Good and Evil & Good and Bad

This week in class, we're been discussing Friedrich Nietzsche and his sections on genealogy of morals. in the first of three sections titled "good and evil and good and bad", Nietzsche discusses two different codes. The first deals with what he calls "master" morality. which basically described how early ruler viewed good as being wealthy, having power, and success and as result anything less than that was viewed as being bad. The second or "slavery" morality is the opposite master. It criticize that evil comes first and good comes last. He uses religion to help explain his second moral and most specifically the Jews meanly because he this morality was originated through priest. The priest resented the idea that wealth and power was being view as the good. The viewed the ruler hunger for power as evil. Slave morality is driven by "Ressentiment" leading Nietzsche to believe that the love for Christianity comes from hatred. it clear that slavery morals seemed more interesting, however Nietzsche believes that slavery morality has presented a life based on excepting the mundane life as the good instead of pursuing for excellence.

I have some mix feeling between agreeing with Nietzsche and not. I do hope that the master morality have a somewhat of a resurgence. It doesn't have to be linked religion but simple fact that i want people to desire brilliance. I would like to live in a world that is driven by excellence instead ressentiment like we are clearly going through in the modern world. I don't know just thought!!!

Making Dead

Friedrich Neitzsche makes a statement that we could be killing ourselves by being too kind. In many ways the statement is a makes a very good point. If we did not take care of our old so much as we did they would  not have to take up space for them or pay as much for their medicine as we do. The old would die off and there would just the people who can re populate and do work for the community. If we did not take care of the sick like we do we would not be not have as much contamination in the world as we have in previous years. There would not be as many form of spreading the virus around, because those who had it would died off it. Those how survived the virus would pass on the trait to the next generation and so on. We would also not have bad traits if we let the sickness take it's course. Many defects and cancers that run in families and all they are doing is passing it on the the next generation and other families they marry into. Population would also be a very good reason for letting nature take it's course. We would not have to worry about housing the sick in rooms. There would be more space in the world if we  did not try so hard to prevent death. Nature like it did before we interfered took out the weak and being weak just means you are not equipped to survive in the environment you are in. I do not think any person who was not equipped to live in the environment would want to stay but that we society encourages us to think. To think that we can have a cure for anything we come across and fix it with a few experiments. To be able to bear being uncomfortable with the damage being done to our old bodies and just take medicine and think it's okay. To spend a great amount of money to fix the things that would not allow us to survive. Neitzche also says in the thirteen paragraph that is it almost like cheating ourself out of your right to live. That with believe weak is strong you are lie to yourself and making it possible for you to live instead of fighting for your life. Like animals being able to catch and eat their prey and if they are too weak they die off and there is no weak just strong. That weakness make you feel like you have freedom because you can't do it but you could also build yourself up but you choose to be weak to seem strong. It's not freedom is slavery to your own lie and the lies society has put out there.So it's like you are living a lie.

Morality is Beating Us?

In class, we discussed the situation where if someone slaps you, you turn the other cheek. We also discussed that this is what Jesus taught and that it in fact does not make you seem weak, but it is seen as having courage and love. We took it further in class by bringing up how Nietzsche actually feels about morality. Nietzsche feels that morality is really beating us up. Dr. Johnson brought up the fact that if someone keeps turning the other cheek, eventually they could die from getting beat up. This reflects how Nietzsche feels about morality. He feels it will eventually keep beating us up to the point where we won't be able to take it anymore. My question is, is morality really beating us up or is it what is holding us together?


Growing up, I've noticed that morality is the good in the world. Morality is this system that helps us to determine what is wrong and right. It is our set of values and what we look to for help making the best decisions in life. How can something like this beat us up? It is helping us keep our lives together by giving us a belief system to follow to keep order in our lives. It is an aid when it comes to our behaviors. Is it beating us up because it restrains us from doing the bad that we sometimes need to do?


I see where Nietzsche is coming from in that when we follow moral rules, sometimes it can feel like we are being beat up for it as Jesus was. It just makes me question whether morality is what give us the hope to persist in life or is it what is beating us down and we don't even realize it?

