NINA'S PHILO BLOG

building blocks of morals

ninaliu — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 01:04:10 +0000

As human beings it is hard to stay in line with what we should always do as morally right. There are temptations and vices that may lead some to make the wrong decisions. That is why there is a need to understand what actions are morally good and to know that it is performed out of good will. By understanding the underlying virtue, we can try to live a life that is in the direction towards moral good. As rational human beings we are to able to reason out whether something that is good or bad. A man that kills knows that he has done something immoral. Even a man that lies or cheats. Therefore, we should only do upon others that you would also do upon yourself.

Aristotle’s Virtue

ninaliu — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 07:17:35 +0000

Aristotle argues that virtue lie within the mean. He considers courage to be a virtue and a mean between cowardice and recklessness. To have moderation and self-control is a virtue and it is a mean between having a lack of or refusal of all feelings. A person is thought to be a coward if he surrenders at the first sign of danger or is considered to be reckless dangerous and does unnecessary actions without thinking. By focusing on distinct ways in which we are virtuous or vicious, it will enable a better understanding of how to become more virtuous.

Aristotle

ninaliu — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 02:30:47 +0000

We live in a society which is governed by laws to protect the people. But how does politics play a role in morality? Aristotle believes that ever skill of man has in life is intended towards a purpose or a greater good. If there is some goal that every activity aims at then there must be some ultimate good. For Aristotle believes that the master art behind the master good is political science. The good of man or happiness is acting rationally with virtue. It it hard to agree at this point because it may depend on certain situations. Is there a correlation between happiness and that of the goal of political science? One can have high morals and be unhappy. If one was to think about others at all times and not think of oneself is considered to be selfless has high virtues, but can deep down be unhappy with oneself. His views may not be concentrated on one person but the overall people. It seems that laws in politics are formed in consensus with what is best for the overall general population.

Kant’s Social Contract

ninaliu — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:50:37 +0000

According to Kant, we have unlimited rights in the state of nature which leads us to live in a state of war. Under Social Contract we have limited rights. By giving up these rights that cause struggle and conflict in our lives like the right to kill, the right to other bodies, will allow us to live in peace. If agreeing upon giving up these rights, then breaking any contract would therefore be immoral. Once a law is in place then a moral exists, but before there is any agreement in place, there is no morality or immorality. If the contract can not exist until the government enforces it, then could government be part of the contract? If such rights are transfered to the government, then the government has much power to do what it wants. By giving them such rights, government can start wars and by doing so killing innocent people is made justifiable. Killing is still immoral. But the government would say that it is okay because it out of defense. Regardless, the state of war is still in existance even though we have already give up our rights.

Hobbe’s state of nature

ninaliu — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 04:24:30 +0000

As humans we need to have the basic necessities like food, water, shelter, etc. to survive. According to Hobbe, he believes these goods are really scarce and because of this, man will take as much as possible to provide for the future. All this leads to the inevitable state of war between men to conquer one another. Let’s say a small pilot plane crashes on an desert island and they have no hope of being rescued. These survivors would have to fend for themselves to find basic necessities to live. Would each person act in self-interest to survive or would they act in benevolence and help each other? If the answer is dependent upon what each individual would do, then it is clear that the state of nature is a state of war. However, I believe that there are good natured people. If those that are benevolent outweigh the ones that act purely in self-interest then the state of nature would not be as terrible as Hobbe believes it to be.

Natural Talents

ninaliu — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 02:24:43 +0000

According to Kant, it would be a God given waste if people didn’t use their talent. He believes that the maxim of his neglect of his own talents would break down under univeral law. He believes that it is human nature for us to have rationality. ”For a rational being, he necessarily wills that his facilities be developed, since they serve him and have been given him, for all sorts of possible purpose.” To this, Kant thinks that we should all be acting in our own interest and is therefore necessary to cultivate our useful talents. His argument is somewhat contradicting. He believes that a goodwill is present if an action is not only in accordance with duty but also out of duty. Cultivating our talents could be acting out of inclination. It is then considering the consequences and not just acting becuase it’s a duty.

Self-love

ninaliu — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:01:58 +0000

According to Kant, it is a duty not to committ suicide. Would someone thinking about taking their own life be morally wrong? His maxim, “From self-love I make it my principle to shorten my life if staying alive threatens more evil than its happiness.” This can not be served as universal law becuase to Kant, self-love means to “stimulate the furtherance of life” or to preserve life. The law of human nature is contradictory- self-love is to make us keep going and to also lead us to destroy our lives. The maxim can’t be universalized. Therefore, suicide based on self-love can’t be moral.

Categorical Imperative

ninaliu — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:59:32 +0000

Under Kant’s Categorical Imperative, we can only act in such a way that our maxim could be willled into universal law. Suppose you were unemployed for weeks and weeks and have been unsuccessful in finding any type of work. Obviously you need to support yourself. In order for you to get an interview, you lie on your resume. If people started lying on their resumes than the entire hiring process would change or cease entirely. No one would get any jobs then. The maxim (getting the job interveiw) will never be achieived since the action (lying on your resume) is immoral. Therefore, we have a duty not to lie on our resume. Categoriacal Imperative is a good model because it gets to the core of our rationality of what not to do.

kant vs. mill

ninaliu — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 01:16:24 +0000

Mill believes that happiness drives human purpose. But can happiness be the ultimate source since it should ration that human beings already desire and seek pleasure? Kant feels that qualities of temperament, like happiness, is not good in itself. If happiness was the sole purpose, then we may have just as well been born with instinct, since it’s an efficient enough tool to obtain happiness- all animals seems to be quite content with their lives. If anything, reason causes us to want more desire and happiness in life. Instead, Kant believes that reason is just the governor of our will. Therefore, to Kant, happiness can’t be the ultimate goal of man. It seems that Mill surpasses the exercise of our will and is mainly concerned with the pleasures that justify the consequences of an act, while Kant puts more emphasis on it.

ninaliu — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:00:02 +0000

Another objection is stating that Utilitarianism is too demanding; that it’s asking too much of people for them to think about overall happiness of society. It is unreasonable for one to always be motivated to promote the general welfare of all. Mill argues that “no system of ethics requires that the sole motive of all we do shall be a feeling of duty, on the contrary, nintyninth of all of our actions are done from other motives, and rightly so done, if the rule of duty does not condemn them…the morality has nothing to do with the actions…” Mill is basically saying that it’s not why or the motivation, but the action or duty itself. Utilitarianism is more concerned with what makes it good and feels that one does not have to take everyone into account, as long as the action doesn’t affect everyone in a negative way. Mill doesn’t really do a good job in defending his position. It seems that Utilitarianism involves too much of our fate into morality. Morality should be about the choices one makes instead of the situations we were born in.