Ursinus Intro Ethics Blog - Section B

Some of the many words to describe the Supreme Being are Heaven, Tao, God, the One, and the Divine Mind. It’s amazing that the Chinese considered there terms to be interchangeable and I find this position to be very appealing. The Man-Heaven continuum fascinates me for I agree that there is an element of the eternal inside every single human. By cultivating the Ren mind the individual becomes more in tune with the Eternal Being. The more the Ren mind has been cultivated, the closer the individual body is to the eternal creator. While most faiths have some way of connecting the daily life of the individual with the concept of eternity, I appreciate Confucianism’s idea of having an ethical mindset to guide one’s actions towards the eternal. This seems to connect to the Jewish concept of the Sabbath, for one day each week is devoted to nothing but the eternal. While this does not continue throughout the week like Ren, it’s still an important ritual designed to focus one towards a figure outside of the temporal realm. The ritual in Islam of praying five times a day is similar for there’s constant times for reflection and appreciation of the concept of Heaven or God. I think atheists or agnostics would do good to devise a way to appreciate the Eternal Sovereign. This way they would cultivate an appreciation beyond the temporal.

-- posted for Jimi James Foehrenbach

Taoism's view on sexual intercourse and how it should be used seems interesting at first, but it eventually turns on its head and becomes sexist rather quickly. I'm a little cautious here, because I'm well aware that polygamy is something that I can't seem to find acceptable without some fierce arguments for it, so I feel as though my views might be a little tainted. It is mentioned that sexual intercourse should be used to increase the health of people, but it seems to be misapplied when the health-increasing nature of the act ceases to be in favor of both involved parties and begins to take a one-sided approach. The idea eventually warped into a man gaining health by taking a woman's yin essence, keep himself from ejaculating so the retained semen could increase his own health (by flowing to the brain, of course), and then moving on to the next woman since the first woman was now no longer of use.
This illustrates a large problem that we would have with Taoism, since we are unable to grasp with the idea that people should be unequal to other people based on something like gender. There could be some larger work at play here, which is why I said this is perhaps a misapplication. The idea that the health of both parties would increase during intercourse is acceptable, but the idea that the benefit should be twisted to be one-sided, or that several people should be used to benefit one person (thus degrading the value of several people to all a mere fraction of the worth of the one person) is the result of a conclusion that was reached using a premise which I take to be false. However, perhaps it is the state of China itself that allows this theory to get blown out of proportion. Perhaps it is the idea of male-dominance built into the culture that is at fault, and not the philosophy. It is possible that if a surge in Taoism occurred in America, then it is probable that the Taoist following in America would seek to increase the health of both parties involved, and to attempt to promote an equality of some sort between the complementary opposites which are coming together here.

Blog week #8 begins here -- this is a separator post to help you see which posts to focus on.

One thing that occurred to me when reading about Daoism is the seeming incompatibility with working for social justice. I am going to discuss examples from the text that led to this concern. First of all, knowledge is viewed negatively and "becoming a child" is best. It seems impossible to work for social justice while living in ignorance and not seeking knowledge of the experiences of others. Secondly, "When a man who wishes to reform the world takes it in hand, I perceive that there will be no end to it" and "Whoever makes destroys; whoever grasps loses (159)" suggest that acting to change something in particular with a goal in mind is bad. This seems to call for acting in response to things, but never towards a particular end and never putting thought into planning or accomplishing any goals. Further, working for social justice involves active courage, which is explicitly condemned in the Dao De Jing. Courage which "is expressed in daring will soon meet death" and "whose courage is shown in self-restraint will be preserved." I think it is impossible to bring about social change by restraining oneself from taking actions that one finds necessary.

While in class, a sharp distinction was made between the Western way of thinking – manifested in Consequentialism – and the eastern way of thinking – manifested in Hinduism. While there is a major difference between the two, I think it would be important to point out a similar pattern of thought.

Consequentialism summed up is to fulfill all desires that a person has to make them happy while Hinduism wants all desires purged from the individual for a fulfilling life. Although they sound on the opposite ends of a spectrum they have a common goal: to leave the happy or fulfilled individual with no desires. Consequentialism, I would consider, is the weak version of the goal because it concedes to the person that they should just fill all desires they have. I call it weak because the person does not struggle at the root of the problem, having desires, but rather at its extensions, fulfilling those desires. Hinduism is a stronger version because it does not allow an individual to any room to do what he or she wishes. It “kicks you in the butt” to say that you are not allowed any commodities and, even though it might be easier in that it does not multiply the desires for the individual like Consequentialism does, it does attack the problem at its base.

