Saturday, September 27, 2014

WILL

Kant argues that will motivate action. This is a statement that I firmly argues with, many times people have thoughts or ideas of what they want to do but without the actual will to do it the never carry out that idea or plan. Will is something that aims to produce result, in fact without will there would probably be no results at all.  Like we were discussing in class goodwill will happen regards less of the outcome. If we were to give a diabetic a donut but we didn’t know his health status and he got sick, giving the diabetic to donut was the a good will even thought it caused him harm. We had no previous knowledge of the person’s health and therefore it could not have been bad from our standpoint. It seems odd to think that we still had good will even after harming someone, but it is true. We did not know that person would get sick and all we wanted to do was share some delicious donuts. What do you guys think about the principle? Is it wrong to think that we still did something good even though someone was harmed?

And just remember that it could also work the other way around. For example if someone was driving recklessly and ran over a criminal that was on his way to rob a store it does not make it okay that he was ran over. At the time he got ran over he was just a pedestrian on the road. In the end he might have bad intentions but the criminal was not harming anyone while walking. So what do you guys think about these principles?

Friday, September 26, 2014

Good Intentions and Hindsight

I find it interesting that Kant would propose the idea that, regardless of the consequences of an action, as long as an action in itself has good intentions, it is "absolved" in a way of negative effects. Granted, I would NOT propose to say that he would believe that those who sought to do good and managed to mess it up with miserable consequences are entirely innocent, and that they are good people based solely on good intentions. That would be a logical fallacy (What d'you think about that idea though? ARE people absolved of consequences should their true aim be for the good of other people?).
But there's this idea in modern philosophy, which is likely bastardized in some fashion or another, about roads to terrible things being paved with good intentions. I'd rather not go on an exact quote about it, but you've likely heard of it before: People who want to do good but are willing to go about any means to achieve it are ultimately doing good with the wrong intentions.
So there's this interesting part of me that wants Kant to be right (I myself ascribe to Enlightenment thought to a fair degree; science and reason over spirituality and emotion), but I'm from a time where the idea of trying to achieve good and the consequences of the action taken being completely irrelevant seems sort of missing the point in some way. It's as if we expect to be able to expect the future and make educated guesses today, which I have no doubt that Kant takes this into account at length, but perhaps not for our purposes.
In my own personal life, I've tried to do good and respect possible consequences, by which I mean try to predict some of it by my previous experiences and learn from that. It seems logical to me, rather than impossible, to try and find a method for producing good from experience, not through some disconnected logical foundation. But without a logical foundation, I am blind, because my experiences and cultural identity want good from MY perspective. If everyone were reasonable by the standard of a firmly Atheistic person, nobody would experience the necessity of religious culture, which is not something new or recent, but has been around since human history was being recorded. We cannot possibly remove our own experiences and biases, but through scientific study (as Kant would observe, I imagine), we can create a kind of basis for true morality and ethics, rather than one based out of ourselves and what we are taught.
So here I am, fighting with myself, trying to reconcile the idea that doing good from personal experience and methods that can be tested will bring about good, but that I cannot ever remove my own bias about what good is or how it can even be good if I don't know what it is in the first place outside of my own definition thereof.

-Brian C. Rodgers.
Doing a Good Will


Kant says that when you act out of “good will” you act out of a moral obligation or duty. He says that your action should not go hand in hand with the consequences that it produces. I believe that to be true. When you decide to do a good will, it should be done entirely without any kind of expectation of the product of that action. The action in itself is only one part of the “good will”. The second part should be its detachment or expectation of the action. Only after having done both parts of the action can it be consider a “good will”.

A recent example of a “good will” was done by a twelve year old boy that caught a foul ball at a Red Sox game.  He immediately turned around and gave it away to a young girl sitting behind him. Although we cannot be sure of the expectations behind his action, we could see how happy that action made the girl. The consequences of that action were that he got to feel good about the action done and that he got a whole lot of media coverage and recognition. So the question is did he do a good deed out of moral obligation or duty? And did he do it without any expectation for reward?


Personally, I would like to think that most of us fall under the category of “good will” people the majority of the time, that we all have a personal duty to act in the best interest of others and without any type of expectations. I believe that good things come to those who wait and do good deeds. Both parties definitely benefit from a good deed so why not do it more often and without any type of expectations.

Philosophy in 21st Century.

