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

Instant Ethical Choices in Recent Tragedies

In the recent tragedies in Boston and West, TX, as in every horrific event, people made the choice to run away from the terror or to run toward to help. In our last class, we were examining the concepts of internal and external sanctions, how they come about, and how they have an affect on our actions. As we learned, Mill thinks that our internal sanction (intuition, conscience) is an innate function that is shaped or organized by the society around us (external sanctions) and therefore the two are strongly linked as motivators for our actions. I have to agree with Mill's perspective that we don't act just out of thinking and reasoning but rather that there is a natural motivation and feeling that humans, as social creatures have, to act in accordance with the greatest happiness principle. You can condition people all you want to behave in a particular way but there has to be an underlying instinct that drives this. In a moment of panic and fear, as we saw in these two situations, I really think that split second decision of which action prevailed, self-preservation or aid to others, has to come from something more deeply rooted than social conditioning or adhering to a reasoned moral theory.

Not Exactly Equality and Its Implications

 In his article, Equality and Its Implications, Peter Singer looks at different aspects of equality. About 

 racial equality he states,”Racist assumptions shared by most Europeans at the turn of the century are

 now totally unacceptable at least in public life.” He goes on to say, “This does not mean that there are

 no longer any racists, but only that they must disguise their racism if their views and policies are to have

 a chance of general acceptance.” After reading the first Singer article, I heard a WHYY interview with

 a guy who was an Obama look-a-like. He told of being exposed to racist attitudes and hearing racial

 slurs, as ‘Obama’, that he never hears in his normal life.

 Later in the article, Singer lays out “the principle of equal considerations,” which he believes is the

 justifying principle of equality for ‘affirmative action’. I’m looking at colleges with my oldest daughter,

 who will not benefit from ‘affirmative action’, yet I agree with Singer’s position that ‘affirmative action’

 helps to move our country towards equality. Hearing the Obama look-a-like interview reminded me of 

why. My daughter will be just fine, but she goes to a Philadelphia public high school and plenty of her

 equally bright friends and classmates would not be without ‘Affirmative action’. As Singer pointed out,

 racist views, while unacceptable in public, still ooze under the surface. The interview exposed this.

 The ‘Affirmative action’ safety net prevents people from acting on this behind the comfort of closed

 doors. Though making headway, racial equality still needs a leg up to achieve a more level playing field.

Happiness for as many people as possible

Mill’s theorized that actions are correct if they produce happiness and wrong as they produce unhappiness, happiness being defined as pleasure and unhappiness being defined as pain with the absence of pleasure. This theory focuses on determining the values of the actions that produce pleasure or consequences according to the majority. This theory seems to apply to all living things. Also there is a natural aspect as we tend to limit the actions that cause us pain and indulge in those that bring us pleasure.

Utilitarianism Summary Thus Far...

        According to utilitarianism the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, although there is debate over how much consideration should be given to actual consequences, foreseen consequences and intended consequences. Many of us use this type of moral reasoning frequently in our daily decisions. When asked to explain why we feel we have a moral duty to perform some action, we often point to the good that will come from the action or the harm it will prevent. Business analysts, legislators, and scientists weigh daily the resulting benefits and harms of policies when deciding, for example, whether to invest resources in a certain public project, whether to approve a new drug, or whether to ban a certain pesticide. Utilitarianism offers a relatively straightforward method for deciding the morally right course of action for any particular situation we may find ourselves in. To discover what we ought to do in any situation, we first identify the various courses of action that we could perform. Second, we determine all of the foreseeable benefits and harms that would result from each course of action for everyone affected by the action. And third, we choose the course of action that provides the greatest benefits after the costs have been taken into account. This sounds a lot like how we think and act today doesn't it?? Something to think about and quite the read!! Enjoy!

What is happiness?

Throughout this course, I have heard different opinions and ideas of what “happiness” is. Aristotle views happiness as living a life full of virtues which all lead up to a “final end” whereas Mills views happiness in terms of pleasure. After hearing all these explanations of what happiness is according to the great philosophers, I started thinking about what I view as happiness. Learning about all the different definitions of happiness makes me realize that defining happiness is not a clear-cut answer. Happiness to ME is the smell of the grass after it rains, the sunset signifying the end of today but hope for tomorrow, the love I feel from my family, friends, and two cats, the smell of home cooked stuffed green peppers, and so many other things. Although what others define as happiness is different, one thing I think we all can agree on. Happiness is a sincere, serene feeling. Happiness is in the eyes of the beholder.

Utilitarianism Chapter 3 Of the Ultimate Sanction of the Principle of Utility

 

Conclusion:  A philosophy cannot be binding if it does not contain necessary consequences for those who break its laws.

I.      If a person is presented with a principle that they do not consider important, that person will see no reason to respect or value the principle.

A) “If my own happiness lies in something else, why may I not give that the preference?” (Pg 27)

II.     “The principle of utility either has, or there is no reason why it might not have, all the sanctions which belong to any other system of morals.”(Pg 28)

A) External sanctions exist externally to the human agent as an individual; they may take the form of peer pressure-the fear of their disapproval-or of divine pleasure-the fear of his wrath.

B) Internal sanctions stem from one conscience; these consist of feelings in one’s own mind that create discomfort when one violates a duty.

C) It’s not merely about correcting actions, it’s about motivating them.

III.   Many people believe that individuals are more likely to follow moral principles if they see them as objective fact rather than if they see them as embedded in subjective feelings.         

A)  This is a problem that is facing all humanity, not just the philosophy of utilitarianism.

.       B)    If internal sanctions provide the strongest influence over people’s actions, utilitarianism must appeal to people’s inner sentiments.

IV.    Sentiment of duty is innate or implanted

A)  Distinction is not important because in either case it would support utilitarianism.

 

B)  Moral feelings are acquired; however, this does not mean that they are not natural.

 

C)  Moral feelings may not be a part of human nature, but they are a natural result of it.

V.     People must be able to feel that promoting general happiness is morally a good thing.

A) Once general happiness becomes recognized as the moral standard, natural sentiment will nurture feelings that encourage utilitarianism.

        B) Humans would want to be in agreement with other humans.

C) All people’s interests have equal worth.

D) Society should and could nourish this natural sentiment through education and law.

E) If the feeling of social unity were taught the way religion is, and implanted as an internal sanction, then utilitarianism could exert a binding force sufficient to influence behavior.