Day One

I thought today went pretty well. I was not surprised by the people who took leadership. I knew that the roles of the people would not change based on their role given to them. Hopefully as time goes on more people will jump in with their opinions.

As we get deeper into the content, people will become more passionate. I can't wait to have our first "real meeting". I hope the speeches go over well.

I think we planned out a pretty fair system of how people get to present.

I am more excited to start the project now.

Public Bio: Springfield Game

My name is Bill Morris. I am a 45 year old man. I am the owner of a local Mercedes Benz car dealership. I live very comfortably in a large 5 bedroom, 3 bathroom, 3 car garage home. I live with my beautiful wife and 2 children. My wife works in my dealership and helps with sales and administrative duty. I have 2 daughters: one is a junior at the local high school, and one is a freshman at Drake University.

For some background information, I spent 6 years in the military and believe that everyone has an obligation to serve their country. As most people know, I am a self-made man. I did not attend college, but that didn’t stop me.

I run the finest dealership in Springfield, Iowa; people come from across the state to buy from me.

And it should come as no surprise to you all that I am a big believer in free speech. If you have ever held a conversation with me, or heard me before, you would have no trouble understanding this.

Moral Imagination

When I first saw the phrase “moral imagination”, I thought of a secular philosopher trying to defend the position that all people can be moral in their own way. I’m not really sure why I first thought this. Maybe I thought this because I had just had a conversation with a person about how Hume builds a moral foundation without the existence of a god or a higher power. But anyways…
I assumed that moral imagination would differ from person to person and that no one could ever have the same beliefs as another. “Imagination”, to me, promotes the use of radical ideas and extreme thoughts. I don’t know why I had such a negative connotation to this. I think I was just being bitter about the absence of religion in some of these moral theories. But, after I realized I was being irrational (Kant would be proud of me!), I decided to read the articles with a more open mind. I decided that I would give them the benefit of the doubt and listen for their argument. Also, Professor McCrickerd also stated in class herself that she wouldn’t just randomly assign articles and reading. She only gives us stuff that she thinks in very interesting and relevant to the topics we are discussing in class. I realized that these articles had to be somewhat entertaining.

I found it very true that reading literature helps cultivate moral imagination. This made perfect sense to me. Very few things in this class make perfect sense the first time I read it, so I was very excited that I understood a concept right off the bat. I am becoming a better philosopher!! I understood it as, the more we read, the more experiences we gain. Also, these experiences are better because we do not have to suffer the negative consequences of them first-hand. We just get to observe and make judgments. We get to see how our moral acts play out without even being involved directly in the situation. And judgment helps us gain perception and knowledge about the world around us. And when we know more about our surroundings, it is easier to make moral judgments.

I also found it to be true that people do take offense to education of emotions, as discussed in the Maxwell and Reichenbach article. We were discussing this fact in our Intro to LPS class this morning. We were talking about the Amish and how they give their children no choice of what religion they want to practice. They do not give them choice in their life style until they are older. They socialize them to believe and think in certain ways. Many people were very opposed to this lifestyle and to this thinking in our class. We discussed whether there is a right protecting these children from this religious/emotional socialization.

The final article made sense to me. I was not surprised by the findings of the experiments. People are self centered and do not want to give up their own pleasure in extreme amounts. People are willing to sacrifice some, to the point where they are still comfortable, but no more. This seemed reasonable to me.

I would encourage people to observe and read and take in as many opportunities as possible to learn about your surroundings. It is easier to make judgments this way. People will be more informed and you will be able to recall situations that are similar to the ones that you are currently involved in. You will have examples of behaviors that worked and examples that didn’t. You will have a grounding and actual evidence to base your claims off of.

??

When I read it this time I kept thinking if Sister A was really as convinced as she said she was. I had a whole different picture of this old woman with a strong internal conflict. I did not take her as seriously as I did the first read. I saw her as not quite a dominating personality. I saw her as a weaker leader. I also felt more sorry for Brother Flynn this time when I read it. I felt sorry because you now know that Sister A. did not really convince herself that he was guilty of anything. I also saw Sister James in a better light. She was lead by her emotions, but she also listened to both sides of the argument.
This second read made me understand that everyone doubts their convictions. Even the people who seem to have it all figured out really don’t. People of high authority, who lead many others, do not always believe in their teachings or in their advice that they give to others. Evidence can be seen through Sister A.’s leadership. She seems that she is 100% convinced that Brother Flynn has committed previous acts of molestation and thinks that he is continuing it here at her school. But, at the end, she exposes her internal conflict. She really was not totally convinced.

?

DOUBT
I think that no one can ever be certain if you really think about your opinions. There is always going to be some doubt. Also, if you don’t doubt yourself, how do you know if you really believe what you do? If you have never been challenged do you really have the right to say that you believe something?
Parts of significance:
A. Did I ever prove it to whom?
J. Anyone but yourself?
A. No.
J. But were you sure.
A. Yes
J. I wish I could be like you.
A. Why?
J. Because I can’t sleep at night anymore. Everything seems uncertain to me.
----
A. Don’t
F. Please! Are we people? Am I a person flesh and blood like you? Or are we just ideas and convictions. I can’t say everything. Do you understand? There are things that I can’t say. Even if you can’t imagine the explanation, Sister, remember that there are circumstances beyond your knowledge. Even if you feel certainty, it is an emotion and not a fact. In the spirit of charity, I appeal to you. On behalf of my life’s work. You have to behave responsibly. I put myself in your hands.
----
A. I have doubts! I have such doubts!
I was not expecting that. I had a totally different image in my head. I pictured that she was going to be at total peace after she forced him into moving. Now I see her as more human. Very few people never question themselves.
I most sympathize with Mrs. Muller. She has to see her son get beat up by her husband. She has a hard life and just wants her son to be able to get a good education. She has seen so many difficulties that even a person that may be molesting her child is seen as a positive thing just because that relationship provides comfort. You can tell that she is exhausted and does not want any more problems.
I most admire Sister Aloysius Beauvier in this play, which is kind of weird. She always stuck up for her opinion. She had a strong stance on things even when she was uncertain. I think that this is good in a leader. As her position as principal, she ran the school very well. I admire this because she knew that she was hated, but she still kept on doing her job. When you are in a position of authority, you have to make strong stances even if you have a little (or a lot) of doubt. It takes a very tough person to carry a role like that.
I assumed that all the students were white. I pictured a Catholic school with all little rich, white children. So, I was surprised when I found out that Donald was black. But, this also made the story make more since.
Sister A thinks that the relationship between the people of the church should be more business oriented whereas Brother Flynn thinks that it should be more personable. This creates a tension in how they see people should be treated and punished. Sister A does not see people with their individual emotions and characteristics, she just applies the rules.
“Doubt is not the opposite of faith; it is one element of faith.” I think that this quote better explains what I was trying to say earlier. If you have never doubted yourself, how do you know what is really true, or what you really believe?

Abortion Articles

Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Thomson is very back and forth on his opinions. He has decided that abortion is right in some cases and wrong in others. I think he understands both sides so well that it is hard for him to make a choice. And then every time he thought he hit and absolute truth, there would always be an exception. He opposes abortion when it is for selfish reasons. He gives the example of the woman wanted an abortion in her 7th month of pregnancy because she doesn’t want it to interfere with a vacation. That he says he just wrong. He states that the right to life, in most cases, is stronger than and more stringent that the right of the woman do decide what shall happen within or to her body.

Marquis: Why Abortion if Immoral
Marquis states that killing an innocent being is wrong and immoral. He states that people would not argue with this claim. He also states that killing is the loss of future. Therefore, he stated that defenseless, innocent little babies had a long future ahead of them and asserted that if you take that future away it is immoral.

Feinberg: The Rights of Animals and Unborn Generations
Feinberg states that rocks cannot claim good treatment. But, he claims that we should still be nice to and treat rocks/animals/plants with respect. But, he stated that these things cannot claim this kind of treatment from us. He also supported this claim by saying that these things cannot be reasoned with, that is why you cannot give them rights.

Random Act of Kindness

In the cardio room at the Bell Center, there are some free weights in the back room. People always use them and them throw them randomly on the floor. I always see the random workers come in and have to pick them up. I don't know if I felt bad for these people or if my perfectionist personality kicked in, but I put them all back on the rack. And of course, I not only put them back on the rack, I paired them together and put them in order (from light to heavy).

