Doubt Again

The reread did give me some different inclinations toward some of the characters. The main difference I noticed during the reading was with Sister Aloysius. The second time through, she did not seem nearly as convinced with her own argument as it seemed the first time. Instead, I could feel that she doubted herself, but continued to try to convey certainty. I think that is why she feels so cold to the readers the first time through. It is the lack of confidence in her voice that leads you to believe she does not care. I had more sympathy for Mrs. Muller this time. She was just trying to do what she thought was best for her son, but I think she should have asked more questions. Father Flynn did not really change in my mind. I think his character is pretty well portrayed by the author. I feel that Sister James is easily persuaded, or at least makes others believe that to be so. Maybe she isn't easily persuaded but wants the acceptance of those around her.

Doubt: A Parable

This play is frustrating because it gives no concrete conclusion at the end. We are left to decide what happened for ourselves. This is frustrating to me because it makes the message more disguised. Maybe the point of the play is not to praise one subject and condemn another, but then I don't what the point is. I would say that I sympathized with Flynn for the most part of the book, as Sister Aloysius did not seem justified in her pursuit of Flynn. I felt as though Flynn was accused wrongly and was the subject of some other motive of Aloysius. This changed somewhat at the end of the story and would have changed completely had the truth been explicitly explained. I think that an important passage is the one where Aloysius states that she lied to Flynn in order to make him do something he wouldn't have normally done. I think this is important as it brings up the question of what makes a moral decision become immoral. Does the fact that the consequences may be moral make the action moral? I guess doubt was a good title for this play as that is the emotion it brought out the most from reading it. It was hard to believe any of the characters even though they were all people of the church. I did not like how sure Aloysius was the entire time. It made her seem pretentious. I liked the character of Flynn, but that would change if I were told that the suspicions were proven true. I liked the passion of James and I believe she had a good moral compass, but she is too easy to persuade. She needs to listen to both sides and decide what she believes. The character I liked least was Mrs. Muller. I understand that she does not want to be told how to raise her children, but it is absurd to look past the wellbeing of your child for other reasons.

Abortion: only opinions

First and foremost, I do not believe that frivolous abortions should be performed. I think this act shows callousness of soul and smallness of character. I understand that there are many cases where abortion is acceptable and maybe even necessary.

We have been discussing ethics without regard to specific cases up to this point, but we are now moving onto a very specific, very controversial topic. This topic is abortion and the rights of a fetus. First of all, I think we need to lay out why this topic is being discussed and why it is such a tough issue. Many philosophers that I know consider an act to be immoral if that act affects the health of another in a negative way. There is an exception to that, an exception that I don't think many scholars would disagree with. For the survival and eventual birth of a fetus, that fetus must parasitize the host mother for nine months. Whether or not the mother wants the baby there, her health is diminished by the presence of another organism inside her. This, however, does not mean that her overall fitness has been diminished, as she has the chance to pass on her genetic material (getting off topic now). So the question becomes, is it okay for the host mother to destroy the parasite fetus?

Now how many of us actually look at pregnancy as indicated above. Very few, I would assume, but that is besides our purpose. All we can look at for this discussion is the case that is being presented, and do so as objectively as possible. Let's move on to the actual discussion of abortion and rights associated with the fetus. It seems reasonable to believe that any person who is considered alive has the basic right to life. It also seems reasonable to believe that any person who is dead no longer has that basic right to life. As it stands now, in law, the death of a person is based solely on the subjective judgement of a doctor. From what I understand, a doctor will pronounce someone dead if there is no longer brain function. So it is reasonable to consider a person with no brain function dead. If we take this as our definition of a person who enjoys the right to life, we can make some arguments. The first argument stems from the fact that the fetus gains primitive brain function within the first trimester of a pregnancy. If the fetus has some brain function, it is considered a living person as the law is written now. If the fetus is a living person, then it is reasonable that the fetus should enjoy the right to not be killed unjustly. We must explain this further, however, because pregnancy is a special case as to the definition of unjustly.

