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?