WEEK OF THE FINAL: MAKE-UP WEEK for POSTS

[Mateo Duque]

Class,

Like I said I have a makeup week for posts. Remember, I take the TOP TEN posts of all the posts you've done all semester long. If you are missing posts, you can post them here--up 2 posts (like every other week). You can write about anything. However, it has to be something *new*! Don't just copy and paste from a paper. Although you can write about stuff from the first half the class, I recommend writing about one of the readings we had for this second half of the semester (Dostoevsky Brothers; Mill Liberty; Mill Utilitarianism; Kant Groundwork; Aristotle Ethics) so that you can prepare for the final. Try to pick the reading that maybe you didn't finish, you didn't understand, or had the most trouble with.

-MD.

[Ali]

"Now society between human beings—except in the relation of master to slave—is obviously impossible on any other basis than that the interests of all are to be consulted. Society between equals can only exist on the understanding that the interests of all are to be regarded equally." (Utilitarianism p22) 

I stumbled upon this quote while researching points to discuss in my paper. Is Mill explicitly contradicting himself here? He says that the interests of all are to be consulted, except for when it comes to the master/slave relationship. Upon doing a little research, I came across "The Negro Question", which is a pretty progressive rebuttal of slavery from Mill. Was Mill overlooking slavery simply because it would have been too difficult to incorporate them into his argument at a time when slavery was still a deeply seeded institution? He further goes on to state 

"Even in slave countries it is theoretically admitted that the rights of the slave, such as they are, ought to be as sacred as those of the master; and that a court that fails to enforce them with equal strictness is lacking in justice; while at the same time social arrangements that leave to the slave scarcely any rights to enforce are not thought unjust because they are not thought to be inexpedient."

Again he seems to be sidestepping the institution of slavery, calling it unacceptable yet at the same time not seeing it practical enough to justify defending the rights of slaves. It almost seems as if Mill viewed slavery as "necessary" stepping stone, in a sense that society would learn from their mistake (under his Utilitarian standards of course), and correct itself. "The entire history of social improvement has been a series of transitions in which one custom or institution after another moves from being a supposed primary necessity of social existence into the category of a universally condemned injustice and tyranny." It seems as if Utilitarians could simply disregard human rights anytime protecting those interests didn't fulfill the maximization of utility. Which goes back to my first point; how is this "equality" Mill promotes even exist if human rights can be disregarded at any given time?

[Ali]

"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and that one had the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he would be in silencing them if he could. ·You might think that silencing only one couldn't be so very wrong, but that is mistaken, and here is why....."  (p11 On Liberty)

This seems to be one of the biggest contradictions from Mill when it comes to On Liberty and Utilitarianism. Throughout On Liberty  Mill constantly states the value of liberty, freedom of expression, individuality, opinion however if the end goal is to maximize utility how can the statement above hold any truth? Take for example a tyrant. If he sought only to advance his own interests, and those interests/opinions differed from literally every other person, would the people not have a right to "silence" him? If we're adhering by the greatest happiness principle, then this is really a no-brainer, but Mill's explicit value on differing opinions, and not limiting them, seems to contradict a lot of his principles in Utilitarianism. 

[joyash22]

What is happiness? Can we pursue happiness for the sake of happiness? Is there more? Intellectual and morality.  Aristotle believes we learn our morality through our experiences.We are born with the potential to be morally virtuous and our experiences refine us. To pursue happiness for the sake of happiness according to Aristotle is not virtuous. Kant believes our intentions are of the highest importance. If you have good intentions and a virtuous actions then that is the ideal. Arisotle believes hard work toward ethical morals bring us to a higher plane. 

I think its a combination of philosophical ideas. We need to have good intentions to do just and moral acts but, as Arisotle claims, it takes hard work to make our good deeds a habit and part of our day to day to day lives. We must put into practice that which we think is virtuous and live a life we can be proud of. I believe if you live a just and moral life happiness will ensue.