We have already discussed how a fetus gained the right to life. We need to discuss whether or not a woman has the right to get an abortion. We can look at this in a couple of different ways, but one seems more obvious than the others based on our definitions to this point. If infringing upon anothers rights can ever justify death, then abortion should be considered reasonable. This means that we must define what justifies murder. Are there ever circumstances in which murder is considered ethical? I would say there are circumstances, such as preservation of my own life. If a person is to the point of killing me, am I justified in killing them first? I would say that this is reasonable to consider just. Therefore, if a fetus is to the point of killing the host mother, it is just for the fetus to be killed first. If I am deprived of food, but not past the point of starvation, am I justified in killing those keeping the nourishment from me? I cannot answer yes to this statement. I believe that I can only kill when it is a situation where I have no doubt that it is either another human or myself. This situation fits well with most pregnancies. Many mothers will face hardships by carrying a baby, but not to the extent where murder is merited.

Rights and Social Responsibility

Where do rights come from? Who or what entitles us the rights we hold so dear? I contend that moral rights do exist, although they are not always protected. First, I feel the need to outline my definition of a moral and legal right. I differentiate these two partially on the consequences of acting out of accordance with the right. If a person infringes upon the legal right of another, that person is subject to penalty imposed by the government enforcement to which that legal right pertains. On the other hand, I see a moral right as something that should be adhered to and infringing upon these rights results in a person being seen as a bad (immoral) person, but does not result in penalty, unless the moral right coincides with a legal right. That being said, I believe that moral rights are universally and individually owned. What I mean by that is that every individual (human, for the sake of this discussion) have certain moral rights from the start of life (you can pick where you want life to start). These rights are inherited by all humans from the fact that we have reason. I will use reason as defined by early philosophers (take Aristotle's definition for example). The rights obtained by birth I would term natural or human rights. One of the human rights that I believe exists in this manner is the right to life. I believe that all humans have the right to life. Even though these moral rights are bestowed upon humans just because of their humanity, it does not mean that the rights will be enforced. Most humans live in some sort of community. It takes action from the community to enforce even the most basic human rights to ensure that these rights are protected. I recognize that there may be certain rights that do not exist at birth, as well. These rights may have arisen as humans adopted communities as a way of life. Some things are not necessary to own as rights when alone, but suddenly become a reality when living in a community. Now, to change topics, I will move on to social responsibility as I see it. I recently had a discussion about politics with a friend of mine and it actually did not get out of hand. I did come up with a realization of the nature of society today and its relation to politics. The specific topic being discussed was the basic nature of Democrat vs Republican economic policies (note that all of the discussion of political party policies come only from my perception and are not based on any affiliation with either party). We (my friend and I) agreed that the basic plan proposed by Republicans puts money in the hands of the highest levels of the biggest companies in America in hopes that the money will work its way down the market to all branches of society. We also agreed that the Democrats' plan would take money from (figuratively) the highest levels of the biggest companies in America with the intention that it could be directly given to those at the lower end of society. Again I want to say that these are assumptions of the basic economic plans, not from any reputable source. We noticed, however, that neither plan would work and this is why. The Republican plan assumes that the people in the highest levels are willing to share with those below them. I contend that people who have risen to this level have only done so by not sharing (this is also from my own observation). The Democrat plan assumes that giving money to the people in the lower branches will allow them to climb and to increase the middle class. I don't think this will work as the big wigs in the company will have to decrease wages or move to another country to achieve the level of wealth that they once had (something I see as a big problem right now). I believe that America has lost the sense of Social Responsibility. This is my term for the belief behind JFK's famous speech. He said something along the lines of "Ask not what your country can do for you..." you know the rest. If we look more towards the overall goal of things, I believe our country and individual communities can rise back to the level of world respect that we once held. Sorry this is so long.

Mill on Justice

Mill's argument pertaining to justice is just as complicated as his definition of justice. He tries to lay out the origins of the words justice and right and wrong to explain how they are connected with morals. He determines that somewhere along the line, right and wrong were turned into law, while justice deals with impartiality and punishing fairly for crimes committed. He noticed that a moral aspect of justice comes from sympathy of humans and their ability to retaliate to wrongs committed against them. This means that a person will align themselves with a victim in wanting a person guilty of crime to pay for that crime. He notes that the other part of justice, while not determining morality, does give justice the attractiveness of the subject. Overall, what I think he is trying to say is that the idea of justice poses a strong argument against the greatest good argument, but that justice is actually a special case of utilitarianism.

