Final Blog

I have to say that the class as whole served to inspire conversations I would not have ordinarily have. Even as I sat with my family in the dark last night (electricity was out on the entire block) we discussed some of the theories discussed in class. One that particularly came to mind was the discussion in which we explored the idea about God’s relation to what we consider good. This is a particularly interesting one as when someone is religious, as we are, it is hard to find ourselves questioning God’s role. And although we are still religious and the theories have not shaken our faith it is nice to see what other views exist.  This class provided that.

Blog #17: The moral worth of Murder

If we’re looking at murder the way that Aristotle would then murder itself would have no moral value in itself.  The act of murder is can only be committed by a murderous person and the quality of being murderous is an extreme quality which as Aristotle would say is not good at all. It is therefore the murderous quality not the act of murder itself that would have moral value and this value would be very low.

Blog #16: Who can take part of the social contract?

Who exactly take part of this social contract?  Well, I think we can all agree that in order to be part of a contract we have to be mentally capable of understanding but accepting the contract itself so really that should exclude children and the mentally challenged, but to what extent? It really should be dependant on the level of comprehension.  Like I stated in my response to a previous blog. The social contract is really almost a set of smaller contracts that we accept at different times of our lives until all of them have been accepted symbolizing our acceptance of the social contract.

Blog #15: Moral Government

Can we really say that governments are subject to moral judgment? Well, when you first consider this question you may say the answer is yes. After all, the government is made up of people and people are subject to moral judgment.  I however can compare government to a court room judge or an arbitrator.  They are not involved in a dispute or case personally and simply listen to the facts and decide who is right or wrong or if there has been a breach of contract.  Although they may have their own personal views on something, for that brief moment they are removed from it and have to pass judgment on the particular issue. Government is in fact performing the same task and thus can not be subject to moral standards.

Blog #14: What bad would a state of war be?

How bad would a state of war really be? Well, after much consideration, I believe the state of war would not only be as bad as Hobbes described but that it would result in the end of human existence as we know it. If humans, reverted back to only acting out of self interest, war would not only break out due to everyone fighting over resources for their own self interest but this fighting or war would not only affect humans in other cities or countries but even amongst families.  No one would be able to keep others away from their goods forever.  This fighting would not only affect us getting our basic needs such as food and shelter but it would allow no time for even procreation.  Because we would constantly be in competition over each others property and this would eventually end in our own deaths/destruction.

Blog #13: Kant vs Mill

After considering both theories, I have to believe that Mill’s utilitarianism theory is the lesser of two evils.   The fact of the matter is that Mill seems to be the one that we can apply to most situations more times than not. We are asked to consider some of the shortcomings of Mill, to think about, for example, his judgment of someone who tries to give to charity but the money ends up going for bad things. What we have to consider is that although it’s not a perfect theory and we may not always be happy with the outcome, we may be happier more than with Kant’s theory. We have to consider that is about the overall happiness and not the perfect happiness since that is something that may never be attainable.

Blog #12: Rationality and self interest or self love

Can an act done out of self love or self interest be irrational? Although at first glance it may appear that no reasoning really went into the decision it may in actuality have a included a lot of it. The one example I can think of is a pregnant woman who may be high risk and is told that carrying the pregnancy to full term may result in the end of her own life but still decides not to terminate the pregnancy? Can we really say that no reasoning went into this decision?   Most of us might see that more reasoning involved in this decision than most since the interest or love for another may have been placed above her own.

Blog #11: Explaining why it’s immoral to cheat on an exam

The question being asked here is why, in Kant’s view, it’s immoral to cheat on an exam. Well he may say that the real question is “is it ok to cheat?”.  If we cheat then we would be sayint that it is ok to cheat. This rule could not be adopted universally because if everyone cheated then no one would ever try ever have a reason to study on exams so exam results would be pointless. Therefore we should not cheat. 

I tend to at first glance agree and believe that we should not lie.  Afterall, honesty is one of the best qualities a person can have.  There may however be a situation whice we are presented with that may require us to cheat even when we don’t normally do so.  What do we do in situations like these? Do we just ignore what we feel is right because we know cheating is wrong?  We may in a situation like this be inclined to say no that the reason for cheating is more important and the “rule” should be bent as needed.

Blog #10: Does happiness have any intrinsic value?

Happiness in my opinion has intrinsic value. If it didn’t then why would we seek it? We are humans and therefore can be selfish at times even if not meaning to be. It is true that some people may consider the happiness of others before there own, but even this still produces some self gratification.   Take the saying for example that says “you can’t make someone else happy unless you’re happy”, does this not indicate that self happiness is important? That perhaps one can not exist without the other? If so, then happiness must have an intrinsic value.

Blog #9: One question for Mill

If I could ask Mill one question, it would be to explain further the idea that motives have nothing to do with happiness. Although I do understand the fact that the final outcome is what we all desire. the intentions do play a big part in how we value a person’s action. So then how can we say that the motive means nothing and how we should just ignore it?  One way that Mill may respond to this may be to just stick to his original thinking and say that if the final outcome is the same, and it has increased overall happiness then the motive is irrelevant. I however may say that although happiness may result, the motive may provoke further actions of happiness or produce additional levels of happiness that the motive itself may produce.