militants, or soldiers therefore it is hard to hold them as any. I agree that the manner and condition in which some of these men have been held is unjustified and immoral. However, I revert back to my previous statement that some human rights and civil liberties should be taken away from those that clearly disregard them.


4. Human rights as a justification for terror?

Human rights are not a reasonable justification for terrorism. I can understand how others (terrorists) would think that it might be considering Ignatieff's argument, but I don't see how it is a justification. I understand that they come from a different culture and feel that they have been oppressed. However, taking human life and human rights away from others in the name of human rights as a justification does not make sense to me. Clearly it is using human life as a means instead of an end.


5. Human rights and the struggle against oppression

I agree with how Ignatieff distinguishes between a freedom fighter and terrorist. I was wondering myself as his argument progressed how he would classify our own forefathers. They were "revolutionaries" to us, but terrorist to the British. However, the forefathers fought military targets in the colonies instead of trying to instill fear and harm to the civilians in Britain herself. I also agree that when one resorts to violence, they have forgone their claim for human rights as a justification and must follow the rules of war. Terrorist have done just the opposite and can be rightly considered as such because of it.

Friday, March 7, 2008

Blindness - Finale

The ending pages of "Blindness" provide little by way of moral dilemma, or it has just been too long since I last read the book.

However, one of the key issues that we discussed in class was the sence of duty and "responsibility" that the government proclaimed in the quarantine just before their departure. Is it justified? Was it their moral duty to take these people out of society? Was it their duty to comply? Like any other moral issue, it depends greatly upon who moral theorist you want to follow. Mill would find that all of these actions are completely justified in that separating these these people would do the greatest good for the greatest number. Kant would argue that the maxim that the government and blind people would be operating upon would be rather difficult to universalize. If you simply discard every person that could cause harm to society or may increase the chances of an epidemic, then you would have more individuals in prison or quarantine than not. Couldn't the mentally ill be considered a threat, what about the elderly with disease, surely every cancer patient would fall under these same rules. Finally, Aristotle would attempt to find the golden mean in conduct. I would believe this mean to be a self-contained quarantine. They simply would not be allowed to leave the house until further research was done. Regardless, it is the government's duty (perhaps Prima Facie duty) to protect it's people. In a situation like this something had to be done. However, the manner in which it was done is not acceptable.

Secondly, the Doctor's Wife's food gathering brought about another moral dilemma. As she realized after discovering the dead bodies, by collecting food for herself and the others, she was taking food away from everyone else. She called herself a murderer for this act. Is she? I think that this is a special situation because of the epidemic of blindness has taken over the majority of society and there was little of any moral or legal structure at the time. It almost reverts back to a survival of the fittest type of mentality. The eyes of the statues and paintings in the church were blinded with white cloth and paint. Clearly moral standard were lessened as they were in the asylum. Still, were her actions immoral? I would say that her actions were immoral but entirely necessary. Much like our unit on war, it is hard to classify which is of a greater good, but there are times when something can be immoral, but necessary. Of course taking food or anything that may result in another's death is immoral, but it is what must be done to survive. It would be unreasonable to allow oneself to die when it could be easily avoided.

Monday, March 3, 2008

Miller - Jus as Bellum and an Officer's Moral Obligations: Ignorance, the Constitution, and Iraq

Jus in bello - Justice in War
Jus ad bellum - Justice of War


1. The Moral Equality of Soldiers?

I agree with the points that Miller brings up regarding Walzer. I feel that you cannot blame the individual soldier for war because most soldiers are forced into doing what they are told. This does not say - of course - that the soldier as no morality, it simply means that it was not the decision of the soldier or of a typical citizen whether or not to go to war. Also, it is true that we aren't always given all the facts that are leading up to war which is a problem because the citizens of a democracy have a right to be told this information, but rarely are told of all the facts. I guess one reasoning may be because as a democracy there is some fear and mistrust of the people. The very reason we have an electoral college is because we don't trust the blind and uninformed ideals of the majority. It is the same when declaring war. Yes, a soldier and citizen are ignorant to wars.

