"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.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)