While reading Mills I notice that we share the same view as to what are the bases of the theories that where drawn by many great philosophers or as Mills who say great thinkers. Mills addressed the fact that some of these theories that we have read about in class some how lacks a strong foundation  as to it's how the conclusion was drawn  that these concepts that Aristotle, Kant, and  other great thinker see as the way of a person should  live. Mills states, "Our moral faculty , according to all those of its interpreters who are entitled to the name of thinkers, supplies us only with general  principles of moral judgement; it is a branch of our reason, not out our sensitive faculty , and must looked to for the abstract doctrines of morality , not for the perception of it in the concrete"(Mill 2). Which leads me to the question , What these conception of how to live an absolute?

We are starting a new book this week called “Utilitarianism”. This is the last book we are required to read to finish off the semesterJ. To be honest I am eager to discover how Mills work compares to the other authors we have read, but I am even more excited to finish up my two classes and enjoy my summer off. The topic utilitarianism, itself, is the moral belief that an action is right if it creates the “greatest good for the greatest number of people”. If you think an action will bring the maximum amount of happiness to the most number of people, then it is in fact the right thing to do. To me it sounds good in theory but what is good for you may not be good for someone else and if you ask me the only persons happiness you should truly care about is your own. With that said, here’s hoping this book brings me a little happiness while I’m reading it.

On A Supposed Right To Lie

 Conclusion:  It is one’s duty to be truthful but this truthfulness is not dependent upon the      

                        consequences.

I.                   The truth is a right that is due to all (428:34).

A)    It is each man’s right first to himself to be truthful.  Your right to yourself is that of the truth (426:2).

B)    The truth has no respect of person, it does not discriminate, it is not base upon who is receiving it. 

                  C)    The right to truth is universal a person can not have the right to tell the truth while

                         another person is refused that same right.

 

II.                Harm is the outcome of a lie (426:24).

 

A)    When telling a lie a person has caused harm to oneself because his own lies impairs or weakens his right to truth.

                  B)    Truthful statements are not bound to harm no matter what the unforeseen    
                        consequences are.
 

C)    Telling a lie may not cause harm to the one who summons you but it causes harm to mankind because of the ripple effect that is attributed to the lie.

 

III.             The truth is a duty that should not be avoided (426:12).

A)    When something is known to be true it should not be abandoned.  If we have  

       knowledge of the truth when asked the truth should be granted.

 

B)    Avoidance of the truth is a lie in itself.  If asked a question requiring a yes or no answer such as do I look fat in this dress and a person responds by saying, “I love that color” he is a liar for avoiding that which he has knowledge of truth whether the answer is yes or no.

 

C)    When we avoid the truth is then that we lie to ourselves and to others.  

Concept of Lying

On a “Supposed Right to Lie because of Philanthropic Concerns” Kant argues that it is never acceptable to tell a lie under any circumstances, even when lying could save someone’s life. But with a great deal of disapproval, it is argued that his ethical theory must be imperfect if it leads to an unwanted conclusion.

Although lying may be morally wrong in most cases, based on Kant’s theory, there are likely to be some situations in which lying is acceptable or even a state of being obligated.  Kant maintains that telling the truth is a perfect duty to oneself that may not be violated.

This is without doubt controversial it is effortless to think of situations where lying appears to be morally tolerable, for instance don’t we sometimes tell so called “little white lie” to avoid hurting the feelings of others.  As discussed in class, loving a gift that your partner bought you but secretly despising it, this circumstance may be regarded as a lie, and it does not seem to be morally wrong.

We also discussed examples of lies that seem to be not only morally permitted but obligatory, such as telling a lie to save someone’s life. Kant’s example involved lying to a murderer who wants to kill someone in a person’s house by telling him that his intended victim is not at home, thereby rescuing her.

If this lie would prevent the victim from death, it certainly seems as though we are required to tell it (a lie).  But Kant’s view is that the lie is morally wrong regardless of the good it might do. Because Kant thinks that “a lie always harms another” and “does harm to humanity in general, inasmuch as it vitiates the very source of right”, we cannot allow “the slightest exception” to the duty to tell the truth (426-427, 64-65).  This view surely seems severe and harsh since it does not appear to be reasonable to claim that a life-saving lie may never be told.

 The perception of lying involves intentional untruth or intentional false statement, but what are an untruthful statement and a false statement?

