Is equality fair?

Hey everyone! so this morning's topic on government led me to deeply analyze the current situation of our government. The human rights principles that we came up with during class left me speculating if it is okay for the government to violate a minority's rights for the good of the majority of its citizens. Such as passing a law that is meant to be enforced equally to its citizen, yet it only affects a certain percentage of its citizens. For example, American citizens are obligated to pay taxes in order to support the nation and for the well being of the majority. Many can agree that often people do not benefit from it and that in fact it does not apply equally to everyone.


While it is intended to keep the nation in balance, it often fails to be applied fairly. For instance, middle class citizens often struggle to pay their taxes because the amount of money they gain is barely enough to make a living. Where as rich people are not necessarily taxed with the same proportion as a middle class citizen. Another thing that is wrong with this system is the various ways in which the government spends the tax money. A great part of this money goes towards programs that are unnecessary for the nation. Just think about the huge amounts spent on military programs! but programs that are necessary like health programs are often neglected or ignored. 


If we examine our lives as college students we can see how this system's regulations affects us. While having to work and pay for college tuition we are still obligated to give up money that we may not afford to give. The worst thing is that the government does not invest that tax money on education as much as it does on everything else. How do you guys feel about this topic? do you feel negatively affected in away?

Abortion

In our most recent symposium we were either a Kant philosopher or a Mill philosopher. So my opposition is abortion, the overplayed opposition, but here it goes. This is still a big debate in politics if it should be legal. Is it good or bad if we make it legal or illegal, how is going to beneficial to the whole or in just self interest, basically the question is do we take Mill or Kant's view to this question. Things to considers: What if a woman gets raped and does not want to have a child, what if the woman would die if she had the baby, what if the woman could not simply afford and did not want to be put a child up for adoption, even though people really wants children adopting is a long process and some kids never get adopted out. So what do you all think on the abortion idea?

Equal Rights for All?

Being born into the world you are a free rational anatomy agent to do as you will. Kant's second categorical imperative states that every agent is rational, anatomy and have freedom. Every human should be treat as a human and not anything less. Everyone should be treated as "ins" in itself. What is absurd is that this society is build upon equal rights for everyone and you should never treat anyone as merely as a means. However, in this society their are many people that are treat like they are not a human being. They are been target because of their race, religion, and sexuality. No one should be judged or mistreated base off those things. It not fair for minority to pick on and do as they will to the majority. Not being able to get a job or being able to go places and do things just because of your race, religion, and sexual prefers is not just and something should be done for this. This has being going for to long and no matter how far we have came from the past it still lurks in the present. How would you feel if you are the target of society and always picked on and profiled before someone even know the person you are? It's not right I know, but this is what is still happen in society today. How would you make a difference in today's world and what change you would make to make sure everyone is treated as just and "ins" in itself? There are laws and rules in place to protect the rights and wills of the citizen, but what's the good of them if there is this corruptions that is causing destruction, and there are still the big hole and cracks that need to be filled in, to bring society to a place of equality for the whole and greater good?

Kant and Mill in Opposition to Physician Assisted Suicide

Physician Assisted Suicide is a touchy subject right bow.  People asks questions about whether it is moral or not to help someone commit suicide when they have a debilitating disease or are in overwhelming pain.  I am not going to go in detail in his post, but I am going talk about why both Kant and Mill would deem it immoral.  First off with Kant, killing in any sense is immoral.  It would also break the first categorical imperative of Kant, that is going to suicide when you are victim of a disease and/or pain.  Mill would not see it as for the good of the whole.  It will only benefit that one person and will cause pain his family and friends, the opposite of utilitarianism.  That is why I think they would deem this subject immoral.

Duty Trial Scenario

So I had this scenario that I wanted to use as a question for everyone to resolve, since I think either of our current moral and ethical systems would differentiate on the answers and likely have a hard time coming to anything entirely conclusive. But let's get on with it!

