Post for 10/4 “Mill on Utilitarianism”

In our group we are examining the passage form Mill in which he talks about one objection to Utilititariaism.  The objection is that, prior to doing an action a person does nto consider whether or not his actions are going to increase or decrease overall happiness, there is simply not enough time to calucate the weight on morality. Therefore, if a person can not determine whether his actions are right or wrong he can not be judged by those actions, and because he can not be judged utilitarianism fails.

MIlls repsonse is a good one, it is that Men do not have to calculate their actions affect on overall happiness every time they do this action because throughtout the history of mankind humans have been observing traditions and actions that are percieved right and wrong. So they do not have to think about whether their actions are right and wrogn before they do them because they already know from experience.

Hello Aliens

To all the Aliens out there from the universe outside of Ethics, i welcome you to Jon Rothman’s introductory blog on the realm of Ethics.  The word ethics is synonymous with the word morality, they both define the way people regard situations in life to a code of standards that renders the action either morally correct or incorrect.

Throughout history many philosophers have created numerous theries that all attempt to define ethics in a diffeerent manner.  Although they all share the same views and qualities, they differ in their interpretation.  In my own personal oppinion, I feel that the philosopher Thomas Hobbes is most sensible in regards to his Social Contract Theory.

In its most broad sense the social contract theory is based upon the notion to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  With that cocneopt of self-interest in mind, rules and laws are established to protect us from others doing these actions upon us.  To guarantee this right we enter into a social contract, or covenant with all others that is inforceable by an abritrary force appointed by the people.  This establishment of order embodies the code of ethics and morality. 

To be Virtous

In all aspects of life we must strive to live virtuos, this is the principle of Aristotle’s theory of morality.  In regards to passions, which are non-rational and unvoluntary, we must use the appropraiate virtues and avoid the fatal vices that will not render us virtuos. 

An example of this scenario could be the virtuocity of the passion of Jealous.  It is undoubtable that human beings are succepatable to the feeling of jealousy or envy, we can not control this desire that resides inside of us, we can however be virtuos and not allopw this desire to violate our structure of virtuocity. In order to go about doing this we must rely on our means of dispositions, for the vitrue lies in the means. 

Say, a boy sees another child at school that has a new pair of shoes.  The boy is fascinated along with all the other children at school by the shoes and is jealous of the other boy. 

The boy can now go about his life, in regards to this passion for the new shoes, in a number of ways, but for argyuments sake we will narrow it down to three decisions to determinate his disposition of character.

The first thign he could do is be a bully and beat the chidl up for the shoes.  This woudl be a vice becasue it is not virtuos to steal and assault others for your own gratification.

The latter would be to ascitate, and restrain hisself from the pleasure that may reside in the passion for the shoes all together.  This does not seem virtuos either ebcause even though you are not taking the shoes by unnecessary means, you are still denying yourself the dignified right to the pleasure of those shoes by different means of action.

Finally, the last course of action you culd take would be to embrace your jealousy for the shoes and go about it in a constructive way, by getting a job and ernig enough money to purchase them if you still feel they are worth the money.  And if you are to young to work you could go to your parentsd and explain the situation and do soem chores aroudn the house to have them buy the shoes for you.  This woudl be the virtuous act.

Politics…The Master Art?

As we learned in class, Aristotle believes that all actions aim at some good. Thus the goal, or end as he puts it, is the hope to achieve this good. Further, all actions can be classified under some art, whether it be medicine, economics, social strucutre, sciences, etc.

The number of arts is unlimited, there are various forms of arts yet there are a few that he says are master arts, meaning that the end they wish to produce is more worthy than other “subordinate” ones.

Out of all these arts Politics, he says is THE MASTER ART. This is because it has the ability to combine all other arts for the sake of the people, or nation. He says the goal of polotics is to allow the people to prosper.

I believe that Arisitotle is partially right because Polotics does seem to encompass the qualites he describes it has in being able to better the lives of others. Yet the practice of Politics may lead to curruption.

It is easy to concieve that people with the power to excercise politics could use it solely to their benefit without taking into consideration the well being of others.

