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.

I agree with mills who would want to exprience pain if they had an option to experince pleasure? Mills talks about the what he calls the theory of life which he says is the grounding for the freedom of  pain which is desirable by all and if pain must be exprienced then it is only for the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of future pain. This is said to be the way that all human beings should conduct themselves and is the standard for morality.