Our purpose in life, according to Plato and Khan, is being happy or feeling well. In order to achieve happiness we must do good deeds and obey the natural and moral laws. Therefore, if a person wants to be happy, one must sacrifice time and energy in order to reach virtue. That is why in old books or movies there are certain old people that are respected because they have achieved virtue. An example can be in a mythology movie where one of the characters is the master. Obviously they are powerful because of their knowledge and experience. Therefore their entire life, majority, was invested in becoming virtuous. My question is, is it really worth it? If it took them that long to achieve it, what is the point of having it if eventually they will have to leave. I am not saying that is bad, what I am saying shouldn't there be a quicker way to know if a person is virtuous or not?

In addition, who determines what is virtuous in today society? Has the definition of virtue evolved? In my opinion, it is very complicated to point out an Aristotle or Plato in our days. They would be seen as radicals. Plus, there is less respect in our society. People do not follow what is good instead they follow the bad. Mostly, because there is the argument of being "different ". Basically, a majority of people are attracted to the bad philosophy e.g philosophy is split between radicals and liberals.

The 1st proposition of duty vs. The Will

The majority of the week in class, we focused on two of Kant's subjects duty and will. Duty was analyzed into 3 propositions and will was considered a good act. Dr. Johnson used feeding the homeless as an example of will and the results and/or consequences that follows the act of will. So, say your will was to take up donations for your neighbor to have a certain surgery done in order for that person not to die. So you come up with more than enough money for the person to their surgery done. Whether or not this person lives or dies, would this will still be considered good in itself? Moving along to the subject of duty, according to the 1st proposition of duty, do you have to have a certain occupation like a firefighter to be classified as the 1st proposition of duty? If not then give an example of who and why this person can be classified as the 1st proposition of duty? How can you compare the 1st proposition of duty to the will? If not how can you differentiate the two acts?

Is goodness common sense?

In Kant's theory of common sense knowledge and morality, he explains that the idea of "goodness" should be able to be discerned by a rational human being. In other words, people have a natural tendency to determine what is good and bad. Human beings do not need be taught how to act or do good because we are born with a rational mind that dictates our actions. Is it possible for humans to naturally know good from bad? or is it something that we simply learn along the way by observing others? Personally, I must admit that I agree with Kant that rational human beings are born with an innate knowledge of what is good. Although many can argue that morality is gained through the process of life experiences, I believe it is not the primary element that provides us with the essential understanding of what is good. Even though it is necessary to the development of morality, it is not the foundation of our ethical understanding of things.


As we discussed in class, not everyone is capable of thinking rationally. For example, someone in class pointed out that a gorilla saving a kid could have been a moral act. We came to the conclusion that the animal saved the kid out of instinct and not because he was aware he was committing a virtuous act. Therefore, an animal cannot commit a moral act since it does not have the capacity to reason that he is doing something good for its own sake. Overall, I think Kant's theory achieves to explain the nature of morality in human beings.

Goodwill


What is goodwill? “The only thing that is good without qualifications is goodwill.” What really defines goodwill? What is the analyzing argument, how do we analyze what goodwill actually is. Obviously according the statement there is no qualifications, technically, but as humans something has to define good. Some people’s version of what is morally good is different, even know generally we all have a basis of what is morally right and we kind of just translate by saying what is morally right is good. “The goodness of the Goodwill is not dependence of consequences.” Do we really do good things without consequences? Just because you don’t get a reward, doesn’t mean you don’t get satisfaction out of. If a person does something nice for someone what is the root? We like to make ourselves feel better or we truly want the person we help to actually be helped, that is still considered a consequence. We never truly know what the consequences are going to be anyways, we just assume when we do something the consequences are going to be how we want. Taking things like this into consideration really what defines goodwill?

A Noble Lie ok?

What make a noble lie right? The way many of us was raised as a child, the adults always told us telling a lie is wrong and it was something we should not do. A child you learn from people and the things around you. You learn as a small baby to grow up and adapt to the world and society so, everything we do now is a learned trait programed into our minds to act, think, and learn a certain way. What make telling any lie right if it's anything but the truth. I know many of us heard growing up as a kid always tell the truth, the truth will set you free or, the saying tell the truth because when you lie you have to come up with another lie to cover the first lie and another lie to cover up that lie, and so on the cycle of lies just continues. How can telling a noble different from any other lie? The way that I think of it no matter what type of lie it is, it is not the truth. This will make me question the person who told the noble lie integrity. Why? because I was taught my whole life not to lie, however as I got older and became more self-depended without any parent influences I learn that it's okay to lie basically because it's a noble lie. What's the purpose of any lie? To cover up truth that you don't wont anyone to know. A lie is meant to be deceiving, so why would anyone wont to trust someone that is build up on deceiving people? What makes the people who tells noble lie more powerful than anyone else where they can do that and it be okay? Being that child that was told the truth will set you free, you would think society was built off truth, but then again as a child life is great and growing up in society you realize everything isn't as great as it seemed.

