How could one answer this?…

In your blog (the final entry!!), write about the kind of moral theory you would put forth yourself, after having studied what so many great philosophers have said about the nature of ethics. Whose theory is, in the end, the most defensible? What is goodness?

How could one answer this?…After taking this class, I have realized it is almost impossible to come up with a universal law of ethics where all individuals can live by and in addition agree to.  Seems to be faults and great ideas in each theory. So therefore, I can not choose just one moral theory we discussed to live by, a combination of several theories may be more suiting depending on the situation seems like the best answer. However how would I be able to choose the best theory to use in each situation, I may choose the theory to go by that favors my best interest being a man of self-interest by nature. And as for what is ‘goodness’ I am going to have to go with the cultural relative defense and say it depends on the social surrounding and tradition of that culture, perhaps the idea of morals will never be completely figured out due to the differences of cultures, in a way it is opinionated…no correct answer just what that culture believes to be morally right. With Hobbes fresh in my mind, I think of one possible solution…just like how a government is ran in different country’s that set rules for their jurisdiction that works for their people that is only enforced to that country, maybe each government can set their own morals rules just not laws to be ran for their country which includes the idea of CR. In addition each country should meet together (UN) and set up basic moral rules such as murder being immoral so that a traveler is aware of certain rules.

Too much of a good thing can be bad.

A passion to be discussed may be, being patient. Aristotle may agree this is a great virtue to have however it also has its vices. Like the title says…too much of a good thing can be bad, sure being patient is seen as a good characteristic although, an excess of patiences or deficiency would be viewed as bad. A deficiency in patient would be an easygoing person who may let people walk all over them for example, if someone is too easygoing and lent money to a friend who has not paid them back in over three years would be unacceptable. On the other hand being impatient isn’t great either, if the person tries to cook chicken for dinner and is too impatient to let the chicken totally be cooked and eat it half raw, they may receive food poisoning. That is why it is important to find a mean, an example of a mean in patiences would be, being tolerant, not too impatient nor easygoing to be able to use your virtue/passion at a perfect balance.

Aristotle

Is Aristotle correct when he characterizes politics as “the master art”?  Is he right that the end of political science is the happiness or well-being of citizens?

As of now I am not totally convinced by  Aristotle that the end of political science is the happiness or well-being of citizens but I understand how it may be.  I can relate it back to Hobbes theory of the social contract where a ruling body such as a government is needed, and politics and the government go hand in hand now a days.  So for people to be happy I could see how political science can help them achieve this, there for if this is true the idea of political science being a “master art” must be true because what is greater than happiness?

Social Contract

This is the idea of given up certain rights to achieve peace.  At the current state of nature there are unlimited rights which results in continuous war,  by giving up rights we create a contract that says no one is allowed to use these rights in order to achieve peace.  An example would be our right to kill, if we give up that right according to the social contract everyone else has to give it up as well, therefore we will not have to be worried about being murdered every second of our life.  However when we give up these rights they do not disappear, the rights go to a sovereign, a government.  This governments main purpose in the contract is to enforce the rules.  Is it fair that in addition to enforcing the rules of limited rights to others, they themselves have the power of unlimited rights?  Some may disagree but I feel that in order to achieve peace they must have access to some of the outlaw rights.

Hobbes’s idea of the state of nature

Hobbes assumes that all men are selfish and act out of self-interest, and they pursue goods in which benefit them.  These goods are also shared by every other man which results in it to become scarce and in demand.  In the state of nature every man will do whatever they please which will ultimately cause conflict…this conflict would indeed lead to a state of war with men competing for goods among one another.  I agree that this would be a terrible state to live in if we have to watch our backs every second being paranoid when in a state of war.  For the human race to survive, the state of nature can not remain as it is (a state of war) for each man will be reckless and immoral without even knowing it.

I can’t juggle…so i’m not in the circus!

Why, according to Kant, is it immoral to neglect your natural gifts?  What are the assumptions that Kant makes about human nature to get this argument to work?  Are you convinced.