Ressentiment

Let me preface this by saying I'm not sure whether or not I'm supposed to blog or comment this week. I think it's A-M blogging and N-Z commenting (before the break N-Z blogged), but I'm not sure what we ended up deciding on.

Anyway, in class on Monday while discussing Nietzsche, the idea of ressentiment was presented. Dr. Johnson described it as something along the lines of "the feeling you get when you have the notion that the world is being unfair to you, and you want to fight back, but unlike a 'powerful' person, you cannot." Then we got into the idea of the "slave revolt in morality," which Nietzsche goes indepth in the his first text we were assigned to read, "Good and Evil, Good and Bad."

I think the title of that essay sums up the information in it-- the "good" were considered good, powerful, happy, noble, and as a result beloved by god(s). Everything else is considered "bad," not evil. The slave revolt in morality (due to ressentiment) is essentially being beloved by gods results in being noble, happy, powerful, and good (the opposite of before). Everything else is considered "evil," not bad.

In the text itself, this line is presented:

"although the two words “bad” and “evil” both seem opposite to the same idea of “good,” how different they are!"

When the idea of ressentiment was initially presented to us on Monday with the definition I provided earlier, I related it to something like modern-day depression. As we continued to learn about it, and after reading Nietzsche's text myself, it seems like it was spawned from a hatred rather than something along the lines of depression. The "bad" was made from the noble man referring to others (as an afterthought), whereas the "evil" was determined first and was "arised out of the stew pot of insatiable hatred," as said by Nietzsche. It pretty much makes it so that life isn't the survival of the fittest-- for the sake of the least of it.

What do you think about ressentiment and difference between "bad" and "evil?"

Nietzsche's Controversial Claims

A few days ago, we started focusing on various selections from a philosopher named Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche made many different controversial claims and seemed to have logical answers (or so he thought) as to why he believed in those claims. Among his claims that “God is dead” and “Sum, ergo cogito; cogito, ergo sum” (Still I live, still I think; I must still live, for I must still think”), the reasoning for these claims are not explicitly in the statements.

For example, in his claim that God is dead, he is referring to the fact that creators in this world only exist because of the growth in the belief in them from generation to generation. When that belief halts or changes into the belief of something or someone else, then that particular “God” as creator will cease to exist because the powerful force driving his image, solely the belief, is gone. There is nothing else pertinent to a creator’s existence except for the belief in him/her, and any slight change in that will yield a metaphorical “death” of one God to the “birth” of another.

His second claim is much less controversial than the first. Latin for “Still I live, still I think; I must still live, for I must still think”, this saying has been around for centuries. Nietzsche expressed this in response to his plans for the New Year. He believed that you should become who you are, focusing on your particular strengths, errors, and aims. Nietzsche also believed in “amor fati”, which directly translates into the “love of fate”. He believed that everything happened for a reason and that any who lives in fear of what might happen can never truly say that they have lived at all. Those who live dangerously will have the greatest enjoyment from their existence, and I can’t help but feel like his train of thought is completely in tuned with hedonistic forms of thought. 

Upper class vs. Lower Class

           While reading the second section of On the Genealogy of Morals, something reminded me of a common thing I hear from certain people. Nietzsche writes about how the “good people,” that is people who think they are good, are “the noble, powerful, higher-ranking, and higher thinking people.” This leaves the opposite, or the outcasts, the ignorant, the poor, etc., as what the “good people” would think as “bad people.”  

            This reminded me of the upper class (or even the middle class) versus the lower class (including the homeless) in the United States of America. The amount of times I have heard awful and judgmental things about people who are a part of the lower class is absolutely ridiculous and uncalled for. Many statements that are made are from uneducated and just plain ignorant, privileged people who have no sympathy or understanding about anything except for their own perfect, suburban lives. Almost every day in my hometown of Covington, I would hear someone saying disgusting things about people who are on welfare, or even homeless who also struggle with mental illness. “They must have done something terrible to be in that situation.” They would basically paint them as terrible people just because of their economic status.  Sometimes, they would even blame people on welfare for their own financial issues, which are really none because they are middle class people living in the suburbs. They get so upset because they want the poor to practically fail, because they paint them as “bad” people, while they keep getting more and more money. Upper class and middle class people keep thinking of new ways to paint the poor and the people with the least advantages in life as bad people so that they can just get more and more.