[Elvira Toporova]

"The good for man is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue, or if there are more kinds of virtue than one, in accordance with the best and most perfect kind.(Aristotle,book 1,ch.7)"

The word activity t signifies not only physical activity but also mental activity as seemingly inactive as contemplation or daydreaming. The point is that the good life is not an end state that we achieve but rather a way of life that we live. The content of the Ethics is devoted to discussing the various moral and intellectual virtues. These virtues are dispositions to behave in the correct way. They are not themselves activities, but they ensure that our activities will be of the right kind. To live “in accordance with virtue,” then, is to live in such a way that our activities flow naturally from a virtuous disposition.

[ivandavenny]

So there is a concern with extremes in both the Rebellion chapter of "Brothers Karamazov" and Nichomachean Ethics.  Dostoyevski uses Ivan to examine the supposed "harmony" between the extremes of suffering and heaven.  Is this an illustration of a place where Aristotle's concept really can't apply?  Should there really be a moderation between good and evil? Obviously the mean would be skewed heavily in one direction, but this seems like a concept that someone noble and virtuous should aspire to continue indefinitely towards one end of the spectrum.

Ivan uses a similar structure, creating heaven and hell as physical representations of the two extremes.  The good at the end supposedly balances out the suffering you go through to get there, but this seems strange when compared with Aristotle's ideals; one can be a coward, and then overly reckless, and does that make them a courageous person?  So if a society is composed of, and accepting of, the suffering resultant from evil acts, does the end result (which is, when you think of it, supposedly separate from the society, being god) justify these acceptable actions?

It is interesting that Ivan uses the word "harmony", as it implies a sort of balance.  Aristotle argues that the two values are relative to one another, and help to inform each other.  Good is in relation to evil.  Because each endpoint is so extreme, it validates the existence of such an extreme opposite, and this creates the appearance of harmony.  The quality of the good viewed as attainable informs the quality of evil attainable.  In this way, acts of earthly suffering would seem to pale in comparison to the imagined pains of hell.  So, what I'm saying here is that when a person thinks "Ah, this sucks, but hey, it's not as bad as hell!", this is a fallacy created by the idea of heaven.  The person is less likely to change because they have an imagined concept of what is really bad.  This, combined with the promise of heaven, allows a person to be complicit in his or her own suffering, as well as the suffering around them.  I think this is the reason that Ivan resists the idea of heaven, of harmony.

[stephane1]

i just wanted to point out how in Aristotles reading where he and Kant seems to use the "natural inclination " philosophy in their work, Kant says that if you are naturally inclined to be moral that if you were born with that intention to do good, is not in fact what being moral is. basically Kant wants us to start from the Bottom (immoral, thief, adulterous) to Get here (to be moral, fight the urge of bad intentions, like stealing, or try to give loose change to desperate beggars, i know i'm quoting a rap song but it makes total sense.

[joyash22]

Of the three outlooks on ethics I think there is room for all of them. The end result is what counts so consequentialism would be considered correct. If the homeless man needs a meal and he gets it then the mission is accomplished, even though the person providing it did it begrudgingly. Kant wouldn't agree, it's good will above all else. According to Kant the meal needs to be served with a smile.Aristotle is in the middle. The homeless man needs to be fed and it might be hard to for the person to provide it initially but with time and practice it gets easier.
I think Kants idea of good will sounds appealing. If everyone cared about their neighbor and treated them the way they would want to be treated imagine what a nice place this world would be. Mill also believes we should treat others as we would want to be treated. Aristotle would agree and with practice we can all achieve it.
Is there a utopia we can achieve. Is happiness attainable? I believe with good intentions, practice, and virtuous actions one day we might come close.

[t.rivera511]

John Stuart Mill “Utilitarianism”

“By ‘happiness’ is meant pleasure and the absence of pain: by ‘unhappiness’ is meant pain and lack of pleasure.”

What happens if its both? Take self-mutilation. I’ve come across people who derive pleasure from the pain of self-mutilation. So are they happy or unhappy? Theres no black and white in this world at times. Or does it not matter since it could be a small percentage of the population in the world or in this country that actually have a case such as this?

“If this were true, there’d be no defence against the charge, but then it wouldn’t be a charge ; for if the sources of pleasure were precisely the same for humans as for pigs, the rule of life that is good enough for them would be good enough for us.”

