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.