            Although it has not been stated, I am not trying to say that all of the wealthy people in America are hateful, greedy, and ignorant people, but the wealthy who aren’t like that are few and far between.

God is Dead?

A few days ago, we started to discuss the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. To open our discussion, Dr. Johnson led with a controversial claim of Nietzsche: "God is dead". Hearing these words made me a little uneasy at first, being a Christian myself, my initial instinct was to immediately shun the thought that God is dead. By the standard of the world today, however, a strong case can be made that if God isn't dead; his word is slowly declining in popularity.

Whether politicians are busy waiving God around like popularity token or some musical artist finds a way to stick "Oh lord" or "God" in their less than religious melodies, God is quickly becoming simply a path to worldly popularity. It's becoming more popular to be a Christian than it is to actually act like a Christian. Not to be mistaken here, I know that no one is perfect but it seems as though it is becoming more popular by worldly standards to do wrong willingly. For example, if a group of people are going out to do a robbery and one guy doesn't want to go, he would be considered lame. Because he is choosing right, he is being shunned by the rest of his so called "friends". Stealing is a sin but in this situation, it is more acceptable for people to do wrong and the ones who do the wrong would be considered "cool".

Every day I am a victim of music and video that promotes wrong doings. Still I look and listen because it is the "most popular" media and because of that I have accepted these un-Godly lyrics and images just so I can fit in with everyone else. Constantly, I have to watch myself so that won’t take on these ungodly values of fighting, burglary, and ill-manners among other things. This media perception to people who don't know what God actually stands for can be detrimental to their understanding of good and evil. Some may even think that some of the evil they do is good and that they will be ultimately ok because all have to do is proclaim to be a Christian. The sad truth is that God is simply becoming a "fad", a bracelet that the most popular of us wear simply to "fit in". In my eyes, what's really dying are God's teachings, values, and morals. What's most unfortunately diminishing is his meaning.

Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, First Essay

You can read the First Essay of Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals by clicking here.

Underestimating Human Morality

How can we treat everyone with dignity or as a end to themselves if we underestimate human morality. As a solution,  we with have rules and regulations to keep us on the correct path  to virtuous deeds but not necessarily help us act intrinsically good. If that is the case, how can we accept utilitarianism as an appropriate practice when it calculate consequences and creates outcomes that produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. However, we cannot determine the consequences of every action.

What do you think we can do to better utility?

The Difference Principle

The Difference Principle looks like a very fair guideline to help those who are less fortunate socioeconomically than others. It states that whatever inequalities exist should benefit the least advantaged people. It's been shown, however, that once people are in a lesser position of well being, no matter how much help they are given it can be almost impossible to change that position. The most readily available example is Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, which he began in the 60's and of which many programs are still active. In the fifty plus years since the inception off these programs the poverty numbers in America have not improved whatsoever. The impact has been almost nonexistent. This proves that in the dog eat dog world of capitalism the more fortunate will always rise to the top at the expense of the less fortunate.

MIDTERM STUDY GUIDE

CLICK HERE to view or download a copy of the Midterm Study Guide.

The Walking Dead Part 2

Last class we talked about the situation with the axe murderer. We discussed what one should do in the event of a murderer breaking into a house and demanding to murder a friend. Some said that it would be better to lie and give the person "a fighting chance" than to immediately sell him out but what really is a fighting chance. How far is one supposed to go in order to save someone?


In season 2 of the Walking Dead. Rick is faced with a predicament. Randal was a boy who had previously tried to shoot them in a group battle. Randal was simply following orders and protecting his group. While in battle he was injured and abandoned by his comrades. Rick saved his life and brought him back their camp. The group could either trust him, lock him up and let him eat all their, food, or murder him. However they decide to go in a different direction and drop him off in the middle of nowhere with some food water and a knife. He would've been left ALONE in the middle of the apocalypse. Now the main question would be "what is a fighting chance". How much is one supposed to really do for someone in order to ensure their well being. At what point has one done their moral obligation and not simply thrown someone into a highly risky situation hoping for the best.