Who says that their way of life isn’t good enough for some of us? As said above, does it just not matter? That some really do live life through just pleasures and nothing more. We are rational beings and I believe it was said that we should and do strive for something more in order to be truly satisfied and/or happy, but some just don’t or rather just strive for some more pleasure thats not what they should be striving for because there isn’t a well defined goal that they are striving for. Some are very materialistic. Some just don’t care about others and only care to satisfy themselves through their low pleasures. And that can’t go unnoticed or unmentioned because i believe there is a significant amount of people who are like this. Aren’t we supposed to look for high pleasures as rational beings? Im going on to a different direction, now. When Mill states how pursues sensual pleasures because of it being nearer, I agree. But what if all the deciding to satisfy lower and higher pleasures is not our fault, like he says, its like a tender plant that doesn’t get nourished. I was raised by parents who say to not be lazy, always be active and don’t settle for the easy. My parents instilled in me this kind of restlessness so I always have to do something or I may actually kill myself because I would feel like such a waste. Then on page seven, the second column, he says it may be questioned whether anyone chose the lower pleasures in preference to the higher ones and I say that just has to do with a person. Its like, my hill is someone else mountain. The high pleasures may be too much for a person, thus they settle for the lower pleasures and even if they can handle both high and lower pleasures, the person will settle for either as it ultimately suits that person. There can’t be some general rule for people. There can’t be. Everyone is unique in the way in which we cope with things.

[t.rivera511]

John Stuart Mill “On Liberty”

“The rulers consisted of a single governing person or a governing tribe or caste who derived their authority from inheritance or conquest, or at any rate didn’t have it through the consent of the governed, and whose supremacy men didn’t risk challenging (and perhaps didn’t want to challenge), whatever precautions might be taken against its being used oppressively. Their power was regarded as necessary, but also as highly dangerous because it was a weapon that they would use against their subjects as much as against external enemies.”

I chose a rather long part to comment on. Its right on the first page of the introduction, starting on the left column and goes on right to the next column.  I only ever really ask questions that i try to answer but really cannot. Questions that don’t really have to do with the content but I feel that they touch on things that pre-exist the content, if that makes any sense. Like for this text I ask, how does a person or tribe go off and conquer, resulting in their authority over people? Rather, why do they do it. Is it a necessity? Do they need that town and their people? Or is it just a surge of power hunger? Are humans born with this kind of need to dominate and follow a mob mentality or just follow someone?

I am brought back to sitting in Global history two years ago and my teacher telling us about the Athens and Spartans. Two very different kinds of people despite their close proximity of each other. Athens were of culture. Very artsy and all that. They traded with other regional powers and traveled due to their geographical location near water.  Spartans on the other hand were isolated by mountains. They didn’t place much importance on education and culture rather on strength. By the age of seven, boys were put to training and they essentially were part of the military for all of their lives. Spartans just kept to themselves. Athens, on the other hand, wanted to control other parts of the land in Greece. Its very interesting. You would think that the Spartans would be controlling and, well, barbarians, right? They were all about war and whatnot. Athens were a democracy! They traded, they had lots of education. Yet they were the ones causing a wreck. Does a rather open environment open minds to think they can have more? I believe it brought a sense of entitlement to these Athens. Spartans had discipline, resulting in their nobility. There wasn’t that discipline in the Athenian society.

Why does power always corrupt? Actually, why is it considered power? The rulers are given responsibility to protect. Does responsibility mean power? Do the two need each other? If I have responsibility for my younger brother (I don’t have one, just saying)  I will be humbled. I will think twice about everything. I will watch over him with tenderness and care. I couldn't control him or oppress him or i shouldn’t, anyway. I’m entrusted with his safety. My parents trust me and so does he. I wouldn't take advantage of that. How could I? I guess what I’m getting at is, why does there need to be a this developement of Liberty? Why isn’t it something that we just like believe in or naturally have a sense of? Do I even ask this because I do have a natural borned sense of liberty and unwant of taking it away from anyone or am I biased because of how I was raised?