2. Soldiers and the Duty to Obey the Law

Here, Miller seems to try to formulate an overly convoluted and technical argument. He seems to be suggesting that US treaties override congressional orders - such as declaring war. Since the UN Charter seems to forbid all acts of war or "aggression" unless approved by the UN security council or as an act of self-defense, then a soldier fighting in a war that doesn't fit this criteria should not fight because it would contradict his or her own duty. I think that is the argument, which I feel is not very well founded and a perversion of the original meaning of duty, supreme law, and that of a soldier. Also, the question that has plagued this entire unit still remains, what is considered self-defense? Were the 9-11 attacks an aggressive attack on the US? If so, are we supposed to do nothing since it was not a nation that attacked us? There are far too many questions to give concrete answers to this topic.

3. Gulf War II as an Illegal War

I do not agree with Miller's statements in the previous sections and therefore I do not agree with what he is saying here. He just seems to be making too many obscure connections. I don't understand how performing a duty under the order of the Congress and the President is disobeying one's duty to the Constitution. I am almost a college education individual - much like these officers he was talking about - and I don't make this connection. It seems to be an ill-founded argument. Maybe the Iraq War was a mistake, but I will refuse to ever blame the troops that are out their giving their lives in service to this country.

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Hare - Lovalty and Obedience

As for the instance where charges were left for the destruction of the Indonesian ship, I feel that the ship could have been left alone as it was. It was true that the ship was not sinking, but it certainly wasn't going to be going anywhere either. One would have to prove that the ship would still be able to carry out the function of supplying the Japanese in order to justify it's destruction. Also, if that was the case, then they should have insured that all of the survivors were to make it off safely.

I think it sucks that something can be morally right, but legally wrong. I feel that we should not be able to convict someone in legal terms for doing something that is morally correct. That solider should not be held at trial because he decided that it would be wrong to gun down those surrendering German soldiers.

I can see where there are two different kinds of moral thinking in the virtues of a good solider and the virtues of a good person. The problem is that the two rarely coincide in situations that morality is questioned. What I find hard to debate as Hare somewhat mentions here is that sometimes - usually in the case of the Germans and Japanese of WWII - they are forced to do immoral things because if they don't follow orders they will be shot. That is a very abstract and difficult concept for me to decide upon. You can't ask someone to be kill voluntarily, but it is also unjustifiable that many could be killed if one doesn't sacrifice oneself. The questions also arises that perhaps the many will be killed either way. That is, that the solider that doesn't want to commit the unjust act could be killed and then the others would be killed as well. Clearly, the solider would then have no moral responsibility, but a greater evil would have been committed.

Is loyalty truly a virtue? I see it as a blinding force at times especially in the situation that we have here. Certainly a blind loyalty which causes the death of innocent people doesn't sound like much of a principle. It is true that right moral actions don't ever come easy.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Wasserstrom - On the Morality of War

War is a difficult moral issue and this seemed to be a lengthy argument against all morality in war. I had a hard time distinguishing if Wasserstrom had anything to say in support of war at all. It seems like he took a wholly negative approach in that every venue of war is entirely immoral. I found that his argument formed around how all aspects of war hold no morality, and thus, wars should never be fought.

What I got confused about was his argument about self-defense. He seems to see some justification in defending one's nation as an individual, but notes that one needs only to defend oneself to the extent of merely defending. As in not going any further. My question is how does one know when they have successfully defended oneself? Is it a defeat of an invading army all the way to your shores? Is that justifiable? What happens if they are beaten to the edge of the map only to invade once more and kill more innocent civilians? Is that justifiable? I also agree that it is the duty of the President to hold American lives at a higher lives than others, however, it is not moral. It simply must be done when you hold that position.

As for his argument on innocent civilians, I find it a bit one-sided. Innocent civilians will be killed in any war. However, more innocent civilians may be killed if a nation does not go to war. It is often the killing of innocent civilians that prompts war. Regardless, is war immoral? Yes. However, is it immoral to allow your own people to be killed or to go to war and stop those whom are doing the killed from continuing. Sometimes there is little option in war.