Kant feels that it is immoral to neglect your natural gifts, he puts it as out of self love we have a duty to cultivate our talents.  The major assumption that Kant makes about human nature to get this argument to work is that he assumes all men are rational.  A man is rational if he acts in what he thinks is in his own best interest.  Therefore to be rational as a man you should use your talents because it would be in your best interest if you have self love, which Kant assumes all men should have according to human nature.  To put this argument in the categorical imperative, determining your duty, Kant finds the maxim to be: If you don’t want to cultivate your talents, then do not.  Now for this to be a universal law in C.I. it must pass as a true law but according to human nature and Kant’s assumptions of self love and rationality this does not work out because we have a duty out of self love to cultivate our talents.  Although now a days are people as rational as Kant makes them out to be?  This surely is convincing if we believe that all men and women live by self love and are truly rational, but is this the case?

Don’t be selfish.

Discussed in class, Kant faces the problem of suicide, he finds it immoral and he came to this conclusion using the Categorical Imperative.  First he identified the maxim as “If suicide is the only way to satisfy the demands of self love, kill yourself.”  To end ones current state of suffering, kill oneself out of self love.  But here lies the contradiction, Kant defines self love as the pursuit to further ones life.  Killing yourself out of self love obviously doesn’t work if the main purpose of self love was to keep yourself alive, therefore this cannot be a universal law.  Man has the duty of self love to keep themselves alive and further their life. Kant doesn’t care about the future whether the suffering will end or not because he is not a consequencalist, so as of the moment one should keep themselves alive because it would be the moral thing to do according to the Categorical Imperative.

Categorical Imperative

Kant’s uses Categorical Imperative  to explain his method of ethics, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.“  By breaking this theory down, Kant suggest that one should act to a rule that can be universal to all.  For example, would it be morally correct to cheat on a test?  Using the Categorical Imperative, if one were to make the decision it is OK to cheat on their test, would this be universal to all?  If this was a universal law then everyone would be able to cheat on their test, if this were to happen there would be no point in the test to evaluate ones knowledge.  Therefore under the Categorical Imperative cheating out your test would not work and therefore it would be immoral.  This is a good answer to ethics some may believe, cheating and lying are automatic wrongs in life and I feel this theory explains it well.  It’s convincing because why would we lie to someone, if by lying we are telling them it is ok for them to lie right back at us, otherwise it can not be a universal law.

Kant vs. Mill

The main distinction between Kant and Mill would be that Mill is a consequentialist and Kant believes in judging morals from within the person instead of after the action like Mill.  Utilitarianism is based on the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people and in Kant’s moral theory is that the only thing “good” is a “good will” not meaning they meant well but actually having a pure will of good. An example to differentiate them would be a doctor trying to save a woman by cutting of a part of her leg that is infected with a deadly spreading disease to save her life, but the doctor is too late and the woman dies immediately instead of the week she would of had to live.  The utilitarian would say this was wrong and immoral because she lost a week of her life and her family is sad because she had past away earlier than she could of.  On the other hand Kant’s idea’s of morality would suggest the doctor doing the right moral action by having the intent on saving her life and possibly doing so, actions are made regardless of the consequence.  As of now I prefer Kant’s idea’s of morality over Mill’s because of the many exceptions Mill adds on such as it is wrong to lie even when sometimes under the utilitarian rule it seems to be the moral thing to do.  Kant believes lying is wrong no matter what and there is no instance where it is needed, however I may be wrong as we read more into Kant, he may have acceptions as well.

Who needs time when you have experience.

The objection number 8 discusses on the hand out is weather we have enough time before an action to calculate each consequence in favor of overall happiness.  This is a problem for Mill because it’s true it would take forever to sit there and plan out every action in your head before doing so.  However, Mill argues that man has gained enough experiences to know the outcome for the most part, for example to gain someones acknowledge would it be better to hit them at full force or tap them on the shoulder?  Since as a child we have learned hitting is wrong especially at full force because it will cause pain, maybe learning this from hitting your younger brother as a child  and seeing him cry.  Therefore, the obvious choice would be to tap the person rather than hitting them at full force, we did not need to sit there and calculate all the possibilities of each choice due to the knowledge gained from our and others experiences.  Although what if a new circumstance arises where we have no previous experience of?… This somewhat a rare case because if it is a new experience to anyone than there can not be any previous moral choice, in that case the utilitarian may have to outweigh all the choices before making the action, but this is only for this one time then others can learn from this decision as well as yourself and it wont have to be repeated.  Mill states that there is room for improvement and that each moral decision has not yet been figured out due to not experiencing every possible life dilemma, and so he knows it will keep on improving itself and that this situation wont arise often, so he is not too concerned about it.