Yay Random Acts of Kindness!!!!

Random Act of Kindness

Our bathroom always gets so trashed after Friday and Saturday night. It is actually really gross. Whenever I take my shower I always pick up the mess people leave behind. I always feel really bad for the people who have to pick up after us. So, I decided to pick up all the bobby pins and random tags and cleaned up the food that was left behind (I never understand why there is food in/around the showers to begin with). I hope I made somebodys Monday a little brighter!

Abortion

Do fetuses have a right to life? – Yes
I think that a fetus is just a small person. I do not believe in people playing God and determining which people can be born and which people can’t. I believe that all people have a right to life, but I also believe that you can lose that right (capital punishment)…but that’s another story.
I feel strongly about this because I believe that sex is meant for reproduction. I believe that people should have sex with their significant other after they are married. If this happened, we would not even have this argument because people would want their children.
I understand that some people get raped, but why should the person who results from that (the baby) be denied life?
I guess my main argument is that a fetus has not done anything to deny him or herself the right to life, which all people have.
I do not think life starts at birth. The fetus is a living person. Some people may use the argument that it is dependent on the mother; therefore it can not be said to have life. But, what about people on life support? Are they alive?

Right to Promises

If we do not have the right to have our promises kept, then language means nothing. If we cannot count on people’s words, then our communication is pointless. People could say anything that they wanted and it would not mean anything. People would be considered contradictory and learn not to believe in truth. This would, in turn, create a world in which truth does not exist. I believe that the right to have promises kept depend upon having a particular rights. If we do not have the right to have our promises kept, we cannot expect communication or the development of truth. But, I do not think that a society could exist without this right of promises and the respect of other’s words. No foundation could be built; the society would fall apart before it could fully be constructed.

Flaws: Society + Individual

ON LIBERTY
Chapter 3: Of Individuality, as one of the elements of Well-Being
Mill believes that individuality and nonconformity benefits not only the individual, but also benefits society. Although he believes that people should be allowed to act on their own opinions without facing legal punishment or social stigma, he does believe that actions should not be as free as opinions. He states that both must be limited in order to avoid harm to one’s self or to others. But, individuality is needed to cultivate the “self” and each person’s unique character. Mill fears conformity and believes that it can be detrimental to society, and he recognizes that this pattern of behavior usually comes with civilization.
I find his argument interesting because I feel like he is taking two sides of the issues. As I understand it, he is saying that people’s actions should be limited and censored while at the same time individual expression is the most important thing to self development. I find this a flaw in his logic.

Chapter 4: On the limits to the Authority of society over the Individual
In this chapter Mill tries to define and clarify the limits that society can pose on an individual. He states that since the society protects the individual, the individual, then, owes society respectable conduct in return. Mill tries to narrow down his argument by saying that society can only control and limit aspects that affect interests of others. He adds how people should be accepting of others beliefs and moral standards and not try and be coercive. He also believes that people are never fully isolated from society. I found it hard to distinguish what aspects of life do not affect other people. Should all of our actions be censored?

Chapter 5: Applications
In this chapter Mill tries to clear up some of his arguments. He states that people are not accountable to society for actions that only concern themselves. But, he adds that society can give advice and suggest things. Individuals are accountable for actions that hurt others, and society can punish and has the right to punish a person through social or legal manners. I am pretty sure that Mill is saying that an individual can improve himself only through interaction among society and its members. I am still not clear on what Mill defines as good situations in which the government should interfere and situations in which the government should leave people to themselves. Doesn’t every action effect more than just you?

I think that people might find flaws in his logic when he speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He greatly respects the rights of the individual but also greatly enforces the power of society over the individual. I do not see how this balances out.
I think that Americans accepted his work more because their social setting was in better condition and the people were more apt to search for high meaning of life. During the Industrial Revolution in Britain people were more concerned with getting food on their table and keeping up their overall health. They were not concerned with their individual choices, they just wanted to survive.

Challenge to Utilitarianism

Mill sees one major challenge against utilitarianism. Some critics claim that utilitarianism is opposed to justice. He believes that this specific criticism must be addressed because it is a serious matter and may be taken the wrong way. Chapter 5 builds up a definition of justice and its historical roots. Mill does not necessarily believe these assertions, but he does want the readers to understand how others define justice. Here is a quick rundown:
It is unjust to deprive people of legal rights
It is unjust to deprive people the moral right to possess
It is just for people to get what they deserve and unjust for them to get what they don’t deserve
It is unjust to violate an agreement
It is unjust to show favoritism
Justice is conformity to law
Equality is a component of justice.
Mill tries to distinguish justice from other forms of morality. He does this by trying to express the differences of perfect and imperfect obligations.
Mill does not believe that justice is as abstract of a concept as other portray it. He believes that all people understand the concept as a whole. He believes that justice is socially constructed.

Mill: Take Two

Well this is the price you pay for working ahead (yay I read the wrong chapter).
Utilitarianism and the Happiness Theory are all about the root of morality in the form of what is beneficial to the most people. “Whatever can be proved to be good, must be so by being shown to be a means to something admitted to be good without proof.” (184)
He states that the “end of human action is necessarily also the standard of morality.
It made a lot of sense to me when he said the following: “power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of other is a sacrifice which if it does not increase the sum of total happiness it considered wasted” (194).
He explains how there are two utilities, public and private. He also states how the multiplication of happiness is the object of virtue.
One of the objections he countered was that it was too complicated and took too much time to correctly calculate how many people were being harmed and to what degree. He countered by referring to the Bible. Are all Christians supposed to look up everything in the Bible before they act? No. It just becomes a way of thinking.
Proof: “No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness” (210).

JOHN STUART MILL

First off I just want to say that when the reading is short I feel a lot more prepared to discuss the topic. Plus, Mill’s writing style is not too difficult to understand (but some of his concepts are).

“By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words, to promotes or to oppose that happiness” (18).
“By utility is meant that property in an object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness, or to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered” (18.)
I understood Mill to say that Utility is the good for everybody in all situations. He presented it as a truth that had no objections. When I was reading I couldn’t help but to think of Socrates in Gorgias. The way that he was presenting his argument reminded me of how Socrates would get his opponents in a state of confusion in which they would contradict themselves and then have to ultimately admit defeat.
I found this quote interesting: “To give such proof is as impossible as it is needless” (19). To me this meant that he knew he could not give proof, but he was so confident that he felt he could get away without it.
In the beginning of Chapter II: Of Principles Adverse to that of Utility, Mill acted like he had already proved his principle of utility to be correct and that all he had to do was distinguish between his theory and all others in order to make his point.
I need some help in understanding his discussion of religion and philosophy on p.24.

I don’t think that this goes with the class discussion, but I found it interesting and it made me stop and think for a second. “…that it is necessary to know first whether a thing is right in order to know from thence whether it be conformable to the will of God” (34-35). He might be able to use this as an argument when a person does not read the Bible. But, doesn’t the Bible outline “morality” and “good”? Doesn’t the Bible tell what virtues are God’s will? I found this a weak statement on Mill’s part.

Another Report of R.A.o.K (Random Act of Kindness)

This weekend my sister had her Homecoming Dance. A bunch of her friends came over for pictures before the dance. Most of the kids came with their parents, so they parents could take pictures for them. But, one of the girl's mom was out of town so he had no one to take pictures for her. She is kind of shy and I could tell that she was embarrassed to ask someone to take them for her. So, when they were all taking pictures I went and grabbed her camera and started snapping away. She has no idea who took the pictures, but she was so excited when she picked up her camera and saw that some body took them for her. I was glad that I got to help her have a better Homecoming. Every girl should have a million pictures of her and her friends in pretty dresses.

Random Act of Kindness

When I went home for Fall Break I got my hair re-highlighted. The lady that did my hair was really nice and took alot of extra time on me. I enjoyed her company and her conversation. She was very friendly and did a good job. After she was done I went to the front to pay. At my salon, they include the tip in the total. But, I found this a perfect situation to add a little something special. On top of her added in tip, I gave her an extra $10. I told the lady at the register to give the money to my lady at the end of the day so she wouldn't know who gave it to her. I walked out feeling pretty and morally satisfied!