Monday, February 18, 2008

Reflection on the in-class film

In order to create a journal entry in relation to the film we viewed in class, I am going to simply respond to the questions posed in class.

How do we see war? How is war presented to us?

The photographer in the film depicted war through his photographs. He did not capture war from the perspective of the soldiers, but as a representation of the people and the aftermath of war. War is obviously not presented in a favorable light as the pain, suffering, and anguish that war bestows on the people of the nations from which it is fought is clearly depicted through these photographs.


Does the photographer document war? Give a moral account of war? Judge war as good/bad?

The photographer does not document war as it is happening, but the affects of the war on the surrounding people. He obviously gives an account of the in-human and immoralities of war and makes a clear judgment call that this is a bad thing. He clearly states that his photographs are the answer to war, a form of peaceful negotiation. He feels that he is doing the right thing in attempting to bring to light these horrible affects of war so that others may join him in taking action against wars.


How do we make sense and/or find meaning out of the consequences and aftermath of war?

The photographer seems to still maintain a sense of optimism in the fight against wars. He feels that good will eventually win out over the evils of war. He believes that war won't keep going on and on. His photographs attempt to function as a form of communication to the rest of the world. He wants to open the eyes of everyone around him so that we can see what is actually going on. The photographer feels that if people know about these things, then they will have a responsibility to do something about it. This sounds like some form of duty to me. I wrote in my notes that the photographer is appealing to some sort of Prima Facie duty that we have when seeing these photos. That we will be compelled and should to do something about it.

Sunday, February 17, 2008

The Ethics of War and the Struggle Against Terrorism - Lackey

"Blindness" entires have been delayed indefinably. Probably during Spring Break I will finish.

1. Varieties of Pacifism


Lackey provides a good point here, he states that normal pacifists believe that killing is wrong, but will not judge or impose their beliefs on someone else. Lackey says that this philosophy does not consider morality at all. He says that for something to be a moral principle, the person must state that their beliefs should apply to everyone. I agree with this statement, however I feel that a person can be understanding of someone else's difference and still believe that they are wrong, but a wishy-washy stance on an issue - especially on something like murder and war - is not permissible as a moral philosophy.


2. The Prohibition Against Killing
(a) The Biblical Prohibition


Finally, someone who challenges some of the religious contradictions in the Bible. How can God tell us not to kill, but tell others to do so in his name or whatever. I doesn't make any sense which is why I am very skeptical about following the teachings of the Bible. Also, Lackey mentions that the teaching of the Bible are religious laws and not moral law, but I think that it is difficult to distinguish the two. Many people consider their morals to pass through the teachings of religion which would bring no separation between the two. I would suggest that the difference lies between acting out of the words of a text and acting out of reason or some form or moral reason. That is, that we do things that only make rational sense. Can we kill whenever and whomever we want? No, that would not make any rational sense because we would not have a society any more.

(b) The Sacredness of Life
Ah yes, another excellent point. I like this guy. I would have to agree with him in that if you must kill someone to save the lives of others - or oneself - then it must be necessary to do so. I am a strong believer that death is a final option and that things should be allowed to be discussed and negotiated so that no one has to be killed. However, there are some that can not be negotiated with and I find these people to be inherently evil. In that case, if that person must die so that another shall live, I can see where it may be permissible.

(c) The Right to Life
Sometimes people kill others to secure the right to life. This is a contradiction in and of itself.


3. Antiwar Pacifism
The Killing of Soldiers
I am not one to blame the victim, so I will never agree that it is the soldier's fault for being killed. I would argue that it is the German's fault for the death of the Russians and of the the German soldiers. Here I am not blaming the German soldiers, but the commanders that ordered the invasion.

The Killing of Civilians
I think we need to understand that if you fight a war, innocent civilians are going to be killed - it is war. Civilian deaths are unavoidable and, yes unintentional, bu they are going to happen. You can't fight a war without it and that is why war is so horrible. I see no difference morally between a soldier's death and a civilians, ever human life is sacred. Wars are not only fought by soldiers.