[t.rivera511]

Every human activity aims at some end that we consider good. The highest ends are ends in themselves, while subordinate ends may only be means to higher ends. Those highest ends, which we pursue for their own sake, must be the supreme Good.

When I read this, I imagined a murderer. A murderer who could be insane or who simply just believes that killing is good. Good for who? Good for the murderer because he could believe that he is purging the world of a person who is, in his mind, not good? But thats hardly the case. We have different views on what’s good and what’s bad. Thats fact because no one has the same mind set/ thoughts. We experience different things that makes us conclude what is to be thought of as good and bad. We think through things different than one another. When I see a brownie on the table, I think ‘Who’s brownie is this? Can I eat it?’ while my brother just thinks ‘Oh! Brownie!’ and proceeds to eat it without out a moments hesitation.

How can every human activity aim at some end that we consider good? What does he mean by ‘human activity’? Does he only mean professions? Does he mean every single act we humans commit? I’m confused by these ‘ends’. Does he mean result? I’m just picturing the end of a rope, for some reason.

How can us humans even determine what is the supreme good, or even try to determine it? I don’t know why it frustrates me so! Actually, I’m a liar, I do know. I believe in God. Not a God. Just God. With this God, I also believe in a heaven and a Hell. I am not religious, mind you. I dislike religion, actually. I go to church, not religiously, though. If I’m religious about anything, its about my shows. I religiously watch Supernatural, Dr. Who...all that good stuff. I don’t believe that if I go to Church, I’ll get my Salvation. I am actually very...how you say it? I’m on edge a lot of the time. Anxious...picky....Very aware? Anyway-I just really mind what I do, you know? I overthink everything. I try to remain calm and remember to be kind to everyone and I have to remember that I have to set a sort of example to this very cruel world. I don’t want to be like everyone else. I want to help that person who falls, not just walk by them. I  go to Church on and off, when I feel like it, I go but even if I go every Sunday for a decade, its not because I’m religious. I’m just me. I would go because I simply want to and feel the need to do so, not because I feel an obligation to go as a Christian. If I seriously do not want to go, like now, as a sixteen year old girl living with my Christian parents who usually go, I won’t go. I will tell that to my parents and they will say ‘Fine, catch ya’ later’. No big deal. My parents believe that quote ‘To each their own’. So if I accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior, I will have to work to get my Salvation. Now that turns people off when they read that. I’m sure of it. I know people who thought that going to Church meant to sit on pews as people preached about nonsense. I asked people what they thought worship meant and they immediately clasped their hands and fell to their needs as a ‘mock worship’. To worship God, to me, is to just follow the ten commandments. To just be kind to this unkind world. I don’t sing. I don’t do that pantomime dance. I just tell my testimony. So. I think I went a bit off track there. I know I did, I do it a lot. Sorry.

So, I get irked at these kind of readings because I’m a very blunt person. I try not to be because I know there are a lot of ‘It depends...’ type situations. But I just wish things were as simple as they should be. Or as I think things should be because its just simple that way. Like sometimes I think, what’s there to determine? Good is not bad. Murder, bad. Stealing, bad. You get the point. And I know humans, by nature, are curious. Theres just this void in everyone that we want to fill with knowledge and what not. I have that void. I want to know everything and anything. I like being informed. But I filled the void with God and I humble myself. I accept that he created this world, that he is the Alpha and the Omega and I know a lot of people disagree and I know I won’t be able to argue with someone about my beliefs because I don’t know the answer to everything, I just have a feeling. Ever since I was young I believed in God. I was a frightened child. I had nightmares constantly. I couldn’t get to sleep some nights, but i started to chant ‘No bad dreams, please God’ and I would sleep and I won’t have any nightmares. I think the supreme Good, in a basic form, is just following the ten commandments because I believe that no bad can come out of that. You don’t have to call it the ten commandments if you like. But you don’t have to reject them altogether because its not your ‘religion’ or you don’t believe in ‘God’. Why shouldn’t you love your neighbor? Or at the very least respect them? You don’t have to buy them roses and chocolates and take them on a date. Just...be friendly, I suppose.