Love Pleasure, Avoid Pain

It is found to be true that most people dislike pain and prefer pleasure or happiness. This should not be a surprise to anyone. This fact can help develop a foundation for morality. If an action or thought brings pleasure to you as well as others around you, then it can be considered moral. This can get tricky though because pleasure is not always immediate. You have to look into the future and weight the options. For example, if you are really mad at someone and hit them, you might feel immediate pleasure. But, if you think that you actions are bringing pain to others, you would not do hit the person. Causing pain is immoral because it brings suffering to others. If we expect people to treat us in a moral manner, then we must use each other as examples. People use each others’ actions as mirrors. If it was moral to bring pain to one another, pain would not be something that people feared or tried to avoid. People, usually, strive to be moral and do not like to admit that they are acting in an immoral way. Therefore, people must act in a way that is pleasing to all others.

Children's Rigts

I was rather confused by this article, but I really liked the connection (or rather distinction) between dependence of children and the dependence of oppressed social groups by their oppressors. Children need physical care and adequate socialization in order to survive and in order to be able to function. Without these, they will literally die. They cannot live without this support provided by others. The oppressed social groups have a different kind of dependence. Their dependence was artificially introduced, and is not “real”. But, the dependence of children on their caretakers is mandatory. Also, the parents work to end the dependency. They want their control over them to stop.

I did not clearly see the distinction made from the rights theory to that of Kantianism. I guess it would help if I knew exactly what the rights theory is, too.

I need help understanding the differences between the rights and obligations. And I was confused about the perfect and imperfect obligations. Aren’t the imperfect obligations good? If they are then they should rename them because that is just confusing.

And what was the article saying about Children’s rights? I think that this is more of a moral topic. We should all treat others with respect. This connects also to the “willing it to be a universal law”.

If anyone has any clarification of what we just read, please post and help me out. Thanks!

Doctrine of the Elements of Ethics

I found it interesting that Kant chose to talk about people in their “animal nature”. This made the emotions more barbaric and striped away the logic.
I would ask Kant what he thought about a person who “takes a bullet” for another person. They know they are going to die, but they step in front of the person anyways in order to protect the other person. Is this still murdering oneself? I think that this would be a heroic action; I don’t believe it should be looked down upon.
As a society why do we try to separate love and lust if it is the same thing? We say how love does not center around the physical aspect, but isn’t Kant saying that it does? I would ask him about that too.
Also, was Kant justifying the inhumane treatment of drunks? When I was reading that is what I understood, but I don’t think that it was right.
Another point that I thought was very important was the knowledge of yourself and who you are. It is important to know your natural perfections so that you might use them in society to better those around you and yourself.
I found this quote interesting: “Every concept of duty involves objective constraint through a law and belongs to practical understanding, which provides a rule” (189). I think this means that all of our actions are governed by law. We don’t have that much free choice in what we do.
Kant spent a lot of time (he must have thought that it was important) describing how people should interact with each other. He says we must love, sympathize, and respect each other. He later makes the distinction between friendship and moral friendship. He explains how moral friendship is “deeper”, and the person can share all their secrets with the other.
“The very concept of virtue already implies that virtue must be acquired; one need not appeal to anthropological knowledge based on experience to see this” (221). I thought this was a very smart connection and proof that it must be acquired. Kant made his point very well. He emphasizes that virtue can and must be taught.

I found it very appropriate that Kant ended his book with his comment about religion. When I first took this class, I thought that we couldn’t talk about morals without talking about religion and God. But, people like Kant have proved me wrong.
“This, then, confirms what was maintained above: that ethics cannot extend beyond the limits of human beings’ duties to one another” (232).

Yay! I always feel so good after I finish a bunch of reading.

Kant - The Doctrine of Right

“If someone cannot prove that a thing is, he can try to prove that it is not” (123).
This quote pretty much represents what we just read. Even if Kant was not sure what he was talking about, he tried to prove it through example.
I found his discussion of possession and property to be very involved and detailed. I had never thought about that topic, but after I did I found it rather confusing. For example, last year my grandma found out that her father owned property in Arizona (my grandma lives in Illinois), and now she owns it. How is it that you can be in possession of something that you don’t know exists? I would like to ask Kant how he would explain that.
I really liked this quote. I thought that it made a lot of sense and helped me understand what Kant was trying to say.
“If I am holding a thing, someone who affects it without my consent affects and diminishes what is internally mine, so that his maxim is in direct contradiction with the axiom of right. So the proposition about empirical possession in conformity with rights does not go beyond the right of a person with regard to himself.” (39)
This is all really randomly written, but I am just following my notes:
Can we only have protection of our possessions under law?
We have to have others to understand the concept of possession. If you were all by yourself you would have no understanding of “owning” something.
I found this quote interesting, but also confusing. - “So someone can be his own master but cannot be the owner of himself” (56).
I wonder what people in support of gay marriage would say to Kant’s assertions: “Even if it supposed that their end is the pleasure of using each other’s sexual attributes, the marriage contract is not up to their discretion but is a contract that is necessary by the law of humanity, that is, if a man and a woman want to enjoy each other’s sexual attributes they must necessarily marry, and this is necessary in accordance with pure reason’s law of right” (62).
I found it odd that he promoted separation of church and state but acknowledged the need for the state to make sure that there is a church (I could have also just misunderstood).
Wow. That was a really long section of reading.

Kant Passages: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

“Metaphysics" is the study of pure concepts as they relate to moral or physical experience. (Sparknotes)
INTERESTING
Only experience can teach what brings us joy. Only the natural drives for food, sex, rest, and movement, and (as our natural predispositions develop) for honor, for enlarging our cognition, and so forth, can tell each of us, and each only in his particular way, in what he will find those joys; and, in the same way, only experience can teach him the means by which to seek them. (9)
This makes a lot of sense. How else would you know what brings you pleasure without experiencing it? This means that experience is necessary in determining what brings great joy.
Right is therefore the sum of the conditions under which the choice of one can be united with the choice of another I accordance with a universal law of freedom. (24)
Right must be determined not only by yourself, but by those around you, and then by the world.
Virtue is the strength of a human being’s maxims in fulfilling his duty. (156)
As I understand it, the duty would be his morality, and virtues are the way in which the individual reaches that end.
Virtue is always in progress and yet always starts from the beginning. It is always in progress because, considered objectively, it is an ideal and unattainable, while yet constant approximation to it is a duty. (167)
Virtues are always changing because they require the approval of society. They are not stable. They change over generations. A person cannot build upon a virtue if it is not constant.
PUZZLING
The conformity of an action with the law of duty is its legality (legalitas); the conformity of the maxim of an action with a law is the morality (moralitas) of the action. A maximum is a subjective principle of action, a principle which the subject himself makes his rue (how he wills to act). (17)
I need more explanation of this passage. How does this work?
Laws proceed from the will, maxims from choice. (18)
Don’t laws proceed from choice also? Don’t you choose whether you follow a law or not? I am confused with this rationale.
Freedom (independence from being constrained by another’s choice), insofar as it can coexist with the freedom of every other in accordance with a universal law, is the only original right belonging to every man by virtue of his humanity. (30)
Didn’t the other philosopher (like Hume) believe this to be otherwise? Doesn’t Hume believe that this is an artificial virtue? How is this original? Don’t you need someone to constrain you before you seek freedom?
…if the law can prescribe only the maxim of actions, not actions themselves, this is a sign that it leaves a playroom for free choice in following the law, that is, that the law cannot specify precisely in what way one is to act and how much one is to do by the action for an end that is also a duty. (153)
Huh? I do not see how the law does not specify how one is supposed to act. Doesn’t the law lay out specifics? Maybe I just do not understand what he is saying.

Prep for Kant - Contradiction?

One must not contradict himself because the mental acceptance of two conflicting facts is not possible for our brain. In the book 1984 they use the term “doublethink” to describe this phenomenon. The government can tell the people one thing, which they have evidence to believe otherwise, and the people are content with believing both. Our society does not have this. It is impossible to truly believe two opposing facts are both true. We can use this idea of contradiction to form our moral behavior. If one person believes that it is good to please and bring pleasure to others, they must not act in contradiction of his belief and ignore the emotional well beings of others in differing situations.
I am finding this very difficult to respond to. I cannot seem to find a starting point upon which the foundation can be built. I can continue to say that you should not contradict yourself by lying after you say truth is virtuous, but I feel like this is not a solid model upon which a whole moral code can be built.
But, if it is like Hume says, and all morality is built into human nature, then shouldn’t we all know what is right and wrong? If we all do, and all vow to not contradict what we know is right, there would be no more vice. This seems too easy.