The Balance of Good and Evil in War
This is obviously a very hard argument. As Lackey pointed out, it is immoral either way, but the blame would be placed elsewhere. That doesn't make it right though. I have a strict moral belief that there are times when one must kill in order to protect of the overall good from evil. If the question is either allow Nazi troops to occupy of the country and the world or kill them all to stop them by doing so, I would agree with the latter. There are some evils in this world that must be stopped so that the good in this world may survive. The problem is that what is good and what is evil is subjective.

Monday, February 11, 2008

Blindness - p.114 - 185

I have gotten a little behind in my reading of "Blindess," but I will try and still maintain my journal to correspond with what I do finish and when I do so.

This particular section of the reading truly represents the downward spiral of the blind people in the asylum. The uprising of the "Thugs" and the addition of the old man with the black eye patch. Amongst this reading I found that there has been one major clue to the cause of the blindness and another moral decision.

I find it very ironic that the old man with the eye patch - who is already half blind - would be the one who is partially sees the truth. As if literal blindness is the answer to the metaphorical blindness that has stricken everyone else. I am not entirely sure if it is the old man with the black eye patch that says this, but his arrival certainly prompts it. What I am referring to is on page 129 and states:

"Fear can cause blindness, said the girl with dark glasses, Never a truer word, that could not be truer, we were already blind the moment we turned blind, fear struck us blind, fear will keep us blind, Who is speaking, asked the doctor, A blind man, replied a voice, just a blind man, for that is all we have here."


Here is seems that Saramago is saying - perhaps himself literally - that it is fear that has caused their blindness. Perhaps that are not truly blind at all, but have been for years and have never known it. There is no clue as to who this person was, it might have been the old man with the black eye patch because he was the insightful one at the time. However, as literary works seem to function, it is usually an unknown or the most unlikely of characters that explain the true theme of the novel. Therefore, "A blind man" would be a perfect fit. Of course one could analyze this a litter deeper in suggesting that the "blindness" is truly just our fear blinding us. This fear is reflective of actual society that seems to now be based on fear from outside forces (terrorist) and crime or violence (media) and that this blinding fear is the downfall of our moral reasoning and society which is rightfully reflected in the downward spiral we see in the asylum.

As for one of the major moral considerations of these chapters include the question of if the women are morally obligated to allow themselves to be humiliated and raped so that everyone can have food. Clearly the "Thugs" have regressed to a level of barbaric inclination and sadly, the functioning society of the other wards must yield to the wills of the barbaric "Thugs" in order to survive, in order to receive food. However, the question is if the women should do this? Is it morally correct to relieve yourself of all dignity and humility in order for the good of the whole to survive? Should the husbands have to make the choice of allowing their wives to venture off to almost certain rape and possible death so that everyone may receive some food? It seems that there is little option aside from resistance and an overthrow of the "Thugs" which would also lead to some death, maybe not the death of everyone, but some may die. This path also would lead to the death of the "Thugs" as well in which the morality of that could be questioned. Is death more or less moral than rape? This is the major question of this particular section. The answer: I don't know if I could accurately provide my solution as I am not in that situation. However, my feelings now would suggest that I would be more willing to resist against the "Thugs" than to allow my wife to be raped. If someone doomed to harm, I would wish it upon my enemies rather than my loved ones.

Monday, February 4, 2008

Blindness - Part Two

In the second section of the novel, we experience a little more of what it is like in the asylum with all of the seemingly connected blind folks together.

As far as my comprehension serves me, I see a few moral issues that have been risen in this section.

The first is the dilemma of the Doctor's Wife and how she wants to help her husband, but cannot do anything to compromise the fact that she can still see. Others are suspicious of her including some of the blind and the guards. It book notes how she feels like she is part of a moral dilemma since she can see and she feels guilty to the fact that she shouldn't be able to see others if they can't see her. There is no telling with the outcome may be if she acknowledges that she can see. I don't think that they would remove her and it is possible that she might even represent some truth that you can interact with these people and not become blind yourself. However, it could cause harm and distress to her by forcing to perform chores for the others in need. This is perhaps negligent of her command of reason or duty in the situation by helping those who do not have the means to help themselves. This may perhaps lead to blindness for her.

