Ursinus Intro Ethics Blog - Section B

Blog week #5 begins here -- this is a separator post to help you see which posts to focus on.

Initially, I thought that Kant was calling all inclinations negative in that they led a person away from morality. After class and looking at the text again, I am no longer as convinced that is the case. While Kant says that pathological love and tender sympathy cannot be commanded for the sake of duty and willed action, he never states that they take away from morality. After giving the examples of the different people (which I initially took to be saying that the philanthropist who no longer has sympathy but acts out of duty was the only moral person and the rest were not) says that the example of the person acting from duty not inclination brings out the moral worth so we can see that duty is the most important thing of all. Even though spreading joy for pleasure "has nevertheless no true moral worth," Kant here seems to be saying that this is the case only when duty is not involved at all. I initially was reading this as "finding pleasure in spreading joy which is done out of duty has no moral worth" which confused me. Also, this does not mean it is impossible to be moral if you find happiness in acting in accordance with duty. In fact, we have a duty to promote happiness even when there is no inclination to do so. At the same time, I am waiting to see what Kant has to say about these things in particular later on. After the example about the man wishing for death but preserving his life out of duty as an example of something having moral worth, I am still tempted to think Kant is calling for a life of maxims that require doing what we have the strongest aversions to without destroying themselves should they become universal laws. I will resist until I hear more about inclinations occurring because of action based on duty.

When Kant put forth the question: “Can I will that my maxim become a universal law?” to decipher if what you are doing is morally righteous or not, it uplifted my thinking of morality. I’ve been having problems with Unitarianism because the subjectivity of it left little ground to build off of, it seemed. But now we are discussing something that can be proven.

The problem with Unitarianism in its pure form was the inconceivability to standardize the argument. Its basic concept is on an individual level and is therefore too aesthetic to be seen on a global scale. If someone had a passion to kill someone that outweighed the passion for that person to live, it would be morally correct to have that person kill the other. While this is just pure Unitarianism, all other forms of it are just concessions to Kant’s concept of respect and duty.

Giving greater values to higher life forms or actions is giving respect to that. When Unitarianism says that it is wrong for a person to want to kill someone, it is giving respect to that person as something more than just a vessel of happiness but rather a sentient thing that should be given esteem. Thus, Unitarianism is merely conforming to the actual representation of morality.

There are major problems that occur in pure Unitarianism that are void in Kant’s works and any variations of Unitarianism in some way concede points that Kant uses but keep their “moral head” as happiness, or rather the stopping of suffering, instead of good will.

Blog week #4 begins here -- this is a separator post to help you see which posts to focus on.

In class on Friday, we concluded our discussion of whether or not we would ourselves enter a machine which would, in essence, make your dreams come true and make your life perfect, complete with hardships, trials, and perhaps unrealistic payoffs. This comes at the cost of completely leaving the real world once you enter the machine. While this sounds convenient, there is something that seems wrong with this concept to me, and I will try to articulate my opinion clearly enough here for others to either argue against it or at least understand it.
My first complaint is that this is nothing more than an escape from reality, an altered existence. Everything that happens in this machine will inevitably be to your benefit in the long run. Perhaps what is the machine's greatest strong point is something I consider a point of weakness. I should not have to get on a machine to succeed at something that is the goal of my life. The machine is going to require me to make some slight effort at the very least, but the reward is false everywhere except in your mind. While this is the drawing point of the machine, the fact that it doesn’t apply to the real world and is supposed to be a replacement for the real world ruins the concept for me.

I would like to compare this machine to video games, as that’s all this machine really is. I am definitely not one to say that video games have no purpose, nor that they are all a waste of time because their achievements don’t apply to the real world. The major difference from video games and this machine is that video games perhaps stimulate the mind and offer a vacation from reality, they do not replace existence. Games are getting to be so that one game can hold a hell of a lot of information, and MMO games sometimes feel like real world replacements since there is a lot of player-player interaction, but playing a game should be just that, playing.

A game should not become replace your life and claim your life as part of its twisted little program and claim otherwise. Achievements that claim to be made in the real world should be done with effort in the real world. Perhaps you can’t reach the same level of success that you could on the machine, my response to that is that is what makes the machine worthless. Attaining real skills and succeeding at something should not be fed to you.

I feel I still might not have expressed myself clearly enough, but let me know what you think and I can try to clear something up or consider another point of argument for or against the machine.

Blog week #3 begins here -- this is a separator post to help you see which posts to focus on.

Please take a second to answer these three simple questions before reading the rest of the essay. Take it seriously.

Who are you? (name)

Who are you? (personality, thoughts, traits, emotions, hobbies, beliefs)

Why?