Hume - The last post

Hume states that utility pleases us because it is socially beneficial and explains how human nature finds pleasure in many events even if they are not directly linked to us. But, he wants to point out that self-love cannot, alone, count for our concern of the public. An example that he uses to explain how we approve remote actions is apathy. Like in class, people ignore world hunger because it does not directly link to themselves. When Hume describes the qualities useful to ourselves, the best example he explains (I think) is strength of mind. Observers do not necessarily like when people have strong opinions, but the person possessing these opinions enjoys the comfort he or she finds in assurance. But, traits that immediately produce satisfaction of the observers are different. These virtues, such as cheerfulness, produce immediate pleasure and are approved by those who witness the traits. Another quality, that is similar to the preceding, is one that produces immediate agreeableness from onlookers. A good example of this is cleanliness. This does not directly affect the person who possesses it, but all people can come to a consensus that these are respected. Basically, throughout the book, Hume was trying to get his point across that a person’s merit consists of mental qualities that a person decides is either useful or agreeable to him or the people around him. He says that we compare ourselves against others and that we critically evaluate our own moral standards to maintain self-respect. He supports this by pointing to the fact that obligation to act morally is found in human nature.

People, especially religious people, might disagree with Hume. They would state that morality is not build into human nature. They might say that all humans are inherently evil. They might point to the presence of sin (or immoral behavior). A theologian might point to the Bible for evidence and state that all men are born sinners, and that men need God’s guidance. But, since religion cannot be falsified (that why it is not a science), this cannot be used as direct proof.
Another person might say that people have different standards of morality, so how can it be built into human nature?

Enquiry concerning the principles of morals

I think one of the most fundamental points that Hume explains is the following: “moral conduct does not spring from conclusions of reason or the understand and that reason is incapable of drawing moral conclusions.” He believes that this reaction can only be done through an internal sense. He also explains how the investigation of human nature rests on the factual inquiry of orgin of morals.
Hume believes that benevolence is a part of human nature that promotes the basic human goods A point that is relevant is that Hume believes that benevolence is both universal “in persons and universally approved by impartial inquirers.” Similar to benevolence, which Hume believes is approved primarily because of its social utility, justice is approved “exclusively because of their social utility. It is important to note that necessity of rules of justice is needed, but that they differ from culture to culture. He also points out that justice is necessary because conflict is inevitable.
I think that I understand the broad concepts. Hume thinks that all people have an internal sense (which he names as sympathy) that allows for people to cooperate. For example, even if you do not know people in your study group, you can understand how people work and understand cultural norms well enough to function. People have a common sense that is similar to a conscious without a religious connotation. Also, justice, something that was not naturally made (it was constructed over time by humans out of necessity) helps the formation of societies. In this sense, I feel like philosophy and sociology have a lot in common. They both try and explain how people and their communities function; therefore, all findings are relevant and help people better adapt to their surroundings.

Hume - Natural Virtue

Yes I know this is very early...but it is Parent's Weekend and that is usually when I do all my ethics reading. Instead of reading outside of Stalnaker under the trees, I had to read in my small little dorm room. No I am not bitter about this. Yay Hume!...

Natural virtues are virtues that “have no dependence on the artifice and contrivance of men”. Natural virtues always produce good, whereas some artificial virtues may actually hurt the public good. But, because most artificial values serve the public good, they have been shaped into moral virtues. And differing reactions, in response to these actions, appear because sympathy and comparison alter people’s decision making process. Although I understand this concept, I do not clearly grasp the conversation concerning the differences in generosity and hatred. Hume brings up the point that in some cases the absence of hatred reveals moral weakness. I feel like this is a central argument to his position, so I am frustrated that I do not understand it. I even read the annotations, but I still do not fully grasp what he is saying.
Hume tries to distinguish between natural abilities and natural virtues but came to the conclusion that both are sources of pleasure and esteem. These natural abilities (perseverance, wisdom, temperance) he states, are involuntary; therefore, they are natural.
Similarly, Hume connects physical assets such as beauty and strength to that of fortune (wealth and power). He once again tells how these both produce much of the same effect. They are useful to those who either posses them, or observe them. I find this interesting that he would add people who observe in the same category to those who possess. Do the onlookers really get the same amount of pleasure out of the asset as the owner does?
In conclusion to his book, Hume emphasizes how he believes that sympathy is the “chief source of moral distinctions” because it allows us to connect with and understand the public good.
I found A Treatise of Human Naure very difficult to read. I feel that if we would have spent a lot of time on just one section at a time, it would have been a lot easier to grasp. I feel like I have a very general sweeping knowledge of what Hume wished to say. I wish that there could have been more time devoted to specific passages.

Hume's explanation of Morality

Moral distinctions not derived from reason:
Hume states how nothing but perceptions enter the mind. And these perception, either impressions or ideas, decide virtue and vice. Reason can never be the sole factor in decision because it is only concerned with truth and falsehood. Reasons rigidity does not allow for passion to enter the equation. Right and wrong moral distinctions cannot be established by truth.

Moral distinctions derived from a moral sense:
Hume states how all distinctions are founded upon impressions and sentiments. He describes two states, approbation and disapprobation, as the calm pleasure received from a virtue or a clam pain received from a vice. The discovery of the two states can only be found through response of character and action, which involves a moral sense.

Justice, whether a natural or artificial virtue?
Hume states that justice is an artificial virtue (created by the “circumstances and necessities of mankind) because the original intent or motive behind it (self-interest, public benevolence, and private benevolence) could not and did not exist during human beings original state. Justice was learned over time.

Of the origin of justice and property
Justice, as described in section 2, is artificial and was made in response to the formation of societies. People learned to realize that if disputes and arguments were diminished, society could survive longer. After the idea of justice formed, property followed after it. It followed because of the people’s own self-interest. People wanted to be able to control their own external goods which created a web of property rights and the necessity to follow those rights.

Of the rules, which determine property
Hume states how the original application of property must be based on present possession. This rule of justice is clear, specific, but yet general. Once the system is established, criteria of ownership must be enacted. Such criteria include the following: occupation, prescription, accession, and succession.

Of the transference of property by consent
The transference of property remains limited only by the imagination. Hume states that the property will be there no matter who owns it, but the interests of society are directly affected by the specific guidelines and rules that govern the transfer of the property.

Of the obligation of promises
Hume states that a promise is an artificial virtue. He states that it is a human invention that was only established to better the interests of society. He then adds that without conventions such as resolution, desire, and willingness, there would be no obligation to fulfill the promise. He also states that there must be structure in order to establish the making of the promise.

Some farther reflections concerning justice and injustice
Hume states that the establishment of justice leads to the institution of property. This is important because this means that there is no natural motive to respect that property. It is learned over time. He explains how justice has no degree. It is either just or unjust. This rigidity conflicts with the flexibility of our natural motives.
Difficult passages:
‘Tis evident, that when we praise any actions, we regard only the motives that produced them, and consider the actions as signs or indications of certain principles in the mind and temper. (p.307) 3.2.1
This passage seems difficult. I think it means that we only praise actions which we have positive preconceptions to, but then how do these preconceptions form?
The relation of fitness or suitableness ought never to enter into consideration, in distributing the properties of mankind; but we must govern ourselves by rules, which are more general in their application, and more free from doubt and uncertainty. (p.330) 3.2.4
I do not understand Hume’s reasoning in his application of this principle. I do not want property to be distributed to those who do not know how to upkeep it, or who cannot control it properly.
Interesting passages:
Morality is a subject that interests us above all others: We fancy the peace of society to be at stake in every decision concerning it; and ‘tis evident, that this concern must make our speculations appear more real and solid, than where the subject is, in great measure, indifferent to us. (p.293) 3.1.1
I think that this is interesting because it explains how even if we can’t define morality, the idea of it comforts us. The use of morality can promote a common calm among people. Plus, we always like to measure people’s actions in comparison to a moral standard.
It has been observed that nothing is ever present to the mind but its perceptions; and that all the actions of seeing, hearing, judging, loving, hating, and thinking, fall under this denomination. (p. 293) 3.1.1

I would ask Hume to clarify his positions. I feel like I can read the headings and understand his point just as well as I could without reading. I am having a difficult time finding connections from his examples. I do not see how he is justifying his assertions. Although I do agree with him on most points, I can not clearly say why I do (it is just more out of gut reaction that I agree).