Mill again

On Friday we discussed the definition of proof as proposed by J.S. Mill. I think that Mill has a valid point in terms of proving philosophy, but overall I don't think that this definition of proof holds water. He describes proof as something that cannot be known to be true but only reasons for why something could be true. This definition of proof requires that there be some recipient of the proof in order for the argument to be true. What I mean by this is that without someone to hear the reasons why an argument is true, the truth is unknown. I think, however, that proof must validate an argument without the use of a listener. There must be some other way to validate an argument, rather than just telling a person a bunch of reasons as to why they should change their mind. I do recognize that mathematical proofs cannot be used in other means of rationality. They are too limited in scope to portray the world around us. I do feel that scientific proof, or proving a null hypothesis wrong, can be used outside of science. With Mill's definition of proof, it is very hard to challenge his arguments as all he needs to do is just state another abstract hypothetical situation where his belief is held true. I like the way Mill writes and I think his ideas are valid. We will see how the rest of the book goes.

O'Neill

Onora Oneill is a modern Kantian. After discussion of her in class, I learned how she tries to apply Kant's views to a modern issue. Her belief is that children's rights cannot be grounded on moral rights, rather they must be grounded in moral obligations. This argument says that the rights of children would be better represented by the law if we look at it in this way. I think this is because children only have the rights that are provided by the fulfillment of obligations by the adults around them. Failure of adults to fulfill these obligations therefore should be the basis of the laws about children, rather than laws stipulating the rights that children should have. I think her argument is a valid one to a point. I don't know where she draws the line between children and adults because this could change the ability of children to fulfill their own obligations.

J. S. Mill

Alright, so it seems that this guy is going to explain to us how we can just look at pain and pleasure and the relationship to morality. I would say that this makes sense in a very broad sense but can be discredited if it is too broad. I hope that Mill narrows his explanation of the relationship between pain/pleasure and morality so that I understand exactly where is argument is coming from. I would guess that he is trying to say that we want to give someone pleasure because that is the definition of being moral. We must also note, then, that not everyone is going to want to become moral by this definition. Some people will not behave morally because there is no recognition of why we behave morally. Unlike Kant, this definition does not require that the person submit themselves to a distinct duty. This new moral code believes that it takes a person to choose to do a moral act for the sake of doing a moral act. Kant, on the other hand, believes that a person will act moral if he or she notes that all people will act in that manner. In his view, we all have duties and can gain rights through everyone fulfilling these duties. We will see what the real Mill arguments are and how he defends them in the near future.

Kant Metaphysics of Morals

We have discussed Kant once now and read him twice. So far what we have determined is that contradiction is the key to unlocking Kant's argument. We note that in order for a person two live morally, contradiction must not be part of the person's life. I disagree with Kant, however, that non-contradiction is the only way to finding morality. I say this because a dissection of the term contradiction reveals that it only deals with words. Can we say that words are the only way to achieve morality, or that words can prevent someone from that same goal? I think that there are too many barriers presented by language to assume that contradiction is a reasonable measure for morality. In addition, the spoken word often will deceive a listener as to the true integrity of the speaker. Instead, I propose that only through the actions of a person can we determine morality. I think there is a different form of contradiction that works in this area that we refer to as hypocrisy. We use this term to describe the person who speaks in one manner and acts in another. Even still, I think there is an undefined term that is more pertinent in this area. This undefined characteristic would refer to the person who believes in one thing, and still acts in a manner opposite. This type of person cannot be moral as they would not behave in a manner true to themself, no matter how they speak in public.