Another moral issue surrounds the injured blind man who stole the car and the soldiers. This is where the first issue of rules against humanity arises. The injured man asks for help after his leg was injured - however - the solider said that we would not help the man. At one point somehow exclaims that by not providing the man with the proper medical support, it was against of the rules of humanity. The solider implied that the man would be left to die. Therefore, the injured man tries to escape and was shot in the process, thus providing a precedent for the rest of the group as more individuals are shot. By analyzing this moral issue, I can't help but think about how Kant and Mill would view this situation. Mill would suggest that by allowing the blind to die, it would be necessary for the greater happiness of the rest of society because they would not be "infected" by the epidemic. However, Kant would say that this could not be universalized because certainly no one would want to be left for dead if the situation was reversed. It would not be reasonable for everyone to act in this manner and thus, immoral.

Sunday, February 3, 2008

Blindness - Part One

Since this is no longer information from a text book, but content from a literary novel, my journal entries will look a little different.

Regardless, after reading the first section of "Blindness" it seems obvious that the white blindness is a metaphor, but for what I am not sure.

Also, the epidemic of the "blindness" has led to a quarantine of those affected which seems to make some since being that anyone who interacts with those affected with the "blindness" becomes blind as well.

I guess one theory of mine is that it seems that all those affected with the blindness seemed to face some sort of moral problem. My thought is that these individuals are not acting in accordance to any correct moral principle and thus - blindness. The man who stole the first blind man's car became blind, the prostitute became blind, and the doctor is now blind . I'm not sure what he has done or his patients , but I guess that is why this is only a theory.

Saramago's writing seems to be very difficult at times to understand due to his complete lack of any punctuation. Having taken AP English courses in high school I know that the structure of the prose can be a function of the theme or meaning of the piece so I will not criticize the author's technique too heavily at this time.

Nevertheless, I found a grammatical mistake on page 5 which bothered me. It read: "It was as if there were a white wall on the other side." This doesn't even make sense when you first read it. The word "were" should be replaced with "was" to match the agreement with the object of the sentence in number.

I'm not sure how closely I will be able to read this book given how long the assigned readings are and my time commitments to other things.

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Ross - What Makes Right Acts Right?

Promising
Fulfilling promises is a part of a duty, however, there are times where breaking that promise or duty can yield to a greater duty. The example here is that you promise to meet someone for lunch, but you break that promise in order to save someone from an accident. Ross says that it is not for a greater good that you do this, but for what reason then?

When you have the option to do greater benevolent things in order to break a promise, that is the only time you can do so. Why are promises held in such a high regard?

Prima Facie Duty Explained
Prima Facie duty is "conditional duty" like something such as the relationship between child and parent, husband and wife, or citizen and citizen. Ross is saying that in any given situation you have to decide which relationship is of the most importance at the time.

1. Some duties rest on previous acts of a person. There are "implicit promises" which are things that are implied such as not telling lies. Also may be attributed to previous wrongful acts.

2. Previous acts of other men. Duties of gratitude. I guess this means doing good deeds.

3. Duties that act with the possibility are distribution pleasure or happiness. Ross calls this justice, but I don't see how that fits. Perhaps I am reading that wrong.

4. Duties that we can help others by being kind: duties of beneficence. I like that one, it makes sense to me. I seems to say that you can just be kind.

5. Duties of self-improvement - being that we can benefit ourselves from our actions.

6. We should not harm others. We should resist the inclination (want) to do so. I don't understand how that ties into (4.). Maybe it is suggesting that it is not justifiable to kill someone in order to help another. I think that means that we can't hurt some to help others. That doesn't seem all the just to me. Say someone was trying to kill your family and the only way to stop them would be to kill that perpetrator, this theory would state that you would have to let your family because killing the murderer would not be moral.

Ross's key objection to the utilitarian theory is that it is hard to determine who deserves the "most good" that we are striving for. This kind of relates to our class discussion on slavery. How can we determine who deserves to be slaves and who not.