Calm and Violent Passions

Hume makes a distinction between calm and violent passions. He says “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.”
Hume is saying that passion and reason combat each other and conflict. He is saying that reason alone can never, alone, motivate a person to do a certain action. He says this because he believes that reason can never oppose passion in a direction of will, and that passions are never unreasonable. And, since reason exerts itself without producing any sensible emotion, reason should not solely used to make a decision.
He means that reason is not intact with reality. He thinks that it is too removed.

Contemporary examples of this can be seen. For example, reason can be viewed as today’s “book smarts” while passions or emotions can be viewed as today’s “street smarts”. Without the street smarts, the book smarts is useless. You would not be able to interact with society, which in turn would not allow the book smarts to be of any good. Also, a passion could be seen as a positive obsession. When Hume says violent passion, a negative connotation is attached, which can be rather confusing. I would use an Olympic athlete as an example of a person with a violent passion to explain that it is not a negative emotion.

Interesting:
Nothing is more usual in philosophy, and even in common life, than to talk of the combat of passion and reason, to give the preference to reason, and assert that men are only so far virtuous as they conform themselves to its dictates. P.265
I think that this is obvious, and I understood that reason does not match up with our passion. This is a discussion that needs attention.

‘Tis obvious, that when we have the prospect of pain or pleasure from any object, we feel a consequent emotion of aversion or propensity, and are carried to avoid or embrace what will give us this uneasiness or satisfaction. P.266
People will avoid situations in order to escape pain. This can be seen in how people interact with each other. When presented with a challenging situation, even though the end means might be rewarding, people will bypass the challenge because they do not want to exert the energy and feel pain.

But nothing has a greater effect both to increase and diminish our passions, to convert pleasure into pain, and pain into pleasure, than custom and repetition. P. 271
The more you do something, the more you become numb to it. If you do something dangerous enough times, it will not seem dangerous.
Confusing:
Thus it appears, that the principle, which opposes our passion, cannot be the same with reason, and is only called so in an improper sense. P.266
I feel like this contradicts itself. I do not see the difference between principle, passion, and reason. They all seem to be very similar.

The same good, when near, will cause a violent passion, which, when remote, produces only a calm one. P.269
I do not understand how this happens. What is an example of this?

There is another phenomenon of a like nature with the foregoing, viz. the superior effects of the same distance in futurity above that in the past. P.275
I do not get what the difference between the future and the past is. I did not understand why they had different meanings to them.

Random Acts of Kindness 3

Last week I went to Spikes and the person in front of me ran out of meals. The person was really embarressed, and did not have any cash on them. I overheard the conversation and let her use one of my meals ( I had an extra one left). She was suprised at first, but took my card. She told me that if I ever needed a meal she would gladly give me one of hers. I was glad that I could help, and I know that other people in the line saw what I did. I hope I left a good impression.

Hume Part I and II

Introduction: Hume believes that all people “know” that their views and beliefs are the best. He also points out that science has become a field of debate. He claims that it is filled with opinions and that nothing seems certain anymore. He also says that eloquence will win over reason and questions whether truth can ever be reached. He later goes on to talk about how the understanding of human nature can directly lead to the understanding of all other sciences.
Part I: Of the Passions; Of pride and humility
There are two perceptions of the mind (impressions and ideas). Impressions can be split up into sensations (which are like senses) or reflections (which are like interpretations or emotions). Then, he describes how the passions that arise out of these impressions can be further split up into direct or indirect. The passions, although contrary, have the same object. This object he determined is the self. Hume also explains how the products of pride differ from the cause of it. Country, family or riches can cause pride whereas good-sense, learning and courage are products of pride. He later delves deeper into the subject and states how the combination of quality and subject produce pride. Then, he explained how the causes of pride and humility are natural to all beings, but are not original.
He stated how vice and virtue are causes of passions and are part of our character because pain and pleasure cause vice and virtue. Also, he explained how beauty produced delight which lead to pride, and how deformity produced pain which lead to humility. He added how beauty and strength along with force make up pride.
Hume talked about how pride can only occur if the external object acquires a particular relation to self. When this connection or relationship is developed, vanity can occur.
Hume later commented that property has the greatest relationship to people, which in turn produces the greatest passion of pride, and the existence of power allows for us to satisfy our desires.
Then, he claims that sympathy is the most remarkable quality of human nature. He finds it interesting how people with such different make ups can get along and understand each other enough to sympathize with. And he states that the pleasure we receive from praise arises form a community of sentiments, not just a single source.
He concluded Part I by reiterating that no passion can exist unless it is related to us and produces a pleasure or pain independent of passion. Also, he stated that the causes of passions are the power of producing agreeable or uneasy sensations. He tied the existence of this in humans to that of animals.

Part II: Of Love and Hatred
Hume made it very clear that love and hatred had a different object than pride and humility (which is the self). He stated that the object of love and hatred in another person. He stated how this passion must be applied to another thinking being. Then, he went on to explain how circumstance plays a major role in diminishing passions, but can rarely remove them completely from play.
He made it a point to express that blood relation among family members produced the strongest relationship. He then took that strong relationship and tied it with the strongest sense of love. He explained how the mind finds satisfaction and is at ease with objects it is accustomed to. The mind prefers the familiar over the unfamiliar.
Hume stated that esteem comes from power and riches and that contempt comes from poverty and meanness. To build off of this point he explains how the minds of men are like mirrors. They reflect each other’s emotions.
Hume then connected benevolence and anger to that of love and anger. He stated that passions of love and anger are followed by or conjoined with benevolence and anger, and that loves end is happiness of another person. Love has a goal thru which people work towards.
Then, he spoke of pity (concern for) and malice (joy of misery of others). He explained how malice initiates effects of hatred and that pity initiates love. He then concluded by stating every object is attended with some emotion that has proper proportion to it.
Interesting Passage: “In general we may remark, that the minds of men are mirrors to one another, not only because they reflect each other’s emotions, but also because those rays of passions, sentiments and opinions may be often reverberated, and may decay away by insensible degrees. Thus, the pleasure a rich man receives from his possessions, being thrown upon the beholder, causes a pleasure and esteem; which sentiments again, being perceived and sympathized with, increases the pleasure of the possessor;…” (p. 236)
I find this passage central to Humes point and quite interesting. I think that this point explains a lot about people’s behavior. People are always looking towards one another for reassurance and for positive feedback. People look towards others in order to see if they are following the correct norms. We always judge ourselves against others. Other people are our standards of behavior.
Puzzling Passage: “’Twill be sufficient to remark in general, that the object of love and hatred is evidently some thinking person; and that the sensation of the former passion is always agreeable, and of the latter uneasy.” (p.215)
I find this central to Humes point, but very confusing and puzzling. I do not agree that people can only love a thinking person. Can’t a person love money? Can’t a person love a deceased person? I do not find the logic Hume has behind this point. I found that section (Section 1 of Part II) to be difficult to read and understand.

Psychological Tendencies

“All human beings seem to have three psychological tendencies. The first is to have our emotional state influenced by the emotional state of those around us. The second is that our feelings about our own situation are influenced by how we see your own situation in comparison to that of others. And the third to that we like pleasure and try to avoid discomfort or pain.”
I believe that Hume might have done this by using examples of daily living. He would ask people to question how they feel when confronted by different situations. He would give examples of how behavior is situational and can change no matter what the personality of the person is. Then, he would support his second psychological tendency by pointing to the fact that people rely on other people’s approval in order to feel accomplished. People are no longer satisfied with intrinsic fulfillment, they seek external success. Then, he would point to the extremes that people go through in order to ignore pain. People will avoid situations and will ignore paths that cause excess exertion of energy and time. People would rather take the easy route, even if it is less beneficial.
I am interested to read how Hume actually does this in A Treatise of Human Nature.