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Giving Donuts to the Homeless...

In class on Wednesday, we talked about the difference between moral actions. The examples we used were:
1.        Giving donuts to the homeless, some of them being diabetic and dying from the donuts. Does that make the intention of helping the poor a bad or immoral action?
2.       Going into a convenience store with a loaded gun with every intention of robbing and murdering, but instead shooting the robber that was already in the store when you got there. Does that make the outcome of the situation good even if the intentions were bad?
In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant argues that in order for an action to qualify as moral, it must be done for the sake of being moral and for no other reason, or ulterior motive. He also states that a moral action is defined by the initial intentions, not what the action produced. The second principle I mentioned applies to the above examples. Giving donuts to the homeless would be defined, in Kant’s terms, as moral because the intentions were moral only for the sake of being moral. On the other hand, the second example would not be defined as moral in Kant’s eyes because the intentions were not moral.
                I would agree with Kant’s ideas in these two examples because it seems to make quite a bit of sense. I’m sure there is an example someone can think of, where it might make Kant’s principles controversial, but for these examples, his ideas fit. Can anyone think of an instance when it would be difficult to decide if the action is moral or immoral by Kant’s definition?

Friday, September 19, 2014

happiness vs. pleasure in your life

Today during the debate there was a big controversy between Aristotle’s “happiness” and the Epicureanism’s “pleasure”. My question is whether happiness or pleasure is the only intrinsic good in life and if so why?

Personally I believe that pleasure is the only intrinsic good. My grounding behind this is that many people argue that the reason people live a virtuous and happy life is because it brings them pleasure. This reasoning would fall under Epicureanism rather then under Aristotle’s “happiness” logic. I believe that I have personal lived by this logic to an existent, I mean if you think about it people try to only do things they find pleasurable and avoid things that cause them pain or that they fear.

The thing most people forget about is, just like Aristotle’s “Golden Mean” for virtue, there is a mean in the Epicurean mind set. Epicureans believe that one can have pleasure in excuse and that some type of pleasures can cause pain. This idea ties very closely to the golden mean. So Epicurean are not  greedy pigs that blindly chase after pleasures.


My question to you is whether “Happiness” or “Pleasure” is an intrinsic good? Also can you relate either theory to your life.

Is Stoicism the way to peace or more conflict?

In our discussion on Wednesday, we talked about Epictetus and his association with stoicism. We stated that he wanted to transform emotion into a rational way of going about our lives and how we must strive to stop reacting to outside events. It had me thinking about what the possibilities would be if we were to take these measures into effect in the world today. On one hand, it could reduce the amount of tensions people have and on the other hand, it could increase these tensions. It could reduce tensions in the sense that if people stopped reacting to events out of their control then we would possibly be at peace amongst ourselves. People would not protest, make documentaries, PSA's, etc... Events would be left as they are not to be challenged or looked into. While this would make peace, it would really just leave us to be indifferent to those events and we would most likely just be concerned about our own well-being. I do not think that this would work out for us in any way. It would likely just lead to a dull human experience.

At the same time, if we stop reacting to outside events that would lead to more occurrences of said events because there is no one to point out or bring attention to its existence. This cannot therefore bring us a peace of mind. What are your interpretations of stoicism in terms of conflict in today's society? Is my interpretation off in regards to what Epictetus discussed?

Under the Influence

                                                          The most craziest thing a person can do is to believe they're in complete control of their own fate. When we desire for something to happen we all want things to go a certain way. The truth is that the events in our lives will never happen the way that we picture it even if we crossed our fingers hoping to attain it. However, before you do something you have to first realize and understand the actions that are about to take place. Many people miss out on the opportunities in life because we are afraid of the unknown. Death for example is a part of life and we all have to experience it once. That is something completely out of control and we don't know how we're going to leave this earth. Epictetus believes that we can control only certain things in life like our desires, impulses, and our own actions  Our inheritance of possessions, or even our reputations aren't in our control.
                      We as people stress so much on how we will leave the earth as how people around us will view us as an individual. Don't be consumed by others and urge yourself to be like them. Strive to be yourself because that's what you're destined to be. What people forget is that when you're dead none of those things will matter. The main focus is to  live a life to the full extent and try to control  and change the things that are possible. Also, the message is supposed to point out that you shouldn't live by what others think or expect of you. Live life as the way that you desire. You have to keep a mindset that your life is like a dinner party. If you're offered something then you must accept it in moderation. Don't reach for it until the opportunity is present to accept. Another point is that some people are on a mission to harm or hurt you in life. You have a choice to  either show your emotions or keep it to yourself. If you let it bother you to the point where others can see makes the person who intentionally harmed you happy because they achieved that mission. Not everyone in life is good. When you boast about your riches and inheritance doesn't necessarily make you better than the next person. Whatever morals that you may have try to stay true to them and follow them as if you were obeying a government law avoiding consequences. Remind yourself that you're worthy of life and it has a purpose. If you don't want someone to offer your body to a stranger then don't let anyone become in complete  control of your mind.