There are three people on trial in this scenario, and you are a juror. Being a juror, you have to decide to give a guilty or an innocent verdict, and you can say guilty or innocent to any individual in the case. So while person 1 might be guilty for some reason, that doesn't mean the 2nd one would be guilty, too.

The three people are 1) a Commander, 2) a General, and 3) a Soldier.

(1) The Commander is trying to save the lives of innocent citizens by getting information. This information will definitely save lives, but is inconclusive as to how many. He thus orders the General to get this information, and that the sooner the better, because potentially it could save more lives the sooner the Commander has it. The Commander is disconnected from the War (for the scenario's sake, let's say there is some kind of conflict going on between them and a neighboring country), because he is far away from the actual battles being fought.

(2) The General is under orders by the Commander to get information ASAP (as soon as possible), and that the sooner he has it, more lives will be saved. Thus, he concludes that the information takes priority, and orders Soldiers to get it by any means necessary, and again, ASAP. The General is not disconnected from the war, and has a lot of tactical issues on hand to deal with. Orders from the Commander take priority over those that he/she gives out, and thus are more importantly automatically. The General also told the Soldier from whom the information could best be attained, which was known to be a civilian area without a great deal of military resistance. He gives the Soldier in this scenario no specifics as to whom the information should be obtained from, but does order that this is the area that should be (tactically speaking) the best place to gather it from.

(3) The Soldier in this scenario has seen direct combat with enemy troops, and was under orders to gather information. The Soldier willingly tortured and killed several individuals to get the information, which was successfully relayed to the Commander, who is confirmed to have gotten it. The Soldier shows no overtly psychopathic tendencies, and holds a record (comparatively) clean of insubordination.

Here are a few things we can't know:

The information may or may not have been successfully implemented.

Those killed could have been military or civilians (about a 50% / 50% chance).

The number of lives taken to acquire the information is unknown, but definitely more than one.

The punishment put forth by the judge could be anything between prison or an execution sentence.

Clearly in this scenario, it would be impossible to calculate anything with any real concrete yes or no answers, but these people are either 100% innocent or 100% guilty individually. Being military, they are simply doing their duty, but does duty alone exempt them from the basic ethical rule of murder being wrong? How would you choose to justify violence? 

Are all of these people guilty, innocent, or some mixture of the two possibilities?

Does Will motivate action?

Does will motivate action?  I think that it does if you have the will to do something that means you the motivation or the drive to get things done.  Will motivates action because without will how can you be able to get things done?  You have to have a will or drive to get things done I can want to go to school and show up on time but without the will or the drive to get up in the morning and go I'm just going to stay in bed and sleep the day away.  That will or drive is what makes people do the things that they want to do and keep them striving for success. 

The Good of the Many vs the Good of the Few

You and three of your friends win a cruise for spring break. The cruise is amazing for at least the first few days. Unfortunately, the cruise ship starts to sink due to poor construction. Lucky for you and your friends you are able to make it onto a lifeboat. So there you are floating on the ocean with enough food for three days on a boat that surely should not support ten people, however due to fortunate circumstances can. That is until a storm comes and results in only six people left on the lifeboat. There are two days left of food and your life raft is unable to further sustain you, your friends, and the two other people. Here is the moral dilemma; there is a rescue boat that can only fit five people. Who is to be left behind? The point in this situation is that the crew of the rescue boat has to decide which five to save. If you and your friends live, chances are you would decide to have yourselves be saved unless of course someone in your group is self-sacrificing. Utilitarianism’s main concept is what causes the greatest amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain for the greatest amount of people. To some extent, I think that it makes moral dilemma's slightly more difficult. What are your thoughts? Do you agree?

Epicureanism and Utilitarianism

From what I can see, Utilitarianism is a more refined version o Epicureanism.  They both have the same core in hedonism.  That is to say maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain.  However Utilitarianism answers questions Epicureanism can't.  For example, Utilitarianism makes more a distinction between higher pleasures and lower pleasures.  Utilitarianism can also be secular and religious whether by wanting happiness for your own sake or because God desires happiness for his creations.
There are other differences such as Epicureanism being more focused on contentment.  Utilitarianism also wants pleasure not for one's self but also for the whole.   There are also more moral rules with Utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism also also focuses on utility as a source of pleasure.   This is draws parallel to Aristotle ' s idea of happy life one of the goals of that life being useful.