Aristotle VIII & "Persons, Situaions, and Virtue Ethics"

Doris undermines Aristotle’s position by first attacking the consistency of character in each person. He states that a person will act differently with different situations. He says that a person can not always be good or know good. He does not think that you can predict character because people lack a rigid character. He believes behavior is situational. He uses experimental research and common scenarios (the dropped paper) to explain behavioral inconsistency.
Doris would say that a person that is “virtuous” is not virtuous all the time. He would say that this person just acted virtuous because the situation was in favor of a person acting in a virtuous way. He would say that all circumstances allowed for the person to behave in a way that people thought favorable. He would then say that a person who is “vicious” is in fact not vicious by nature. He would say that the situation changed how the person reacted. Since Doris claims that behavior cannot be predicted, he believes that you cannot name a person virtuous or vicious. He believes that the character changes with situations.
Doris’s virtuous and vicious person would differ from Aristotle’s in the fact that Doris would not name a person virtuous or vicious. Doris believes that your actions can be virtuous or vicious, but that your actions change with situations which in turn makes your character instable and unpredictable. Aristotle, on the other hand, believes that the good always know how to do good and always know what it good. By this definition, Aristotle believes that character can be predicted quite accurately.
I believe that Doris’s views and Aristotles views are the same. They both agree with which situations are good or bad. They agree that people’s actions can be classified as beneficial to society or harmful to others. They agree that people are influenced by others. But, Aristotle had to proof of this consistency. He used observation. But, Doris used experimentation and furthered Aristotle’s findings and tweaked them to fit a more applicable model (we all know that we have done both good and bad).
Evidence to back up Doris:
He used the paper dropping experiment to show that people who are seen as “impassionate” will help others in certain situations.
The Milgram experiment showed that people who were thought to be kind and compassionate “shocked” a man to serious injury just because a man in a white lab coat was urging them to continue with the experiment.
Evidence to back up Doris:
He believes that people who are good will always know the good thing to do. You can look to your conscious for evidence for this. I believe that everyone has a conscious that knows what is right and wrong for the situation, but some people choose to suppress the voice until it is a quiet whisper. This would add to the fact that people know what to do.
The way that Aristotle talks about friendship, and the longer existence of the friendship based off goodness makes people believe that people with good intentions will perform better things for each other. He talks about how these friendships are fruitful and bring pleasure and usefulness to both parties. He says that only good people can get into these relationships, which creates an existence of a person who performs good all the time.

Virtue Theory and Abortion + Aristotle VI

What distinguishes prudence/practical wisdom/ phronesis from the other intellectual virtues? Provide examples from your own experience where someone has displayed practical wisdom/ prudence/ phronesis.
All of these virtues involve a deep understanding of the natural world and what is going on around you. It also involves the understanding of eternal truths of the universe. These virtues also benefit the entire community, they do not just benefit the person practicing it. These virtues are also held up on a higher level. It is a goal for most people to reach these intellectual virtues because they are prestigious.
Prudence – good for the entire community- My father does the landscaping at my church. This is not be benefit him, he gets nothing from the grass being green, but all of the members of the church appreciate the beautiful lawn.
Practical Wisdom – Combo of intuition and scientific knowledge – My grandpa can get a fire started anytime, anywhere. Growing up on a farm he gained a lot of knowledge about how to build a fire, and over time he has used this knowledge to determine what techniques are the best in specific weather conditions.
Phronesis – general scense of knowing proper behavior in different situations – My grandma always knows how to greet people, or knows which fork to eat with first. She knows just what to wear and knows when to start and end conversations. She is always very in tune with her surroundings.

How is Hursthouse’s discussion of abortion making use of Aristotle’s virtue theory – not just the particular virtues but his larger conception of virtue?
Hursthouse believes that abortion should not just be looked at through standards of rights or by morality. He wants to make the argument more objective by centering it around Aristotle’s virtue theory. He points out that a right to a woman’s happiness should not be the ultimate goal. He says people should center around the questions “Is her life a good one? And is she living well?” He defines the greatness of living through family, friends, and emotional development. He speaks about children as being intrinsically worthwhile. He does not center his argument around scientific facts of the fetus. He says that all abortions (or rather death of the fetus) is serious and is not something to be taken lightly.



Interesting and puzzling (and why) from each article.
Interesting (A. Book VI p.179) “On the subject of wisdom, we may get what we need once we have considered who it is that we call ‘wise’. Well, it is thought characteristic of a wise person to be able to deliberate well about the things that are good and advantageous to himself, not in specific contexts, e.g. what sorts of things conduce to health, or to physical strength, but what sorts of things conduce to the good in general.”
I thought that this was one of the passages that was clear. Most people think of wise people and not necessarily being book smart, or extremely intelligent in one field, but rather having a grand general knowledge of everyday life.
Puzzling (A. Book VI p.183) “For some people look for what is good for themselves, and thing this is what they should do. It is this view, then, that has given rise to the idea that this sort of person is wise; and yet presumably one’s own well-being is inseparable from managing a household, and from political organization. Again, how one should govern one’s affairs is unclear, and something that needs investigation. “
Maybe I just don’t understand the sentence, but I feel like Aristotle just contradicted himself by saying how one should govern one’s affairs is unclear. Isn’t this what his book is all about? Isn’t he telling people how to do this?
Interesting (H. p.237) “These facts make it obvious that pregnancy is not just one among many other physical conditions; and hence that anyone who genuinely believes that an abortion is comparable to a haircut is or an appendectomy is mistaken.”
I find this very interesting. I think that current debates of abortion rarely stop to think about the seriousness of the situation. They just spit out facts and stats. A lot of people also take pregnancy for granted and do not realize the importance of it. I find that true when people get pregnant in high school. They do not understand the responsibility.
Puzzling (H. p.236) “that the status of the fetus – that issue over which so much ink has been spilled – that is according to virtue theory simply not relevant to the rightness or wrongness of abortion (within ,that is, a secular morality).”
I found this difficult to follow Hursthouse’s reasoning to not include the status of the fetus. I could not find why he thought it was not relevant. I would imagine that the status of the fetus would change the seriousness of the abortion. For example, if the fetus were about to die would the abortion be as “bad” as if the fetus were perfectly healthy?

Random Acts of Kindness - 2

Today I restocked our water and drinks in our mini fridge. I refilled water bottles and put in the new ones. We (my roommate and I) usually do this together and fill up our own stuff. She was surprised and very thankful that I did this. I think I did this more out of thirst than just trying to be nice though. I had just gotten back from PT and weights so I was upset that we had nothing to drink.

Random Acts of Kindness - 1

My roommate and I have gotten along very well. We have become close friends, and we appreciate each other's company. For my first random act of kindness I emptied her garbage for her. I noticed one day that her trash can was getting very full, so I walked down the hall and dumped it out for her. When she came back from class she was very excited. At first she thought that people come in and do that for us every week, but I told her I did it for her. She thanked me and told me that I didn't need to do it. She said that she wants to empty my trash now. I guess I started something.

Virtue

What is it about a particular characteristic that makes it virtue? Distinguishes it from its associated vices?
The main theme I got from the reading was the existence of balance. Moderation between the two extremes of a characteristic made it desirable and beneficial to the most people, and did the most good for the most amount of people. This characteristic does good for the whole society, not just for the individual. That is another aspect of all good characteristics. For example, when Aristotle discuses open-handedness, he contrasted it to wastefulness and avariciousness. He found the balance between the extremes.

(I found this chart off of SparkNotes...I hope this explains better what I was trying to say. It's at the end of the page. http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/ethics/characters.html)



Do you agree with Aristotle that the closer you come to having these characteristics, the closer you will come to having a fulfilling life? What evidence have you drawn upon?
I agree that the listed ideal characteristics create a fulfilling life. A life full of courage, boldness, open-handedness, reason, and truth (to name a few) leads to a happiness, which supports the existence of a fulfilling life. Through balance, a live of prosperity can be lived out day to day. A good example I can draw from comes from Book IX 9-11. This section talks about the balance of friends. Aristotle states the important of a balance of the number of friends you possess. Too many results in detached relationships, and too little do not allow for growth and full experience. He also makes it a point to determine what kind of people your friends are. He discusses the importance of the character of your company.