[monise_71]

Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics

         We commonly agree that happiness an emotional state that we are in. But, in his book Nocimachean Ethics, Aristotle shows us that happiness is beyond that. And his perception of happiness is really different from our actual perception. He listed some common examples such as: having friends, experiencing pleasure, being healthy and being honored that we usually consider as actions that could bring us happiness. 
          However, Aristotle, when getting to the root of every good actions, he remarks that if people keep questioning these actions that we deem good, we will find that every good action lead to some form of happiness. And, that is what we often associate happiness with different needs. For example, a sick person will wish for health, because he believes that will make him happy. Aristotle believes that there must me a highest good, a good that is desirable in itself and not for some other end. He claims that the good is final and self sufficient. That leads him to define happiness as the highest good, but instead of being an emotional state as we commonly believe, Aristotle tells us that happiness (from the Greek word Eudaimonia) is an activity in accordance to virtue. That is, in other to achieve happiness ( Eudaimonia) an individual should  practice virtue through his life. While happiness is the activity of living well, virtue is the mean to live. That is, no virtue, no happiness. However, it is important to avoid the extreme, because, according to him virtue is a mean between deficiency and excess. To attend the mean we should be able to act in the right manner, at the right time, and for the right reason. Virtue is not really easy to attain. Therefore, someone who wants to achieve happiness can attend this goal only by acting virtuous continuously over the span of his life.

[Soon M. Seo]

"The good will is good not through what it effects or accomplishes, not through its efficacy for attaining any intended end, but only through its willing, i.e., good in itself, and considered for itself, without comparison, it is to be estimated far higher than anything that could be brought about by it in favor of any inclination, or indeed, if you prefer, of the sum of all inclinations"(Kant 10).
In Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Moral, Mr. Kant brings up strict and very right standard and morality. I admire what he says and I think that is what 'good will' supposed to be. However, it is indeed groundwork, but practical work. If there is someone who does not care anything else, but the good will itself, I would like to call the person a demi-god or a saint. Kant's argument about motif of the good deed is too strict, so the impression I got was interrogating someone who saves others' life after the good deed. Does asking a person who does a good thing what was the motif and purpose of his/her act and finding out the truth make something better or worse? The real willing is important, but that is not all about the good deed. Furthermore, the good willing is nothing with action. Thinking about something itself does not change anything. What Kant argues is right, but partially right. His inclination is extreme. It is the best when the will is good and the action matches with the will. However, there is nothing wrong and it is recommendable when a good action happens with out a good will or half and half. Who knows if the good action make the person feel good and change his/her mind to pursue a good will?

[krystalgonzalez.28]

 I didn't post about Hume so I will write about Hume and Personal Identity.

Hume believes there is really no personal identity.  People are constantly changing throughout life and so we cannot base our identity on one thing.  This is different from a non living object that remains the same so it has a personal identity.  Does this make any sense?  Since our bodies, minds, thoughts and views on life change throughout our lives we have no personal identity so it does not exist.  All the ideas and memories we have that you might think make up our personal identity come from somewhere or something ant sometime, none of our ideas are originally ours.  To say that this is our personal identity would be a lie because somewhere in the world someone has the same ideas, or memories just from a different point of view.

What I disagree with is that when we die everything gets taken along for the ride.  Hume says that our body decays and is taken by the plants and rots away so that becomes the end of our existence but I believe we have our souls that live on holding our memories and our past deeds done. 

[nadiahamidi7]

Although I already posted for week 14, I enjoy Kant's work a lot so I want to post again!

Why Ebeneezer Scrooge is more moral than me

Now, not to toot my own horn, but I would like to think of myself as a generous person. I am always polite to people, I will go out of my way to help others, and I enjoy giving a lot. Where do I get this from? Well I think it's my inherent nature, but it is only fair to point out that my mother is EXTREMELY generous. I'm not only saying that because she's my mother (I have plenty greedy family members and ones who I run away from). I'm saying it because it's true!