Hume Complete

I have not posted about Hume in a while and for fear of another professor being possessed, I felt obligated to show him some attention. Hume was a great author and presumably a great scholar, based on the fact that he wrote his first book in his twenties. He seems to have been, however, a little too aware of these points in his younger age. His first book addresses human nature, and like many philosophers, Hume supposes himself to be an expert of all fields. He addresses human nature without the scientific ability to prove any arguments. He does establish great points and uses arbitrary evidence to support it, which benefits him in the literary world. This is why I think his later book is the better of the two. In this book, he does not make as many thought provoking claims or develop any new ideas, but he was able to reinforce his earlier ideas through dissecting other aspects of morality. I am not trying to say that the later book has more revolutionary ideas, because it obviously does not, I am just noting that without the second, more concise book, the first is weaker. The second book also brings up the interesting notion of utility. This idea or characteristic seems to mimic the idea of sympathy in the first book. I say this because the two are central to the themes of each book respectively, but I would like to hear a professional compare the two and the application of them to society. Either way, I am glad that the Hume section has completed, not because I disagree with the man, but that his writing seemed a little over bearing and became cumbersome to read. I don't know much about Kant, but what little of it I have seen on other blogs does not inspire me.

Kant Prep

As addressed by the syllabus, contradicting one's self is something that ought to be avoided. When having a discussion with another person, each can convey a point. The only way for the point to be received by the other person, the goal of a discussion, is if the speaker has a clear view of the point being discussed. This means that the speaker must take one stance on the topic and explain that side of the point. Doing otherwise would not be a desirable characteristic as this person would be unable to carry on a useful conversation. Looking at our historic figures, we note that characteristics that are undesirable are often not moral. This can be related to what Hume talks about in his inquiry of human nature. The morals of one depend on those around him. Also, however, we must note that there are limitations to which we can hold contradiction as a measure of morality. The first of the limitations to be discussed is language. Oftentimes society reveres language and ignores its shortcomings. These shortcomings can lead to a situation that may seem contradictory, but follows the true ideas of the speaker. Another problem with the notion that contradiction can measure morality is rationality. We have discussed rationality and reason to a great extent, but have not determined that this is directly related to morality. The problem with associating reason with morality is that emotion and passion still play a large part in many actions. Going back to the main point of contradiction, I feel as though statements of relationship can be made. These statements must be hypothetical, however, as we have no true scientific means to study this relationship. Contradiction of the truest kind, when it manifests in the belief of a person, can be considered not immoral, but the path to immorality. What I am trying to say here is that a person who not only understands the consequences of an action and believes that that same action is immoral will contradict himself only if he acts in the opposite manner and behave immorally. This contradiction is of the darkest nature, yet we must account for these people in our society as they too get to vote.

Random Act of Kindness

Yesterday, I was walking home from class as usual when a situation presented itself to me. I normally have tunnel vision and go on my way home with little attention to what is happening around me. This day, however, I noticed that someone was having trouble pulling their car out of a parallel parking spot. I just simply walked over to the car and asked the driver if he wanted some help watching the car in the back. I stood behind the car and informed the driver how much room was between him and the next car. He was able to pull out of the spot a little easier yesterday. I know it is simple but I think it made his life a little easier.

Treatise of Human Nature Yet Again

In book III of this book Hume is trying to convert his truths into a discussion of morality. I will discuss the section headings and how Hume tries to explain these. Book III part 1 section 1 discusses the origin of natural virtues and vices. The authors of these philosophy books seem to find this as a necessary topic for discussion. They feel a need to explain the actions that are considered vices and those that are considered virtues. According to Hume, a vice is something that causes hatred or humility. He also says that a virtue is any quality of the mind that causes love or pride. I think what he goes on to say is that the action itself is not a part of morality. Instead, it is the though behind the actions that causes the action to be virtuous or vicious. An action alone cannot be considered in morality because it is the quality of the mind that determines someone's character. Later on in this section, Hume goes back to his view of sympathy and the relation of morals and sympathy. The next section is Book III part 1 section 2 and discusses greatness of mind. I think he titled it this to explain the comments he made in the previous section. He describes how greatness of mind must be made up of two distinct principles. The principles are sympathy and comparison. Sympathy is an innate sense of the feelings of others while comparison uses the status of another to judge our own status. He notes that comparison and sympathy are directly contrary to one another and that there are times when they act as such. An example he gives is when a person on shore witnesses a ship in a storm at sea. If the ship is far away the person will be happy that they are not on the ship, but if the ship is near enough that the person can see the horror on the face of the crew, the person will be sad. Page 381 has a discussion of pride and modesty. I am not sure I understand Hume's stance on this as he says modesty benefits others but not ourself, and vice-versa for pride. I don't know how he feels on this subject. The previous two sections seem to be from the wrong part of the book. I will continue as I have put a lot of thought into those rather than erase them from the blog. Those seem to be from part 3 of the last book, not part 1. I didn't notice, however, until I went to flip to the next part only to realize the book was over.