Intrinsically Good Pleasure

On Wednesday, we talked about Lucretius's philosophy based on hedonism, which is that pleasure is the only intrinsic good. At first I disagreed with the idea because I don't think that every kind of pleasure is achieved through good deeds. Pleasure is different for everyone and some people may get pleasure from doing things that we consider morally wrong. Some may take pleasure in hurting others, therefore I wasn't really convinced that pleasure is the only intrinsic good.


However as the discussion progress, I found out that there's more about the idea behind hedonism. There are two conditions for pleasure to be intrinsically good, pleasure have to be achieved with ataraxia and aponia. Ataraxia means freedom or peace from fear and aponia means the absence of pain. With these two conditions the idea makes more sense because when someone commits morally wrong actions fear and pain are usually incorporated in their actions. If one gets pleasure from hurting others, they wouldn't have peace in mind for fear of being caught and their actions inflict pain on others. Therefore even if this person gets pleasure, it isn't an intrinsically good pleasure because the two conditions aren't fulfilled.


With the two conditions set for pleasure, I would agree more about Lucretius's philosophy because it makes more sense how pleasure can be an intrinsic good.

Why Are We Afraid?

When talking in class we talked about how we feared losing someone we are so deeply in love with, and afraid of death. We are so afraid of losing someone that we are so deeply in love with.  We don’t want to lose it because of the happiness they bring. Lose them because you don’t want them to see them make the next person happy, when your feelings are still deeply with that person. When we have someone that we are deeply in love with we do everything we can to keep them happy, we are so afraid that if someone else can come along and do everything to keep them happy that they will walk right out. We are also afraid not knowing when someone could just fall out of love with you and walk out of our lives. We are also afraid of the pain that being in loves bring. The sleepless nights, wondering what he could be doing and hoping that he is thinking of you and hoping that he will pick up the phone and call you. When deeply in love and thinking about if a person might leave we always think to say to ourselves are we doing everything  we can to keep someone happy that I don’t lose who I love so dearly. But sometimes losing people in our lives could gain us something so much better. Another thing that we spoke on in class is being afraid of the unknown. We are so afraid of things that we can’t see. Far as death, we are afraid because we don’t know where we will end up. If we are either going to heaven or hell we never know, as far as every day we have our day planned saying that once we finish class we are going home. The fact we don’t fear going home is because we have seen home we know how home feel because we have experienced home for ourselves besides us reading or someone telling us about it. Heaven or hell is not like a place that we can visit and come back to tell our friends how the visit was. That’s just like when someone tell you about a place they visit they are not afraid to visit because someone has visualized it and have seen it unlike death. No man can tell you about death even though we do read it in the bible and it tell us not to fear it it’s the fact that we can’t experience death and come back to earth.  So, why do we cry when we lose someone is deeply? When we don’t have to go through the suffering and hurt anymore. Why do we really fear death, is it because that we are not living right and we are not sure where we might go? Or the fact that no one walking earth can actually tell you how much you will love heaven once you are there, or how much you will not like hell when you get there.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Peace and Long Life

I'm quite taken with stoicism. I'm not sure if it's truly the answer to unlocking a happy life (if there even is such an answer, if there even is such a thing as a happy life), but I think it has merit. I think it can be quite helpful as long as one isn't repressing the emotion but rather accepting it and letting and it go, not giving it power.

It's actually a message that's pretty common in our society. Don't worry about it; let it go. The Bible advises against worrying. I'm sure you've all hears that Frozen song by now. There's always that one overly stressed out character in romantic comedies that just needs to learn to have fun and stop worrying so much. Stressing out about things we can't control doesn't accomplish anything, so why do it? It does seem to be a useless punishment we inflict on ourselves.

I do agree that our emotions weigh us unnecessarily down most of the time. Do our happy emotions really make up for the bad ones? Do the bad ones take away from the good ones? I obviously don't have the answer, but I lean towards thinking that they don't touch. The good are good by themselves. The bad are awful in their own area. And really, what harm would it do to just echo Vonnegut's "So it goes" whenever we lose something we loved? If we didn't mourn but just accepted the loss? The world would probably improve if we all strive to be logical.

Right, Spock?


Right.