Happiness is in seeking higher pleasures?

Is it truly a happy thing to be constantly learning or training all the time? At some point you have to stop, don't you? I know people who are happy constantly pursuing goals. I also know twice as many people who are happy being content. Growing up I've heard the phrase " learn to be happy with what you've got", constantly. Coming from an African-American family perhaps that has just been a method passed down to deal with an oppressive society. Still even today however with life marginally better they still use this saying, and with some success. So, why can't a person be happy as well as content? How can a person ever claim to be happy if they are never satisfied?

Options and Situations

Today, we talked about a situation where we may have to use torture in order to save people who are in a building with a bomb. The bomber have the code to keep the bomb from going off. We have the options to torture the code out of him or try to convince him to stop the whole thing. Trying to convince him may take a lot of time and the bomber may be stubborn and not listen to anything. However, if we torture him our actions would be immoral and he can give us the wrong code. So, we are stuck trying to decide what options to pick in this situation.


I think that the best options depend of the situation. If the bomb is timed and we don't have much time, we may have to try torturing and take our chances if the code he give us is the right one or not, rather than letting the bomb go off and have no chances of saving the people. While some people, like Kant would never try torturing and rather come up with other ways to deal with, they usually won't have time to consider their options in situations like this. During the discussion, we found out that one of the main problem for deciding the best actions is we don't have time to think of a best action. Because of this, we have to do what we have to do in certain situations. However, if the situation allows time, we may take other paths such as trying to convince the person or coming up with the best action.

Higher Pleasures > Lower Pleasures

Happiness is such an elusive concept, so I was glad to see an explanation about the different kind of pleasures from Mill. I know that when I hear the word "pleasure" my mind goes to sex and food and sleep instead of puzzles or solving complex math problems.

As an English major, the greatest pleasure I know is experiencing stories, no matter the format. The greatest, cleanest happiness I have ever experienced came from reading my favorite book for the first time. (Oh, and by the way, when I say "cleanest" I don't mean as in the opposite of dirty or sinful. I just mean cleanest in the sense that I experienced it with no restrictions, hesitations, or fear that it would get ruined somehow.) So why isn't that the first thing that comes to mind when I hear pleasure? Now that I think about it, it's usually not even the seventh thing that comes to mind. Why are the lower pleasures what one--or at least that I--usually thinks of first? Is it because those are more universal while one person's highest pleasure could be another person's highest hell?

I do agree with Mills that life would be incomplete without the higher pleasures, but it feels oddly elitist to go around saying, "better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." Don't get me wrong, I'm not championing ignorance or anything. But if there are some that are happy with just the lower pleasures, what's the harm? I highly doubt that we would all turn away from higher pleasures simply because it was ok to just be content with the lower ones.

ebola morals

Ok so I have been hearing about ebola plague and how it has reached america now and they have a couple victims in hospitals and all that good stuff. So lets talk about moral actions with the plague. I have made a trolley car problem for you all to have fun with today. Here it is,  you are a doctor in a hospital that just received a man who has the first case of ebola in your country into your hospital. Now here is the question, you know that the risk of it spreading throughout the hospital and country are huge due to this one guy who brought the disease to your country, so you have two options now (deal with it): you can kill the man and burn the body ridding the country of the disease(we will say it works here and if you do this the disease is gone from your country because he is the only guy that has it) or you can keep him in the hospital treating him and let the disease spread (for the sake of the problem we will say it will spread if you do not kill him). The thing is this man does have a chance of getting better and surviving the disease as does everyone that gets it, but they will suffer greatly. What do you do? Now lets assume that the disease is completely lethal, do you change your answer?