This Philosophy Class

I really enjoyed the philosophy class this semester. I learned so much about philosophy and how it gives you different ways to look at things. The only thing that bothered me was the date in time in which alot of these books were wrote. Things and the way people think are alot different now then it was in the past. But its amazing to read how they perceived things back then. I really enjoyed the discussions that we had in class also. It was enlightening to hear other peoples point of views and what they thought about the readings. I've tried critical thinking online and withdrew because I feel that I can learn better in a classroom setting and I wouldn't mind taking it again if Professor Vaught taught it

Greatest Happiness Principle

Throughout nature you will find that all things go to the greatest happiness principle possible.  The greatest happiness principle is the end.  Happiness is where we maximize pleasure and minimize pain.  There is a quality and quantity of pleasure.  For example; the quality of pleasure is reading a book versus watching television.  Certain types of pleasure have more value than the others.  We strive for pleasure that is more worthy or more higher esteemed.  If we have adequate experience we choose one over the other.  The qualities we should choose are in line with intellectual pleasure not bodily pleasure.

Why Study Ethics?

I too like Steve was first confused in the beginning with the difficult readings and unsure why Philosophy of Ethical Problems was a college curriculum.  Furthermore, concepts of ethics influenced by the ancient world became more puzzling. But as I read and reread the required books in class, along with the lectures, it began to sink in.  Ethics being the study of right and wrong than realizing ethical decisions are everywhere, in the home, in the workplace and life in general.  Nevertheless it can be a useful study, it may help me understand better what is best, and how to pursue it.  Much success to all students and special thanks to Prof. Vaught for clearing up my initial perception of Ethics.

Nagel: War and Massacre

Conclusion: There is a clear distinction from noncombatants and combatants. The distinction is whether or not one is functionally innocent/guilty. It is at no time justifiable to harm noncombatants during warfare.

1.     There is a clear distinction between who noncombatants and combatants are.

a.     Noncombatants are those who are functionally innocent/guilty (69).

b.  Combatants are those who are actively seeking harm against us (69).

2.     Functional innocence/guilt is imperative when identifying noncombatants and combatants during warfare (68).

a.     Those who are functionally innocent/guilty are not actively seeking harm upon others (69).

b.     This includes women, children, elderly, injured, and those who aid in the “mere existence” of army personnel (69).

3.     The two categories are not distinguished by moral innocence/guilt.

a.     Defining noncombatants from combatants by moral innocence/guilt would be too broad of a category (68).

b.     The main problem would be what moral “innocence” is (68).

c.      This would justify killing those who do not deserve to die (69).

4.     There are no justifications for killing noncombatants during warfare (68).

a.     “According to the absolutist position, deliberate killing of the innocence is murder” (68).

b.     Absolutist position states that it is impermissible to harm the innocent (71).

c.      If noncombatants are harmed, the war is unjustified.

To lie or not to lie? That is the question...

After reading Kant's article on the duty to tell the truth, I started to contemplate whether or not his logic was right. According to him, one must tell the truth at all times regardless if that causes harm to another.  Reading his example of the murderer and his potential victim, I couldn't help but make snide remarks in my head. Although after reflection, I can see why he believes that it is a duty to tell the truth in order to maintain mankind.

If it perhaps would be permissible to lie when a person could be harmed wouldn't that be defined by every individual themselves? In other words...there isn't a clear definition of what "harm" is. Harm could be defined as something physical, mental, and spiritual. Someone could define "harming" another by telling them the truth about whether or not their hair looks good, they cheated on their significant other, they stole something, etc. The list could go on and on. There has to be a clear and precise principle that states lying is wrong no matter what so that there are restrictions and barriers set up.

All Kant believes is that it is a duty to others and ourselves that we "tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth" at all times.

I can't really say I disagree with him either.

The greater good principles

 

Utilitarianism highlights the claim on actions that including lying as being morally acceptable when the resulting lie maximize benefits and minimizes consequences and harm. These balances are contrary to Kant’s view on lies. The general perspective is to strive for pleasure to avoid pain. Mill objected that utilitarianism overvalued pleasure but explained that the end result we want to produce (our goals) is what dictates our actions.

April 1868 Speech on Capital Punishment

Conclusion:  Mill defends capital punishment (death penalty) as the “most humane” punishment accessible for those who deserve severe punishment compared to the alternative, life imprisonment with “hard labour” and beneficial to society.

Premises:

I.                   “…aggravated murder is now practically the only crime which is punishment with death by any of our lawful tribunal…(65).

a.       “aggravated murder”, the only offense for which Mill defends the death penalty.

II.                "I defend this penalty, [the death penalty] when confined to the atrocious cases, on the very round for which it is commonly attacked- on that of humanity to the criminal; as beyond comparison the least cruel mode in which it is possible adequately to deter from the crime"(65).

           

a.        Mill views capital punishment as a tool to keep society in order, and as the greatest deterrent from future crime;

b.      The death penalty is the strongest deterrence against murder;

                        c.      Capital punishment is less cruel than the alternative of lifelong imprisonment

III.             “If in our horror of inflicting death, we endeavour to devise some punishment for the living criminal which shall act on the human mind with a deterrent force at all comparable to that of death, we are driven to inflictions less severe indeed in appearance, and therefore less efficacious, but far more cruel in reality”(65)

a.        The threat and carrying out the death penalty not only saves more lives than it takes away but also creates a social foundation where people are not living their lives in fear of being murdered;

b.      The ideal punishment, therefore, achieves the maximum in social benefit at the cost of the minimum in social harm.

IV.              “What comparison can there really be, in point of severity, between consigning a man to the short pang of a rapid death, and immuring him in a living tomb, there to linger out what may be a long life in the hardest and most monotonous toil…” (66)

a.        Stating a quick death is much more humane than a life full of suffering. 

V.                “There is not, I should think, any human infliction which makes an impression on the imagination so entirely out of proportion to its real severity as the punishment of death.” (66)

            a.   Mill believes that punishments should be intended that the hardship inflicted                                  on the subject is minimal but the message to the rest of society is a strong deterrent.

b.      He believes that the death penalty is the most humane way of punishing criminals and that the effect upon the observers is appropriate.

VI.              “-that if by an error of justice an innocent person is out to death the mistake can never be corrected:…” (69)

a.       A justice system using the death penalty could allow innocent people to be executed, subsequently if a justice system cannot be trusted it would be dangerous to its society.

1.       “countries where the Courts of Justice seem to think they fail in their duty unless they find somebody guilty,…” (70)

VII.           “I think, Sir, that in the case of most offenses, except those against property, this is more need of strengthening our punishments than of weakening them; and that severer sentences, with an apportionment of them to the different kinds of offenses which shall approve itself better than at present to the moral sentiments of the community, are the kind of reform of which our penal system now stands in need”. (71)

a.        In opposition to a motion calling for the abolition of capital punishment; “I shall therefore vote against the Amendment”

b.       The amendment was defeated