The present Grounding is, however, intended for nothing more than seeking out and establishing the supreme principle of morality. (392)

Thus a good will seems to constitute the indispensable condition of being even worthy of happiness. (393)


A good will is good not because of what it effects or accomplishes, nor because of its fitness to attained some proposed end; it is good only through its willing, i.e., it is good in itself. (394)


Therefore, we shall take up the concept of duty, which includes that of a good will, though with certain certain subjective restrictions and hindrances, which far from hiding a good will or rendering it unrecognizable, rather bring it out by contrast to make it shine forth more brightly. On the other hand, to preserve one's life is a duty; and furthermore, everyone has also an immediate inclination to do so. (397)


Duty is the necessity of an action done out of respect for the law. (399)


Thus the moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it nor in any principle of action that needs to b0rrow its motive from the expected effect. (401)


Innocence is indeed a glorious thing; unfortunately it does not keep very well and it is easily led astray. (405)

Bad Samaritans, Acts, and Omissions

Conclusion:

Coming to the aid of other’s or the lack thereof can raise many questions of one's moral or binding obligations to assist in any situation.  It doesn’t matter if you’re feeding the homeless or watching a crime take place. Your obligation to either will be judged based on your acts or omissions. This can also show the role played of a good or bad samaritan.

Premises:

1. Acts and omissions in its simplest terms, holds that a person is more blameworthy for acts than omissions even if the consequences are the same. (AOD page 476)

    A. In a case of a person seeing a crime taken place or seeing a person in distress and choose not to do anything are held equally responsible for the same act.  

    B. The omission is considered to be unmoral or the bystander effect where assistance is not offered in any effort to deflect harm or death.

    C. The merits of any human being can be weigh by the good or evil charateritic displayed in ones actions.

2. It may be good legal policy to limit liability for omissions to cases where there is a pre-existing duty of care. (AOD Causations page 480)

    A. the duty of care is only defined by your personal relationship, when violated it can cause a question of morality

    B. The legal obligation of protection between a parent and a child, or patient and the physician is expected. Although legally binding only due to the relationship. The neglect or omission to not protect that person is a punishable by fines or imprisonment.

    C. The lack of protection between two strangers is neither a legal obligation nor a personal responsibility.

3. The first is that justice and benevolence (or the respect and concern, as they are sometimes represented) overlap at their lower edges. (The PND: Continuing Debate page 482)

    A. The respect for law and the obligation to do what’s right is so different from each other it will never meet in the middle.

    B. Positive and negatives duties hold different value.  It’s hard to maintain positive duties as it takes time and effort. Negative duties hold no requirements.  

 

 

Pleasure

Conclusion: Pleasure is not absolutely bad when considering the source or species.


       I. Proper pleasure increases our activity in things we enjoy doing most. (implicit) Book X, Chpt 4. Pg 157; 30

            A. Said activities can then be impeded by pleasures from others. (explicit) Book X Chpt. 5. Pg 160; 5
                 1. A musician's conversation can be interfered by someone in the distance playing a flute as his interest/pleasure lies with the instrument, versus his current conversation. (explicit) Book X Chpt. 5. Pg 160; 5
                 2. One would not live a life with a child's mind set, taking as much pleasure as possible; even if he would never suffer from it; in turn pleasing oneself even if while doing utterly shameful actions. (explcit) Book X Chpt 4. Pg 157; 1174a

   
      II. Why shouldn't pleasure admit any more or less then health; although it is definite? (explicit) Book X Chpt. 3 Pg 155; 25


            A. Good is said to be definite, whereas pleasure is not because it admits to more or less. (explicit) Book X Chpt. 3Pg155; 20

                  1. What may good for one (pleasant in sense, taste, sight, etc) may not be for another. (implicit) Book X Chpt. 3 Pg 156; 20

                  2. Just as wealth is desirable; if one has to betray another, it is not to be considered. Book X Chpt 4 Pg 157; 1173b 25

            B. Those that come from either shameful or fine backgrounds are not considered to seek or have the same pleasures. (explicit) Book X Chpt 4 Pg 157; 30

                  1. A friend will tend to aim at what it is good versus a flatterer who will aim to please and said friend would then be praised; with the flatterer being criticized as they are both assumed to have different aims (one good, the other wrong). (explicit) Book X Chpt. 4 Pg 157; 1174a


    III. Eudoxus thought pleasure to be the good. (explicit) Book X Chpt. 2 Pg 154; 10

            A. He felt that all rational and nonrational animals seeked pleasure and in everything (he says) whats considered choiceworthy is good; then most choiceworthy, surpreme. (explicit) Book X Chpt. 2 Pg 154; 10

                 1. The fact that all animals are drawn to pleasure (in his view), indicates best for all since each finds/seeks it's own good (i.e. nourishment), and what is good for all or ultimately aimed at, is the good. (explicit) Book X Chpt. 2 Pg 154; 10

            B. When added to any other good, pleasure; either just or temperate, increases the good by adding itself or deemed to bemore choiceworthy. (explicit) Book X Chpt. 2 Pg 154; 25

                 1. Evidently then we avoid pleasure as an evil and choose pleasure as a good with one oposing the other. (explicit) Book X Chpt 2 Pg 155; 10