The actual book III part 1 section 1 is titled moral distinctions not deriv'd from reason. This section is integral to the argument of Hume. He uses it to differentiate his argument from Aristotle's. Aristotle proposes that reason can control actions but Hume's argument says otherwise. Hume says that no matter what case you look at there is no matter of fact morals. They are always caused by passions, movitve, volitions, and thoughts. These cannot be dissected with reason as they are emotional. The next section is titled Moral Distinctions Deriv'd from a Moral Sense. This is why Hume needed to disprove reason as the tool for moral distinction in the previous section. He states that moral distinctions can only be made by feelings of pleasure and pain. Part 2 section 1 discusses whether justice is a natural or artificial virtue. Hume asserts that justice is not a natural virtue but one that has arisen out of necessity from society. The next section of part 2 discusses both justice and property. His discussion of property explains that the wants and needs of mankind do not fit with the niche that man was given by nature. This is how he leads into the artificial virtues. He explains that some things were not given to man by nature and these are the things that we must hold as virtues in order for man to prosper in the world. Sections 3 and 4 discuss property and the rules that Hume holds to be truth. He explains the meaning of property and its relevance to his argument and how it relates to society. Section 5 talks about promises. I think that this makes more sense to a book about ethics than does property. Hume states that promises are not natural virtues and this is because they were created by human convention and not nature. Section 6 brings us back to the virtuousity of justice and how it relates to injustice. I would ask Hume how he felt about society, is it necessary? Are artificial virtues worth the same as natural virtues?

Treatise to Human Nature Continued

Hume makes it a point to note many times that "reason alone can never be a motive to any action of the will: and secondly, that it can never oppose passion in the direction of the will." He is trying to explain that his point of view hinges on this relationship between reason and passion. Hume proposes that all actions made by people are dependent upon their passions. He explains that reason can try to persuade the passions but can neither cause an action nor prevent passion from creating an action. There are things known as calm passions that can be mistaken for reason. In fact, Hume states on page 268 "when any of these passions are calm, and cause no disorder in the soul, they are very readily taken for the determinations of reason." Hume says that such passions are confused for reasons because they coincide with what should be done in a situation. The passions of the person fit with the ideas of what is appropriate. Hume discusses violent emotions on page 268. Here he states that during these times of violent passion a person will often do something independent of the pleasures of the person. I think he is trying to point out times when a person does something in an emotional state that later they regret.

People in the 21st century that support the beliefs of Hume could cite specific examples to prove their belief. One example would be when a couple is fighting. Often, there are things said in an argument that can ruin a relationship that would not have been said in an unemotional state. This exemplifies Hume's violent passion. I think an example of Hume's calm passion would be donating money to another person in need. This seems like reason because the other person is in need but Hume would describe it as a passion. I think another good example of a violent passion would be homocide. These people wind up hurting themself by going to jail, but their passion to injur someone who hurt them won out.

page 266
There is a passage at the bottom of the page that says "or more than five foot high." I don't know if this is just some kind of saying from the time period or if it is over my head (play on words).

page 273
A passage at the bottom of the page goes against all that we have learned in ethics class so far. Hume states that an argument does not have to be eloquent or accurate but just argued with passion in order to cause an end. This means that people do not need evidence to win an argument.

A Treatise of Human Nature

Hume explains what he believes to be innate tendencies of the human state. These tendencies are therefore possessed by all people. After stating that the book hinges on these tendencies, he then goes on to describe how they will affect the passions and actions of people. Hume is a firm believer that people are only concerned with things that can affect them. If something does not affect a person, he considers it irrelevant. This means that if something does not cause me pleasure or pain, I will not find it a worthwhile study. Along those same lines, Hume discusses that reason cannot overcome passion. This means that reason alone is not enough to initiate action in a person, they must be moved by their passion. I think that this shows that Hume does not believe that morals are objective. He sees that passion can seem objective to its owner, but not to a society. We will use reason to navigate our thoughts, finding passions that direct our actions, but it was not the reason that gave us morals.