Prima Facie vs. Actual Duty
There are certain universal goods or laws that we all learn when we reach a certain mental maturity - I'm guessing after childhood or even after infancy.

There is a conflict between Prima Facie and virtue. This being that we are not sure which is the right way to do things. Ross is suggesting that we can never truly know what will become of our actions, we may contribute to good or evil; it is a moral risk.

We don't have any justifiable means to consider something to be good or bad. I think that is his point here, but what about universal laws or goods?

Again, we never know which act will add us in the long-run. However, Ross suggests that if we action the Prima Facie rightness and wrongness, he says that we should be more content overall.

Our Moral Convictions as the Basis of Ethics
We have to test moral theory based on what we know and not what we think. We have to compare ourselves those who we see as the best in a moral sense. I don't really understand this passage.

Monday, January 21, 2008

Utilitarianism

Chapter 1: General Remarks
Mill is going to describe the Utilitarian/Happiness Theory. It is hard to instill proof...I think that is what he is saying.

Chapter 2: What Utilitarianism Is
The general conception of happiness is that whatever generates happiness is good and whatever does not is bad. These are merely the only two ends. Promote pleasure and prevent pain.

Some believe that there is no higher end than pleasure.

This does not mean that we are trying to attain the same end as swine, but that there are different pleasures that we are attracted to. We should measure pleasure in both quantity and quality. We determine what is of better quality by comparison.

No human would want to be a bad person in any respect. However, it is easier for a lower person or an unintelligent person to become happy and attain the pleasure they need if that person's threshold is very low. A higher minded individual may feel unsatisfied. However, it is better to be unsatisfied and at a higher level.

Utilitarianism follows closely to the approach of the teaching of Jesus that one should love their neighbor as they would themself. This leads to the thinking that the interest of happiness should be placed nearest in harmony to the interest of the whole. Also, education and opinion (power) should be used for universal happiness regardless of the individual.

Utilitarianism = the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Mill criticizes the "duty" theory here in that people do moral actions not only pout of duty, but out of other moral actions such as self interest. One's self-interests are legitimate as long as they do not hinder the overall purpose of greater happiness to others or themselves.

Human experience has taught us the rules and principles of morality. Happiness is the end and aim or morality. There is no clear answer however.

Chapter 4: Of What Sort of Proof the Principle of Utility is Susceptible (Where was 3?)
The first attempt at proof is that happiness is the only end and everything else is only a means to that end.

It is a fact that people want to be happy and that happiness is a good thing. Therefore, happiness is at least an end. Virtue is another part of happiness, an ingredient. It is not a means to happiness, but can be a part of one's happiness.

Happiness is the sum of its parts. Wealth and health may be part of the end of happiness. However, what is desired isn't really wealth or health, but happiness and these are merely parts or means to it.

If one agrees that humans desire happiness, then they must realize that is proof in itself to the principle of utilitarianism.

Chapter 5: On the Connexion Between Justice and Utility
We would like to compel people to do moral things, but we cannot punish them for not acting morally unless they break a specific law.

Injustice is defined as a wrong doing in action and someone that the wrong doing is done upon (victim). It implies that a moral right is taken from us from either a right or wrong doing.

A person's right is defined as something that society ought to defend that person in possession of it. This is related to the general utility (greater good).


Monday, January 14, 2008

Kant - Good Will, Duty, and the Categorical Imperative

The Good Will
All good qualities of character could be made bad if not for good character. Good will can judge the extent to which we are influenced by outside forces of good fortune and to the extent to which we are happy.

Moderation and self-control are indeed good, but can result in a more diabolical villain if not coupled with the principles of good will.

"Good will" is virtuous in and of itself and cannot be devalued in worth.

Moral Worth
Maxim -
an expression of a general truth or principle, esp. an aphoristic or sententious one (dictionary.com).
We should do things through love and the duty is beholds. We must not act from selfishness. If our actions fulfill that duty, then we are said to be doing something with moral worth.

Inclination vs. duty

Difference in doing something from duty which does not grant it moral worth, or something from inclination.

Your moral worth is based on doing something you should do (duty) and not something you want to do (inclination). I think.