Within this, I would say that the two are extremely different, and would probably concede it being polar opposites, but this is a similarity that should be voiced. Furthermore, this does not change many of the facts that differ between the two schools but I believe the polarizing of Consequentialism and Hinduism should take one step down and closer together for it to be completely compliant with what we’ve learned so far.

Blog week #7 begins here -- this is a separator post to help you see which posts to focus on.

During the discussion of "That Matrimony Should Be the Union of One Man with One Woman," Aquinas seems to be saying that lines of reasoning can be natural instincts. I don't agree with this. Let's look at what he says: first, he says that all animals desire to "indulge at will in the pleasure of copulation" and anything but monogamy will result in deprivation. While the urge to fight for sex may be instinctual, the reasoning that monogamy is necessary to have copulation at will does not seem to be. Further, men naturally want to be assured of their offspring, and this is why they want monogamy. However, it doesn't seem to me that these things are instincts: only reasons. Perhaps "natural instinct" is a line of reasoning instilled into every member of a species by God? Otherwise, I can't tell how a specific line of reasoning is an instinct. But then how can we explain the existence of people who do not desire monogamy? What if God does not instill particular lines of reasoning, but "reason" itself, which guides everyone to the same conclusions? Has everyone with reasons to reject monogamy been given faulty reason by God?

Today we talked about matrimony and it being a natural institution for humans to have sex. St. Thomas Aquinas deduces this from other animals and reason. However, it seems as if his reasoning is faulty and starts off where he shouldn’t have – with animals.

Humans are distinctly different from any other animal and, while we cannot take an example from the animal kingdom to explain our consciousness, we should not take an example for our sexual formation. It seems pretty obvious that men wish to spread their seeds to as many females as possible. Thus, it would be in the complete opposite to reason for a male to court only one person. Although this is our natural way, it does not mean that it should be that way. The intertwining of sexual relationships with emotional relationships over the millennia of human development has turned humans from polygamy towards monogamy because humans realize that when a partner receives sexual gratification from another person other than his or her partner, that affects the partner’s life. This has nothing to do with caring for the child because, in all reality, it is not necessary to have multiple parents for a child. Penguins must have another to help make sure an egg doesn’t freeze but humans are not in the same situation.

I believe that humans are, in nature, very lustful creatures but they are also logical. In being logical, people realize their behavior as faulty or hurtful and can change it accordingly. Aquinas’ argument for monogamous matrimony is completely different from fact.

Blog week #6 begins here -- this is a separator post to help you see which posts to focus on.

One thing that has bothered me a bit about Kant's views is his concept that the reason we have moral value that other animals do not is because we are beings able to rationalize and verbalize these rationalizations, as well as having moral standards and being able to apply (or misapply) them, as well as evaluating and re-evaluating them.
This definition is a bit extensive, but I wanted to cover the bases of what it was that Kant feels gives us moral values. I have a couple of problems with this, all of which seem to be answered with Kant's seemingly cheep way out, from my point of view. A couple of my objections are as follows:
- Should a child that is in the age bracket before being able to speak be considered as morally valuable?
- Should a child that can speak fluently, but is yet unable to rationalize why it should perform certain actions be considered on our level of morally valuable?
- Should an elderly person who has lost some of his or her mental capacity and is 'cenile', or perhaps has a disease such as Alzheimer's, retain his or her moral worth?
- Should someone who has no regard for the welfare of others, a cold and sadistic serial killer, for instance, retain his or her moral worth and be considered rational, even though the person's actions have been consistently irrational based on Kant's logic and said behavior will not foreseeably change?
- Should someone with a mental illness (for intance someone with paranoid schizophrenia) who is incapable of making rational decisions due to a condition and is likely to be a harm to his/herself and others be considered to have our level or moral value?
- Should an zygote be considered to have a moral status even though it isn't yet born? This could be different than a baby having intrinsic moral value.
Kant's easy-way-out that I mentioned earlier is the one which Kelli enlightened us with in class, that being that someone being born into the species of humans, the only species currently able to rationalize, apply, evaluate, and vocalize moral standards, is enough to give one a moral status and rights. I have pointed out several cases that either trouble me as he wishes to leave them, or that might suggest that his idea of being a human is not sufficient for giving one a moral status and rights. It seems as if he simply started with the concept that all human beings have moral rights, these rights that are greater than the rights of any other living species, and worked backwards to find a way to justify this conclusion, rather than starting with saying that beings that can rationalize have a moral status and arriving at a solution, since he includes humans that clearly aren't (or never will be) on even having a basic level of the ability to rationalize.