Prep for Hume

According to the syllabus, Hume is going to discuss the moral views of people and how those moral views reflect what we believe to be something objective. I think he must first lay out the moral views that are common to all people if he wants to explain how our lives are affected by them. This is going to be very difficult for Hume because I think that all people do not share the same moral views. After explaining what the moral views are, he needs to explain how these moral views also affect the lives of the people that hold those views. Finally, to finish his argument according to the syllabus, he must show us how we hold these views as objective rather than subjective.

Aristotle and Doris

Both Aristotle and Doris have opinions of what makes a person virtuous and what makes a person vicious. These arguments have some overlap, but I think that they are arguing different ideas for the most part. I believe that Aristotle has a more pleasant view of society than does Doris. Aristotle believes that anyone can achieve virtuosity by following his tenets. It sounded to me that Doris had a more gray view of people, believing that people would only choose a virtuous act if the person benefit from the action in some other way as well. I may be wrong on what Doris was trying to say there but that is the feeling I got.

Aristotle just about over does the opinion that virtuous people use moderation. He expresses the idea that there is always a correct level action for every situation. When a person is knowledgeable enough to see the correct level of action, then that person is virtuous. That statement needs refinement as it is not only the knowledge of what is right that makes a person virtuous because the person also has to act according to what they know is right.

I think what Doris is trying to say is that there is no such thing as a person who is wholly virtuous or a person who is wholly vicious. He explains that many people will only act virtuously if the situation is one where a virtuous act does not hurt the person making the action. What I am trying to say is that Doris does not believe in altruism. I think he sees humans as self serving and will only make a virtuous decision if it serves them in some other way.

Aristotle and Hursthouse

From what I can understand of it, phronesis as we are calling it, is a type of wisdom. We have referred to it as practical wisdom, but I am not sure I know exactly what it means. From what I have gathered, it is like knowing what is good for yourself or group in all situations. This is different from other wisdom in that it can change with different situations. It is not always the same truth, but a truth that fits each situation. I think there are occasions in sports where practical wisdom is necessary. A good quarterback, for example, may take it upon himself to pass in a running situation if the defense is vulnerable. The quarterback may have seen some sign indicating that this would be the best choice for the situation.

Hursthouse makes use of Aristotle's views on virtue. He discusses how it can be related to abortion. The main thing I got out of his argument is that like many subjects, we cannot relegate answers to right and wrong. Instead, we must use practical wisdom to determine the best answers for each situation individually. He talks about how sometimes a woman may have been light-minded by getting an abortion. Other women, however, he says may be acting moderately by getting an abortion. I think his argument makes a lot of sense, as he is reluctant to say that all situations can fit into one mold.

I like the passage of (VI.5) I think that this passage does a good job of explaining what he means by the use of some of his terms. He tries to describe the meaning of what it is to be wise. I think even Aristotle has a hard time describing the definition of wisdom but does a good job providing examples of each type of intelligence.

The whole book was somewhat confusing, but I was unable to find a specific passage in this part that confused me more than the rest.

I think the first paragraph of the conclusion does a good job outlining the points that Hursthouse was trying to make. He was able to sum up his entire paper in a few paragraphs. I think that Hursthouse does a good job of laying out his views for the reader and comparing them to Aristotle's beliefs. I think that the paper does a good job of relating Aristotle to the present.

Random Act of Kindness

For this assignment I decided to start small. My roommates and I live in a house where dinner is usually based on a you cook it you eat it principle. We do this so people do not have to get mad about others eating their food or things of this nature. One day I had made only enough spaghetti for me to eat for dinner. I noticed that my roommate was running late for work that evening. I offered my roommate the spaghetti I made already and had to make more for myself. I think he was very appreciative of this gesture. He was able to make it to work on time whereas he may not have been without the food being pre made.