We should not strive for something with a pre-conceived expectation.

The Supreme Principle of Morality: The Categorical Imperative
You can will that your maxim be made universal law.

You cannot make promises that you cannot keep, cannot be a universal law. It would destroy itself because there would be no meaning in promises if everyone acted in such a way.

Acting in the pure respect for the common law is duty.

Imperatives: Hypothetical and Categorical
"The Will" is nothing but practical reason. However, "the will" is not necessarily as subjective as reason and therefore, is not completely tied to reason.

The objective will is based on Imperatives, which command two principles:
Hypothetical - the necessity of an action that is willed. Good as a means to something else.
Categorical - an action is necessary to itself without other ends; objective. Good in of itself.

Act by principle as if they were the only reasonable laws of the universe = act as God would.

Four Illustrations
1. You can't kill yourself as an act of self-love by ending your suffering. It would be a contradiction because you would not be improving your life if you are dead.

2. A man needs to borrow money and wants to ask to borrow with a promise that he will repay them, but knows that he cannot. This is also a contradiction because it would universally imply that anyone could make empty promises about anything if they are in the same situation.

3. A man could do great things will his talents if we worked to perfect them, but enjoys hanging out and not doing anything. This could not pass as a universal law of nature because as reasonable human being, we want to develop ourselves.

4. I man is prosperity and is surrounded by wretchedness, he does nothing and lets it continue on. This is not a universal law of nature for someone of good will because human life could not exist with such as maxim.

Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative: Humanity as an End in Itself
Humans are an end in themselves and never as a means.

Worth is only based on conditional aspects.

Humans are an objective principle in that our rational nature exists as an end itself. Follows the idea of "The Golden Rule."

The Kingdom of Ends
Our moral actions are considered within a kingdom of laws: moral laws. Whereas we determine what are deemed as ends and what are means.

Friday, January 11, 2008

Happiness, Function, and Virtue

Happiness
All Human Activities Aim at Some Good
This "good" is a process of attaining an "end" to every action. These "ends" shift depending on the process such as good health being the "end" of medical practice.

Ethics is not an Exact Science
You can only accurately judge a subject you are familiar with without making general assumptions.

Different Conceptions of Happiness
One's own definition of happiness changes depending on the needs and wants of the moment. A poor person would say that having wealth is significant in attaining happiness and so forth.

There are three types of life: the sensual, the political, and the thought.

Characteristics of the Good
The good that we are searching for is - in essence - the end we are looking for...I think. I'm not understanding what Aristotle is saying here.

The Function of Man
Happiness is the supreme good. The function of man is the balance of virtue with life in being that we function with a soul in accordance with reason. But this assumes that animals, plants, and other living beings do not have souls. Isn't this subjective to say so?

Human Happiness
Some associate happiness with either good fortune or virtue. Aristotle is implying that children cannot be happy because happiness can only be attained from living a full and complete life. A happy person can never be miserable because the way to attain happiness is life in complete virtue. What does this mean, virtue?


Virtue
Virtue and Habit

Virtue is intellectual and moral. Our virtues are created in our actions between other people. We must maintain a certain character in our activities and actions. Some moral virtues include temperance and courage.

Virtues and the Mean
We must shy away from too much or too little of any virtue such as being too cowardly or too courageous. Feeling the right emotion or doing the right action at the right time, for the right objects, for the right people, with the right motives, and in the right manner is said to be the best good and thus, virtue. There are other things that are never right in any amount and are deemed wicked such as hate, malice, and murder.

Practical Advise
Not everyone is good and not everyone can balance toward a mean. We must push ourselves away from the extreme. We also must on on out guard against pleasure because we are not impartial judges of pleasure. I guess this suggests that pleasure is not the answer to happiness and that virtue is the true course to the great good which then leads to happiness.

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Ethical Relativism

Ethical Relativism
No cross-cultural moral standards. Unique to each culture.

1. How Different Cultures Have Different Moral Codes
Different cultures have different beliefs. What might be normal to some are horrifying to others.

2. Cultural Relativism
No universal ethics. What is right in every society is right in every society. Outside cannot interfere.