State of Nature Cont’d

In my last blog i talked about what Hobbes calls the State of Nature, also refered to as the state of war.  A quick recap reminds us that goods are limited and in our efforts to survive we must compete in order to obtain these resources.

From this, Hobbes tells us how mankind has adapted to this force of nature by creating what he  calls a “social contract”.

The essence of the social contract is founded upon the notion that in a state of nature all beings have unlimited rights, such as teh right to murder, steal, and so forth.  By entering into a social contract however, you relinquish these rights in return for protection from others doing the same.  What i mean is this, you give up your right to murder someone else, and in return all those around you do the same, so you are protected from being murdered by this social contract.

State of Nature

According to Hobbes, there exists a state of nature for all human beings, that being an atmosphere in which humans rights are unlimited and they must fight to survive.

The idea that the have to fight to survive comes from the notion that the resources humans need to survive are limited, therefore in order to survive humans must compete to win these resources.

I think Hobbes is right, in economoics class the first thing we learned is that resources are limited, and people have to deal with the task of allegating these resources.  Based upon this fact i would say that Hobbes certainly makes a valid point.

The state of nature truly is a fundemental law of nature, resources are limited, therefore if you want these resources you must obtain them by whatever means possible.

Cultivating your talents

OK, so in class we talked about Kant’s theory for cultivating talents…As he states it: It is human nature for humans to cultivate talent for the following reasons. First, the reason we cultivate talent stems from self-love. All humans have self-love, which Kant defines earlier, and out of self love it is rational to act in your own self interest. There for, acting in your own self interest would lead you to cultivate your talents,
In class we talked about a maxim that stated, If you dont feel like cultivating your talents then do not do so.
According to Kants reasong though, this maxim would not last against the categorical imperitive.
To not do so would be going against nature, and thus we have a duty to cultivate our talents.

Duty to Life

In class we discussed what Kant calls, “the supreme principle of all duty”.  This is our duty to, “impel toward the furtherance of life”(286).  The question of this duty is called into action when one feels that life is no longer worth the agony and pain that it places on you, and out of “self love” you wish to take your own life.

The term “self love” as defined by Kant is what makes us strive for improvement and quality in our life.   Kant says that under no circumstances is it morally acceptable to take your life.  This is because by taking your life you are not improving the quality of it at all.

In class we came up with several objections to this theory of morality, all objections stemmed from the idea of people being placed in situations that are so in-humane and grotesque that to take your own life would truly constitute itself as an act out of “self love”.  The notion of this argument is that Kant is incorrect by saying under all circumstances it is wrong to take your life.  I agree that in the majority of siuations it is wrong to take yor life, for example, if your girlfriend leaves you and you are upset about it and you decide to take your life because you dont feel that you can go on with life without her, than it is morally wrong to do so.  But there do arise situations where it may be acceptable, out of sympathy to the human emotion i will not list these instances.  For they are so cruel and horrific, yet they do occur.

Categorical Imperitive

Kant’s categorical imperitive is the idea that everybody falls victim to this command without exception.  The command being that, though shall act only in such a way that you could will your maxim into universal law (Kant).  The maxim being a means to end, e.g. if you want to get good grades go to class and study.  And the universal law being a concept that everybody in the universe accepts.

It is clear that the concept of lying goes against the categorical imperitive because it is a means to end that is not accepted by the universe.  It is our duty not to lie because lying leads to chaos and mayhem.  Therefore our duty is to tell the truth in regards to the categorical imperitive.

Kant vs. Mill

The difference in oppinion on morality is clearly established bewteen the two philosophers, Kant and Mill, when Kant says that happiness can not be the reason for life.  Mill clearly believes that the measurement of overall happiness is what determines morality, but for Kant he says it is the will of the person doing the action.

Kant’s version of morality is what philosophers refer to as deontology, that is the belief that the moral value of an action can be determined from the reasons the action was doen for.

Mills version is consequentialism, which is teh exact opposite, this belief is that an actions moral value can be determined from measuring its effect on overall happiness. 

Mill  looks at the after effect of an action while all Kant is concerned with is what set this action in motion.