In this situation I suppose Kant would say that Rick had a "good will" he wanted to ensure the safety of his family. He also didn't want to execute an innocent/not innocent boy. He was planning on saving the boy while at the same time not going out of his way to let his safety impede with that of his family.  This I believe is a "good will".


I believe that Mill would agree that this was a noble action as well. Mill wanted to produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people and by ensuring his family's safety he has made them happy and he did all that he could for the boy. However, one could argue that he would've agreed to execute the boy. This would 100% ensure the safety of the greatest amount of people at the simple cost of 1.

The media and Ebola

One of the biggest topic in the medical and social world right now is the Ebola virus. The virus has created this nervous reaction around the world that is quiet unnecessary. The media as per usual are making the Ebola virus sound like the Black Death. When in reality, the virus isn't that contagious. The Ro is a way to calculate the number of people one person will infect (on average).  The director of CDC Dr. Tom Frieden believes that the virus won’t spread because 1 person with Ebola infect can infect 2 people. The low ratio will give the CDC a chance of having the virus under control. It is still terrible if you are unlucky to contract the virus but based on the ratio and the CDC, your chance of contracting it are relatively low.  How low is it compare to other diseases? well HIV (1 person can infect -4), SARS (1-4), Mumps (1-10) and Measles (1-18). They are all more contagious than Ebola. Listen, I am not saying the Ebola virus isn't deadly because it is. The side effect of Ebola are horrifying and even rivaling some of the worst plague in history. My point is that the media aren’t giving people the full story regarding the Ebola virus. I not even sure I would call this a noble lie because it causing chaos.  

 

This is relevant because in my philosophy class, we have been discussing Kant and John Stuart Mills. Kant moral law states that "the only thing that is unconditionally good is the good will." Meanwhile Mills moral belief is to "produce the greatest amount of happiness and pleasure for the least amount of pain for the greatest amount of people." In case of both these philosophers moral belief, I am questioning why is it a good will for the media to omit some relevant information that could ease the nervousness within people? What Kant would say is that the media motives are based upon subjective wants and desires. In case of Mills, how is providing insufficient information helping to produce to greatest of happiness and pleasure for the greatest amount of people? Just a thought because I am blaming the media for the over-reaction regarding Ebola.

How do you know what action is right?

Through Kant's 2nd Proposition of Duty it is stated that an action done from duty has its moral worth, not in the purpose it attains- But rather from a formal principle also known as the maxim. The principle of doing one's duty whatever one's duty maybe. A maxim is a principle in which we act. It has two different parts: The Subjective Principle and The Objective Principle. The subjective principle is the principle upon which a moral agent does act. The objective principle is the principle upon which a moral agent would act. This means that the objective principle is the principle that the rest of the world, given that the rest of the world are rational agent, would follow. This could also be known as the universal rule. Kant does a good job describing why a right action is the right thing to do.

Ethical Citizenship

In today’s class, we talked a lot about ethical citizenship. An American philosopher named John Rawls came up with his theory of a justice of fairness, called “A Theory of Justice”. He came to this conclusive theory by imagining moral agents in an original position, or before society was created. He imagined them behind a veil of ignorance and tried to determine the rules they would all agree upon as guidelines for society. In doing this, he came up with two significant principles: the Liberty Principle and the Difference Principle.

The Liberty Principle was based on ensuring equal rights to the most extensive set of basic liberties, which is compatible with a similar liberty for everyone else. This includes freedom of speech, press, religion, though, person, owning private property, the ability to hold office and vote, and the right of due process.

The Difference Principle was split into two parts. The social and economic inequalities are to be arranged such that:

a)     They are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and

b)     They are attached to positions and offices open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

The example that we used in class was one in which a person who is disabled or unemployed can receive government aid if and only if he or she can prove that work is simply impossible to find or attain. This made me think of other possible examples that would apply, like child support. Even though it is not government aid, it is enforced by the government so that the parent that doesn’t have sole custody must pay the other parent monthly payments in order to help take care of the child. In order case, the child would be the “least advantaged” since he or she obviously cannot care for him or herself. Aside from being a happy, unified family (which is completely off topic), this child support would be of the greatest benefit to the child because it would help finance the numerous necessities a child requires. I may be way off topic with this example, but this just came to mind as we were in class discussing these ethical principles. 