Nicomachean Ethics Continued

In this section of the text, Aristotle discusses how we can value certain characteristics. I think I understand what he is saying. He tries to tell us that in order for a characteristic to be good, it must lead to good things. Likewise, for a characteristic to be bad, it must lead to bad things. I guess what I am trying to say is that all characteristics have some ability to be either good or bad. The person who owns the characteristic can therefore determine how virtuous they are based on what they do. I feel like this leaves the person somewhat to chance, however, as we don't always know how an event will turn out when we do something. All we know is what is the best choice at present. If this is all we know, then can we really become virtuous by doing what Aristotle tells us?

Aristotle claims that becoming closer to these characteristics will help us have a fulfilling life. I agree with him for the most part. The only problem I see with his argument is I am not sure we can actually know which characteristics are virtuous and which aren't. I am not saying that people are completely ignorant, we know the basics of right and wrong. I am just trying to point out the fact that there are occasions when a person truly does not know which choice is more virtuous. If we can figure this out then I believe that we can become fulfilled by getting close to these characteristics.

Response to In Class Discussion

After class today, there are a few points that I think we needed to clear up but were unable to. First of all, I think that we needed to define happiness further in order to clarify the discussion and decide if it was truly the goal we were looking for. In addition, I believe that to satisfy the question we needed to talk about what the universal goal should look like so we could recognize it if it came up in discussion. In my opinion the universal goal not only can be unnattainable, but must be unnattainable in order to satisfy our argument. The universal goal must be unnattainable as this is what makes it universal. If any person has gained the goal, this person will have a new goal, and therefore the goal will not be universal anymore. I think this will help us determine the universal goal, or at least rule out some goals that are not universal.

Prep for Aristotle

Based on what I have learned about people from personal experience, I would say there is no one goal that all humans are interested in. The goal that I believe comes closest to satisfying all people is very primeval. To every other organism, minus a minimal few, passing on the genetics of a species is the overall goal of life. I would say that this applies to most people, either noticeabley or on a subconcious level. Entrance into any open bar on a Friday or Saturday night would reveal that the primary goal of those attending is to find a suitable mate. In biology, a suitable mate is another of the same species that provides an organism with the best chance of offspring survival. The people in these bars have their own ideas as to what constitutes a suitable mate, but that is a little off topic. I think slightly more subtly, advertisements for products use this universal goal to make money. Many ads for things portray a suitable mate as a person who uses their product. Subconciously, the people watching these ads believe that if they use the product, they will be able to reach their goal of procreating.

Even though I would attest that this is a goal shared by most of humanity, I am morally objected to proposing a a method that would help others attain this goal. I believe that sadly there are already ways to attain this goal that are not ethical. Many communities have problems policing people who try to illegally attain this goal. I believe that is because unlike other crimes, these crimes originate from within the self, rather than something that has been caused by society.

Gorgias Reading Part Two

Rather than type the whole passage, as it is terribly long, I will refer any reader who wishes to look up the quotation to page 64, the middle of passage 482.

In this passage, Callicles voices his opinion of the events that took place when Socrates was addressing both Polus and Gorgias. Callicles points out what he believes to have been Polus’s mistake, just as Polus had done with Gorgias. In pointing out Polus’s fault, however, Callicles brings up another point that I find very similar to my own view of the matter. Callicles states “you pretend that truth is your goal, Socrates, but in actual fact you steer discussions towards this kind of ethical idea-ideas which are unsophisticated enough to have popular appeal, and which depend entirely on convention, not on nature.” He goes on to express how there is naturally going to be a contradiction between nature and convention, stating that Socrates has devised a scheme to use this contradiction to trick his opponent in argument. I find this to be one of the more compelling arguments to this point as it is both formulated and orated well. Callicles is neither attacking Socrates nor admiring him, instead he is pointing out what he believes to be the case. I cannot say the same for some parts of Callicles’s argument as he does make a personal attack against Socrates, insinuating that he is out of touch with reality (page 67).

In the same long speech as before, Callicles also brings up what is to become one of his main points in the section. Here he addresses the fact that those who can achieve power are right and not immoral as Socrates tried to prove earlier. He discusses that through a balance of philosophy and community, a person can attain this sort of power. He also explains how society often takes the powerful and trains them as youth to become equal to those around them Callicles finds this contemptible and shows how doing this can cause a powerful person to break the ties that bind him. I think that Callicles is better grounded than the other orators that have been discussed to this point. His arguments combine rhetoric with personal views to achieve a high level of thought.