Aristotle Passages (Interesting/Puzzling)

X.9 (p. 256)
“However this may be: if, as has been said, a person needs to be brought up and habituated in the right way in order to be good, and then live accordingly under a regime of decent behavior, neither counter-voluntarily nor voluntarily doing what is bad; and if this will come about when people live in accordance with a kind of intelligence or correct principle of order, with the force to make itself felt: well, a father’s prescriptions do not have the requisite force, or the element of compulsion; nor indeed do the orders of any single man, unless he is a king or similar person; but law does have the power to compel, being a form of words deriving from a kind of wisdom and intelligence. “

I found this passage interesting because I believe that your family can shape you into anything they want. Parental influences determine the character and the behavior of the children. This, in turn, can make a person good or bad. I find this rather depressing, because is it really the child’s fault then that they are bad? Should the parent receive the punishment if the child acts out in school? Should all children be viewed as innocent?

I.12 (p.12)
“Thus the dead do seem to be somehow affected when their loved ones do well, and similarly when they do badly, but in such a way and to such an extent as neither to render the happy unhappy nor do anything else of the sort.”
I found this passage particularly puzzling because I did not see Aristotle’s connection from living beings to those who are dead. I do not understand how a person who is dead can be affected by anything. I can understand that the physical body of the person may be harmed, but I do not see how anything else can be changed. Is he saying that the dead people having a living soul? Why is it necessary to be concerned with the people that are dead?

Humanity's Common Goal

Is there a common goal that all human beings are interested in reaching? I believe there is. I believe that all humans want to be successful, have good health, receive a good education, and live for a purpose. But for this discussion’s sake, I will focus on the pursuit of success.
The idea of success can be more complicated than it seems. Different people have different ideas of what successful means. For some people, a successful life is one that is filled with money, for others a life rich in religion, for others a healthy physical body, for others a life of servitude is seen as successful. If everyone defines personal goals, and works diligently towards them, success is inevitable (or at least the feeling of success). Keeping people motivated is a huge stride towards all people living a successful life. Interaction and networking among friends, family, and peers allow for a higher success rate among people. Also, among all people, morality must be established. This allows people to work within a framework of specified rights and wrongs. Although this seems impossible, this establishment would allow for all humans to respect one another and aid in each others success stories. Evidence can be seen through the existence of many self-help books. Everyone is trying to better him or herself, which in turn allows for a more productive, successful life. Also, the focus on other people’s success stories through the news or TV programs like “The Big Idea” glorify the presence of success.
Through close relationships and a common moral ground, people will support each other in their quest for success. Evidence that people who have a common moral standing work better than those who have opposing morals can be seen through the work of a church. Focus on a greater being draws people close together. All of the people in the congregation hope to reach a successful life through the help of their god. Their success can all be measured on a similar scale, which makes it more easily obtainable. Also, networking and the formation of friendships allows people to become successful because of the support system. No person can get through life on their own. Everyone needs someone to back them up or to give them a helping hand at some point in his or her life. For example, it is very difficult for a young entrepreneur to start a business alone, with no employees, customers, or business partners.

Gorgias 3-62

Gorgias: pp. 3-62
Gorgias: “You don’t know the half of it, Socrates! Almost every accomplishment falls within the scope of rhetoric. I’ve got good evidence of this. Often in the past, when I’ve gone with my brother or some other doctor to one of their patients who was refusing to take his medicine or to let the doctor operate on him or cauterize him, the doctor proved incapable of persuading the patient to accept his treatment, but I succeeded, even though I didn’t have any other expertise to draw on except rhetoric. Think of a community – any community you like – and I assure you that if an expert in rhetoric and a doctor went there and had to compete against each other for election as that community’s doctor by addressing the Assembly or some other public meeting, the doctor would be left standing, and the effective speaker would win the election, if that’s what he wanted. In fact, it doesn’t matter what his rival’s profession is: the rhetorician would persuade them to choose him, and the other person would fail. It’s inconceivable that a professional of any stamp could speak more persuasively in front of a crowd than a rhetorician on any topic at all … A rhetorician is capable of speaking effectively against all comers, whatever the issue, and can consequently be more persuasive in front of crowds about – to cut a long story short- anything he likes. Nevertheless, the fact that he’s capable of getting people to think less highly of doctors and their fellow professionals doesn’t mean that he has to do so. Just like any competitive skill, rhetoric should be used when morally appropriate.” (p. 19-20)
“Rhetoric is the only area of expertise you need to learn. You can ignore all the rest and still get the better of the professionals.” (p. 24)
Gorgias believes that power is a desirable trait, and that people who posses it are inherently happy. This passage reveals the sense of great pride which comes with victory over another person. Gorgias loves to be in control and hates to be confronted with obstacles. Gorgias finds rhetoric so superior to any other trade, which he claims that “almost every accomplishment falls within the scope of rhetoric.”

Socrates (in response to Gorgias): “That was why I was astonished at the suggestion you made a little later that a rhetorician might actually put his rhetoric to immoral use; I thought you were being inconsistent and so I said what I said about how our discussion would be worthwhile if you were like me and saw the profit in being proved wrong, but that otherwise we should just forget it. And now we’ve reached a point in our enquiry where you can see for yourself that we’ve come to the opposite conclusion – that a rhetorician is incapable of putting his rhetoric to immoral use and of deliberately doing wrong.” (p. 26)
Socrates is making his point that rhetoric should not be used to belittle or promote injustice. This passage reveals the fact that Socrates expects a respectful discussion. He does not want emotions to run into the facts. He is clear at his intensions, and tells Gorgias up front that he believes he is wrong. Socrates cares about others, and cares that know what is right and wrong. I believe his greatest challenge to Gorgias was the reformatting of his argumentation. He wanted to teach him how to be useful and productive.

Polus: “But of course they do! Rhetoricians are the most powerful members of their communities, aren’t they?” (p.34)
Although the passage is short, I believe this statement made by Polus summaries his entire argument. Because Polus was trained, or training, or be a rhetorician he wanted to believe that it was the most powerful an envied job. He did not know if this was true or not, but he desperately wanted it to be. His sense of self-doubt rang clear through the discussion between himself and Socrates. He would make an assertion, but immediately follow it with a question for the sake of approval. Polus did not think that the concepts of right and wrong played into rhetoric, or were of any importance.

Socrates (in response to Polus): “In my opinion, it takes true goodness to make a man or woman happy, and an immoral, wicked person is unhappy.” (p.43)
“You’re producing no compelling reason why I should agree with you; all you’re doing is calling upon a horde of false witnesses against me to support your attempt to dislodge me from my inheritance, the truth… I’d almost go so far as to say that in their case there’s nothing more admirable than knowledge and nothing more contemptible than ignorance, since that would amount to knowledge or ignorance about what it is to be happy and what it is to be unhappy.” (p.45)
Socrates shows his maturity and respect for the art of argumentation towards Polus. He wants to teach the young scholar how to argue and debate, and how to argue and debate about passionate ideas. If Socrates did not want Polus to transform his ways, he would not have pointed out his flaws. Socrates response to Polus’s assertions also reinforces his deep interest in morality and right verse wrong. He wishes to include others, and share his passion for understanding.

Callicles, Socrates, Plato

Callicles
Support:
“Won’t he ever stop talking rubbish? Tell me, Socrates, doesn’t it embarrass you to pick on people’s mere words at your age and to count it a godsend if someone uses the wrong expression by mistake?” (p.74)
“In my opinion, that’s what natural right is – for an individual who is better (that is, more clever) to rule over second-rate people and have more than them.” (p.75)
“That if a person has the means to live a life of sensual, self-indulgent freedom, there’s no better or happier state of existence; all the rest of it – the pretty words, the unnatural, man-made conventions – they’re all just pointless trumpery.” (p.79)
Evidence:
“I’m thinking of people who’ve applied their cleverness to politics and thought about how to run their community well. But cleverness is only part of it; they also have courage, which enables them to see their policies through to the finish without losing their nerve and giving up.” (p. 77)
“Under this wonderful regime of justice and self-discipline, how could they possibly be happy, when even if they did have political power they wouldn’t be able to use it to their friend’s advantage and their enemy’s disadvantage?” (p.79)
Callicles becomes very upset and impatient with Socrates throughout their conversation. Callicles thinks that Socrates is babbling on about nonsense and twisting his words in order to make himself look good in the argument. Callicles understands many of the statements made my Socrates, but does not find them evidence for his conclusions. Believing that people with great power should exert force upon others with no restraint, Callicles uses the example of a person born to inherit a kingdom or a dictator. He believes that power and pleasure bring happiness, and that self-discipline does not allow the person to experience the full effect of his or her authority.