In Kant's deontology, or what one ought to do, Kant believes there are several ways to act. Let's paint out a situation to apply all of the ways to. Bertha is a hard-working farmer. The following choices will feature Bertha. 

The first way is to act against duty, intentionally going against the right. So, Bertha is a hard-working woman. Running a farm is extremely strenuous and she gets tired. Bertha starts to intentionally not feed her animals on time, not milk the cows when necessary, and not clean the waste after the animals.

The second way is to act in accordance with duty but with no immediate/natural inclination. Bertha is keeping up with her daily chores, but is doing everything haphazardly and with zero enthusiasm. The work gets done but only because Bertha needs to make a profit.

The third way is to act with accordance with natural inclination. Bertha loves the farm and it's her calling. Bertha wakes up at the crack of dawn, feeds the animals, cleans up after them, does her daily chores, and runs errands. At the end of the day she is thankful and feels accomplished. She enjoys her work and takes pride in running a farm.

The fourth way is to act according to duty, but contrary to one's natural inclination. Bertha really hates waking up early but knows if she doesn't, the animals will suffer. She wakes with all her might and does her chores for the animals all the while suffering. She doesn't really enjoy farm life but understands she must run the family business and provide the local with their share of groceries they rely on for their families.

According to Kant, the fourth kind is the one of most moral. The more one struggles, the more moral worth is gained. And that's ultimately why Scrooge is a better person than me (let's pretend he was never visited by the ghosts of Christmas past, present, and future). Scrooge is an extremely wealthy miser and misanthrope. He lives only to collect overly expensive rent from poor tenants. There is a young beggar on the corner who Scrooge always passes by despite the man's pleas for food and money. I, however, always drop some money into this man's cup. For me, it's really easy to give because it's instilled into my personality and I don't have to think twice. However if Scrooge one day gives to this man, he has more moral value. Even if I give this man a $5 bill every week (which would amount to $260 at the end of the year) Scrooge's one time donation of $5 is more in the eyes of Kant than my $260 because it is such an internal struggle for Scrooge to donate. 

Is Kant right? Well, maybe. I agree that Scrooge's actions are more honorable than mine since it's so out of his character but how is $5 better than $260? I'm not a materialistic person, but wouldn't $260 help out the homeless man a lot more than $5? The homeless man is not concerned with virtues! Plus, Scrooge capable of donating a lot more than $5 so doesn't that make him still greedy?

[kingholee]

In one part of Mill's Utilitarianism, he talks about self sacrifice, "The utilitarianism morality does recognize that human beings can sacrifice their own greatest good for the good of others: it merely refuses to admit that the sacrifice is itself a good." This reminds me a movie I watched when I was young called "Saving Private Ryan", the movie talks about the general order a captain(Tom Hanks) leading a small team, go into a battle field, trying to take a solider "Ryan"(Matt Damon) out of the battle because all his other three bothers in his family have died in that war, the general try to do something good to his family or his parents especially his mother, which is saving her last son, at the end, almost the whole were killed, but they did complete the mission, saving Ryan at the end, if we just look at the number, sacrifice almost the team included the captain to save one soldier, we may ask "is it worth it?" or should we do or make this kind of decision of sacrifice? but if we know the story, we may agree, sometime sacrifice is necessary to make for "the good of the others" when we have no other choice or better option. And "the sacrifice is itself a good"

[Elvira Toporova]

Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

 "Our account of this science will be adequate if it achieves such clarity as the subject-matter allows; for the same degree of precision is not to be expected in all discussions, any more than in all products of handicraft".(book 1,ch 3)

This statement  is the first of a number of caveats with which Aristotle warns us not to expect any precise rules or codes of conduct. This is not laziness on Aristotle’s part, but, as he explains, the nature of the beast. Ethics deals with the vagaries of human life and must remain flexible enough to account for the great deal of variety and possibility. Furthermore, Aristotle tells us that virtue cannot be taught in a classroom but can be learned only through constant practice until it becomes habitual. If virtue consisted of hard and fast rules, it would indeed be possible to lay them out explicitly in a classroom. Unfortunately for those hoping for the easy road to success, no such rules exist.