There are two sections I would like to point out that I found troublesome in regards to Socrates arguments. These take place on page 85 and page 92. On page 85, Socrates resorts to word manipulation, just as he was accused of doing by Callicles earlier in the book. On page 92, Callicles points out how he has been saying “yes on cue” to Socrates. Socrates combats this argument by again chasing Callicles into a forced assertion that Socrates’s point is correct.

Gorgias Reading Part One

On page 34, Socrates states that “rhetoric (is) a branch of flattery.” I think this is one of his core arguments in the first part of the book. This is core to his argument as Socrates finds flattery contemptible, so he accordingly finds rhetoric contemptible.

On page 40, Socrates plainly says “I mean that in actual fact there is nothing worse than doing wrong.” This argument of Socrates is more explicitly stated than his other arguments. Socrates is able to convince Polus to his point of view on this after Polus originally says he believes otherwise. Polus’s original argument was that even Socrates would envy those who could do whatever they please. The argument goes on with Polus stating that those people who do not face consequence are happy. Socrates says that this is the opposite of what actually happens. On page 47 Socrates says “that punishment alleviates their condition somewhat” when referring to criminals.

There is also a large section on page 18 that discusses the decisions made in a community. In this section, Socrates states how decisions are not made by rhetoricians, but by experts in the field concerned. I found this to be a very interesting passage as today I believe the opposite to be true. I often see politicians with little expertise in a certain field campaigning for one choice over another. This politician will often use rhetoric to gain the popular vote of the community.

Prep for First Reading

"In a situation where one person is being harmed and the other is doing the harming, which is most to be avoided, harming the other or being harmed by another? Why? What if the person doing the harming will not get caught? What if the person doing the harming can avoid feeling guilty? The harms we're talking about can be minor (stealing parking place), moderate (embezzlement) or major (genocide)."

First, I would like to narrow down our hypothetical situation as this will make it easier for me to directly address the questions being asked. In the situation I will discuss, the harming will be physical (fighting). In the case of physical harm, I would say that it is more important to avoid being harmed by another. I say this because there are times when it is necessary to take on the opposite role, become the person doing the harming. Now, don't get me wrong. I am not trying to say that violence should be a person's primary means to an end, just that certain circumstances can only be solved by harming another. A situation that fits these circumstances would be that if the only way to survive would be to attack an attacker. I believe that the person trying to survive would not feel guilt. The whole situation could have been avoided, however, if the person was able to avoid being harmed. I know we would all like to believe that morals and ethics will win out in the end, and that decisions like these will become obsolete in the future. I am afraid that this will not happen any time soon. Many people make their decisions based on furthering their own life, not on how they can further the community. It seems as though people are "primative at their core with a layer of civility on top." I'm not sure where I have heard that, but I don't think I made it up. I think what it means is that when the going gets rough, man will try to serve himself.

"What skills should we work to possess, the skills to persuade others to agree with our beliefs or the skills to discern whether the beliefs we have are true or false?"

I would say that it is more important to look at our own beliefs and determine whether they have truth to them. I believe that perpetuating something that is false is one of the worst things that science can do, yet it is done every year. Physicists hold to the idea that formal charge flows from the positive to the negative even though it is common knowledge that electrons really flow from negative to positive. Instead of trying to change this fact, however, physics teachers go on persuading freshmen that formal charge is true. I do understand that the reason for the wrong information is so that many equations do not have to be changed, but is this worth believing false information?

"What do the 'Prior Questions' have in common?"

The previous two questions both deal with ethical decisions and how they relate to everyday life. In both cases, I believe that people will choose based on how it will affect them. In the first situation, people will choose to harm another if this helps them avoid being harmed. In the second situation, people will choose to perpetuate false information if it allows them to do less work (change old equations).

First Entry

This is my first time creating a weblog. I am creating it for a philosophy/ethics class, and future posts will confirm this. In addition to this being my first "blog," this will also be the first philosophy class I take. I am a science major and enjoy science courses. I do not know yet if I will enjoy philosophy as it seems there is not always a specific answer to a given question. The study seems very open ended.