Socrates
Support:
“Because the upshot is that good things aren’t the same as pleasant things, and bad things aren’t the same as unpleasant things either.” (p.88)
“As long as it is in a bad state (which is to say ignorant, self-indulging, immoral, and irreligious), we must prevent it from doing what it desires and have it keep strictly to a regimen which will make it better.” (p.101)
“It follows, Callicles, that because a self-disciplined person is just, brave, and religious, as we’ve explained, he’s a paradigm or goodness. Now, a good person is bound to do whatever he does well and successfully, and success brings fulfillment and happiness, whereas a bad man does badly and is therefore unhappy. Unhappiness, then, is the lot of someone who’s the opposite of self-disciplined – in other words, the kind of self-indulgent person you were championing.” (p.105)
Evidence:
“So it takes organization and order to make a house good, does it? And without these qualities any house is worthless?” (p.100)
“No, our helmsman knows that, once a person has gone bad, it’s better for him not to live, since he’s bound to live badly.” (p.112)
“Alright, has Callicles ever made any of his fellow citizens a better person? Is there anyone from here or elsewhere, from any walk of life – who was previously bad( that is unjust, self-indulgent, and thoughtless), but who has become, thanks to Callicles, a paragon of virtue?” (p.117)

Socrates wishes to impose his believes on other people because he wishes to make each man a more moral being. He carries on his conversation with Callicles (even after the point when Callicles refuses to speak) because he wishes to help live a more productive and meaningful life. He does not wish to use flattery and states that rhetoric should “only ever be used in the service of right”. He wants others to practice justice and virtue in order to better society. He uses odd analogies, but with the understanding of these analogies comes evidence of the necessity of being a ‘good person’.


I believe that Plato has a strong position that supports the use of evidence. He feels that evidence through daily life experiences and through common good analogies can help others understand in a more clear way. But, he also emphasizes the need of support. For example, Callicles (the rhetorician) tells Socrates (the philosopher) that he is “not entirely convinced” (p.114) and refers to his speech as “lowly little questions” (p.87). Also, during the beginning of their conversation, Callicles starts off by saying” You pretend that truth is your goal, but in actual fact you steer discussions towards this kind of ethical idea – ideas which are unsophisticated enough to have popular appeal, and which depend entirely on convention, not on nature” (p. 65). The power of support and analysis of statements by Socrates eventually persuades Callicles to see the opposite of what he says as true. I believe that Plato believes what Callicles is true, if and only if, the situations could be viewed without the application of morality, but his inner beliefs cause him to side with Plato. Callicles’s opposition to listen to Plato symbolizes the internal resistance Plato suffers with morality.

Harming - Persuasion

In a situation where one person is being harmed and the other is doing the harming, I believe that the one harming the other is the one to be most avoided. This, I believe, is only true if the harming is done unjustly. If there is reason for a person to be harmed (for punishment that fits the crime- which is a whole other topic) it should be done. But, in this case I am going to assume that the person is harming the other for unjust motives.
If the person doing the harming does not get caught, it should no matter. The person’s conscious should make them feel guilty enough. You know that feeling – the kind you get when your brain can’t shut off at night and it takes you hours to fall asleep. You know when you did something wrong and when you did something that violated your morals. This alone should be punishment enough if you are a strong believer in your morals. But, if you do not feel guilty, then there is another problem. A person who feels no guilt has revealed the hardness of their character and concern for the well being of others. I feel sorry for the person who lives solely for his or her own benefit. What a lonely life he or she must live. I back this up with evidence from personal experience. During my lunch period my senior year the talk of the table would consist of ‘God bashing’. Many would mock Christianity and recite horrible jokes demeaning my religion. I would like to say that their comments didn’t affect me, but they did. They were harming me emotionally and spiritually. But, I would answer back and explain why I believed what I did and why it was important to me. I wish I could say I touched one of their hearts, but I don’t think I did. But, I would rather be harmed knowing that I am standing up for what I believe is right. Although some days I felt weaker, I came out of the experience much stronger with a better understanding of my own belief system. A more global example can be the Holocaust. Although countless Jews and others were tortured physically, emotionally, and spiritually, they are now know through record of history books and documentaries as heroes. Although the situations in which they were placed resembled those of hell the reputation and respect they acquired after the fact make up for their suffering. Those inflicting the pain of the innocent people now life with eternal damnation by a great majority of the world.
Who doesn’t like to be right? I love to be right and I have a hard time admitting that I am wrong (hopefully I will get a little help with this over the semester). But, I believe that all people should work to posses the skills to discern whether the beliefs we have are true or false rather than wasting time trying to persuade others to agree without beliefs. If a person does not truly belief in a fact or a statement, but rather just accepts its being, this person will not make the effort to convince others of this same belief. I can pursued a large number of people to join Student Council (which I did), but if none of them believe that what they are doing is important, nothing will be accomplished. Also, who wants to be known as the leader who led others down a dark path? Your followers would be lost and hopeless.
But, a common goal among men should be to enrich our own lives as well as those around us, and to do this we must acquire knowledge – as much as humanly possible. This knowledge, of course, can only benefit our society if it is true. Our beliefs help shape our character, and who wants a character built on false beliefs? Would that make you a false person? I support this stance by pointing to the Presidential Election. A large number of people can post signs in their lawn or put a button on their backpack, but without belief in the candidate, this “campaigner” will not have the will or the desire to go and recruit more members. So, for example, if I was a campaign manager I would first want to make sure that I was 100% convinced that my support for the candidate and belief in the candidate’s platform was based off of truth. Then, after knowing the truth of my beliefs, my conviction for the candidate would be so strong, it would take little effort to reveal the intense support to others. Another example of the importance of knowing the truth of your beliefs lies in the Enron scandal. If the countless everyday investors would have known the truth behind the newfound Fortune 500 Company, many would not have lost saving, retirement funds, and salaries. For this example, knowing the truth of the belief would have saved billions of dollars.
I believe that both questions ask a person if morality is an important factor in expressing their character. Most of these scenarios ask you if you think deceiving people is ok. Some people can live with that type of behavior. I cannot. Also, there are no “right” or “wrong” answers, but they invoke a feeling of right and wrong in each person.
OK. Now I am done. I think I wrote a little too much, but I guess that’s not really a bad thing.

August 27th Discussion - Intro

I loved our class discussion today. My group decided that there is (and never will be) a universal concept of morality. Also, we agreed that your own experienced and influences you encounter shape and mold your morality. And, our last point of agreement was that people use the label "immoral" to invoke fear in others. No one enjoys or respects the label or immorality. I believe all people strive to be moral through their beliefs, behavior, and expression of character. But, morality is so difficult to discuss because context shapes what society views as "right" or "wrong".

But, I can't sit here and type and pretend that I am open minded to everyone's opinions. I believe that my morals are correct although I have no empirical evidence that convinces me that my opinions are superior. I will willingly listen to others and respect their opinions, don't get me wrong, but I find it hard to grasp the idea that everyone can be "morally correct" when placed in the right context.

Morality

I believe that our class discussions will get extremely intense when we discuss issues such as morality and what is considered right and wrong. But, sometimes the feelings you feel most passionate about are the ones that are the hardest to explain. It mostly a gut feeling that you don't know how to put in words. Most of my beliefs come from my devotion to my religion. I am personally concerned with my own behavior and if others precieve if it is moral or not. But, this brings up another question of what different people view as good and bad. I am looking forward to this semester. I have a strong feeling I will walk away from this class tested, and stronger.

Finally...I Hope

Well, my first attempt at creating a blog failed. I hope this one turns out better. I don't really know what you talk about in a blog, or if anyone reads them. I have never read a blog or had any intention to create one, but I guess it will be an exciting experience. Let's get started! Yay blogging!