3. The Cultural Differences Argument
Right and wrong are only matters of opinion.

Cultural Differences Argument = not sound.
There is no objective truth because some beliefs may simply be wrong.
(How do we determine what is right and wrong morally?)

4. The Consequences of Taking Cultural Relativism Seriously
We could not condemn other cultures' practices because they are simply "different." Can't stop other nations from taking slaves.

Can't condemn within our own culture. Cultures will never change because the standards will always be reinforced.

Cannot change for progress and reform. Past thinking is never wrong, because it was right for a period of time.

5. Why There is Less Disagreement than it Seems
The difference is in out belief system and not our values. Customs may simply be different and not values.

6. How All Cultures Have Some Values in Common
There are some moral rules that all societies must have in common, because those rules are necessary for society to exist (like protecting the young, not lying, and no murder).

7. judging a Cultural Practice to be Undesirable
Is the a culture-neutral standard of right and wrong? You must ask, whether the practice promotes or hinders the welfare of the people whose lives are affected by it.

Why, despite all this, thoughtful people may nevertheless be reluctant to criticize other cultures? Previous attempts to shift outside cultures in the past were disaster, but there is a right and wrong way of doing it by either understanding the world or forcing beliefs.

People try to be tolerant of others, but not all beliefs and cultures are equally right.

Don't want to show contempt for another society, but it does not mean that everything is bad if you criticize a culture, just some things.

8. What Can Be Learned From Cultural Relativism
It reminds us that not all of our norms are universal and that our ways are not the only ways.

We want to avoid being arrogant and have an open mind.

Monday, January 7, 2008

An Introduction to Ethics

Ethics - Asks the question, how should I live? "Ethics deals with individual character and the moral rules that govern and limit our conduct". Good vs. Bad. Can be confused or interchanged with morals. (not sure if they are supposed to be different or not).

Moral vs. Nonmoral standards
Moral Standards
- Concern behavior that affects human welfare, such as benefit or injury to people. Takes priority over others, including self-interest. Only as good as the reasons and support that back them.

Morality and Etiquette
Etiquette - Norms and conduct in polite society, or social code or courtesy. Please and thank you.
Following etiquette doesn't make someone moral.

Morality and Laws
1. An action can be illegal but morally right. Nonconformity is not always immoral.
2. AN action that is legal can be morally wrong. The reverse.

Professional Codes
Professional Codes of Ethics - Between etiquette and law. Within a given profession and can be vague or detailed.

Where does morality come from? Religion? Ethical Relativism - right and wrong based on society?

Religion is a large factor in morals. It seems like the "golden rule" exists in every religion in some form.

Divine Command Theory - it is wrong because God said so. Critics say that just because God said it is wrong, doesn't make it immoral. Atheists can believe in these same morals without following a standardized religion.

You must appeal to human reason - religion is not a solid defense.

Ethical Relativism
Morality is relative to society. Abortion is banned in Ireland, but lawful in Japan.

Disagreement in morality between cultures does not make them all equally correct.

If so, we would allow mass genocide in Africa if it is believed to be okay there.

Unpleasant Implications:
1. Can't allow everything under the idea if it is okay where they live.
2. They may change but can't get better or worse. (I think that is in a relative sense and not in comparison)
3. The minority can never be right because changing within has to take a majority opinion.

Conscience
Developed by internalized morals taught be parents and acts as an agent of self-motivation.

You're conscience can be wrong. Sometimes what your conscience tells you can lead to "older" thinking that is immoral, but was previously believed to be right. Example: Huck Finn p. 10.

Moral Principles and Self-Interest
You are able to do immoral things for personal gain and get away with it. Not everything that goes around, comes around - and that sucks.

Doing the right thing for personal gain is not morality. You should so the moral thing to do, just because it is the right things to do.

Selfish people lead less happy lives.

Morality and Personal Values
"The life that each of us forges and the way we understand that life are part of our morality in the broad sense of the term."

Human excellence - according to Aristotle - is not simply based on excellence within a given profession, but based on our morality as a human being: words to live by.