How many of you answered the third question with a statement such as “I don’t know, just because I guess” (if you took it seriously that is)? My assumption, if you are anything like me, is that you did not. Instead you attempted to rationalize your ups and downs, ins and outs, and flaws and foibles with some sort of personal history lesson. Your probably cited your childhood, your closest friends, your favorite medias, all to show how they have impacted your being. The truth is our environment is an indefatigable master, pushing the buttons of our self conscious. What specifically about you can you truly say you do not owe at least in part to someone or something before you? Even if it was your own determination and the small help of a role model that got you through some tough times or into Harvard, where did that strength come from? Determinism scares us because it makes us feel useless. But this need not be the case. If you can accept that there are influences all around you, and more importantly that you are a force AS WELL, you will then understand your own importance. For example, as I am influenced to write this by the powers that be in my past, I influence you that you can still do the right thing in the world. In turn, with other positive influences, a certain character might give considerable aid to a charity. This is where determinism transfers successfully into morality, free choice need not apply. We all impact each other every second of every day, which is exactly why we should all try and keep our heads up and spread concepts of positive ethics (what those ethics are is debatable).

Just to further dig free will a grave, take this example. Pretend for a second that you hate bungee jumping. You loathe, fear, and would never even consider attempting it. Free choice would be true if there was an exact instance, during this petrified state of mind, without any outside force, proof, or reason to believe that bungee jumping is safe, you suddenly decided to base jump off the bridge you’re currently walking on. Free choice implies something even crazier than absolute cause and effect; a given scenario where the total opposite of what should happen, happens, with no outside forces. Really contemplate this to its fullest extent and you will find no personal story where “overcoming a fear” refutes this kind of instantaneous impossible action.

- by Lennon Pukowsky

Thanks for getting the blog off to a good start during its first week!

The new blogging period starts two posts below here: Lauren and Brad got in the game admirably early. (I insert this separator post to help you see which posts to focus on.)

Although cultures from every walk of humanity seem to be as different as night and day, overall, there is an overlapping moral code that encompasses every culture. With such diversity in human nature, the overlapping moral code is ambiguous and broad but it is a direction that every human being follows without exception.
The Golden Rule, treat others as you wish to be treated, is something that is very basic, that covers every possible moral code, be it the most reactionary or liberal. This moral code, however, can be manipulated by some cultures and lead this to an illogical conclusion. Hitler saw it fit to kill the Jewish “species” so everyone could prosper the Jewish stranglehold on the world. This is an illogical conclusion because he illogically came to the conclusion that the Jews were not human and did not deserve the respect as apart of the Golden Rule.
Hitler is an easy example to give of moral codes being perverted, however, a harder situation to categorize is the treatment of the elderly in Inuit tribes. When an individual slows down the tribe, that person is left to die in order for the community to live. Although this might be construed as a cruel act, I believe that this is taken out of context. Imagine that you live with a small tribe and you have helped it survive in a horrible environment. However, you, as everyone does, start to get old and actually slow down the tribe. Wouldn’t you choose to end one old person’s life in order to save many more members of your tribe? In this tribe, the idea of self-sacrifice is used to help the tribe and, although altered, is for the proper intent of the Golden Rule.

I obtained my blog post from Chuck Norris in a spiritual vision and, therefore, this blog is perfect.

In class today, I brought up an issue with knowing what "the" moral code is in our culture because it seems like so many moral codes exist simultaneously within our culture. Kelly said something along the lines of "while it may be difficult to find out, that does not mean it is impossible." Perhaps those who think that moral relativism is true can explain how this works. It seems to me that it was relatively easy to see where our society as a whole stands on the issues we discussed in class (mass murder and genital mutilation). But what about controversial issues like the invasion of Iraq, abortion, same-sex marriage, and torture in detention camps? How do you know what our culture says is right and wrong about these things? Also, how do you determine which moral code you should follow if you belong to specific groups in society that have different explicit moral codes? For example, what if the moral codes of your family and the church you belong to conflict?

Singer argues that we ought to give away any money that is unnecessary for meeting our needs, and that not doing so is wrong. However, it goes against the way people want to live their lives, and our wants are what drive us forward in life. It is not plausible believe that Americans would live their lives solely to relieve the suffering of others, because now the people live their lives climbing a social ladder while earning enough to afford a few (or a large amount) of luxuries.
I am in no way saying that we should be leaving those in need with no assistance at all; however, while I would probably give away a portion of my earnings to others, I am unwilling to give up everything I want in life in order to save others. This is something that Singer does not address, because he believes his argument is morally sound, truthful, and valid, but this does not mean we will all change our lives to fit his moral principle because we value other aspects of our lives as well. This could be viewed as a slippery-slope because one might ask, ‘if killing others is fun, would that outweigh the moral benefits of not-killing to make life worth living?’ So, while I do not think there should be a specific value set on how much we should have to give or not give (which for Singer is an unrealistic amount for the common person), I think we should try not to be too superfluous with spending money on our wants, but that we should not feel obligated to give almost everything we earn to someone else.