No Pain No Gain

Utilitarians believe that there are distinct pleasures that require a quality of pain. When I read this the phrase "No pain, No Gain" comes to mind. I can agree with this because I believe that to get something one really wants requires work. I say work as in some type of struggle.  Nothing is simply passed out on silver platters.
For example,  education requires work in order to fully gain and utilize it. Learning requires time, practice and patience.  We don't suddenly wake up knowing the the meaning of Felicific Calculus without having someone tell us or finding out ourselves. Knowledge doesn't just appear, people work for it constantly because there is no limit to it. It is one of the highest pleasures that people strive to achieve. We as college students should fully understand this concept because we are all working toward degrees; which, I highly doubt,  will fall into our laps. It all requires metaphorical pain to achieve our overall goals.

Who John Stuart Mills was

John Stuart Mills was a lab rat for his father. His father, John Mills, and his school mate, Jeremy Bentham, developed a complex educational system. John Stuart Mills be some one of the most intelligent children you would've every met. But because of what they had done to him, he received a mental and nervous breakdown at the age of 21. But he still became the author of the book Utilitarianism. He came up with the idea that based on maximizing utility, you are able to produce the greatest amount of pleasure (or happiness) or the greatest amount of pain for the greatest amount of people. But after he died, people divided utilitarianism into two schools: Rules of Utilitarianism and Acts of Utilitarianism. Rules of Utilitarianism is when an action is right as it conforms to a rule that leads to the greatest good. The Acts of Utilitarianism is a theory of ethnics which states that a person's act is morally right if and only if it produces at least as much happiness as any other act that the person could perform at this time. That is all I have to say about John Stuart Mills.

What the Propositions of Duty Means to Me

 It's a huge difference to just read something and to understand what you are reading. When I first read the proposition of duty, I was very confuse. Now I know what they mean. 

To me, the first proposition means when you do something that is good for humanity, it is done for a reason. What I mean by that is that you do not do anything out of the good of human divine, but because to get something out of it. 

To me, the second proposition means to do something for humanity, but do not know what it is. What I meant by this is that you do something that is done for the good, but you do not actually know what it is. 

To me, the third proposition means to do something because it is a rule. What I mean by this is that you do something because it is the kind of laws that are given that we should give ourselves. 

This is what I believe the propositions of duty means to me. ljohns44@cbu.edu

Utilitarianism in Schools

I wonder, why would critics say these things against utilitarianism if they didn't have some basis in reality? I mean, I'm not arguing the fact that Utilitarianism, in fact, really is the version that John Stuart Mill says it is. What I am thinking about is the notion that perception is reality sometimes. If people misunderstand the rules of utilitarianism often enough for it to become common belief that the misunderstandings are really the truths, then people might start to redefine it by accident. Not denotation, but connotation changes, and that is something that is far less easily changed. The
"people's definition" of utilitarianism, as we shall call it here, becomes more reality than mistake in the minds of those trying to live a utilitarian life. Then those people are living in lies, and spreading the wrong image of what originated as a possibly brilliant idea. That's why I liked this book. John Stuart Mill stood up for what he believed in, and put the misunderstandings to rest before they had a chance to become a real problem. He doesn't beat around the bush, he doesn't just hope that the rumors will die, he doesn't just say, "no, you're wrong. I'm right. End of story." He addresses each and every major misconception directly and clearly, giving a clear and irrefutable reason or reasons why the misconception has no basis in reality, and then reinforces it by restating in easy to understand speech, what the actual rule of utilitarianism is.

As for my feelings and thoughts about utilitarianism, I have to say that I think our public school systems would benefit from adopting and practicing a utilitarian system. Think about it. Our children are getting further and further behind every year. And we aren't doing much to fix it. But if we began implementing utilitarian rules and ways of thinking, that would change rather abruptly. Why? Well, take No Child Left Behind for example. It seems at first glance to be a good idea, but in the long run, it just gives us high school graduates with the knowledge of a 5th grader, if that. No one seems to know the difference between your and you're anymore. Not very many at Christian Brothers University right now could tell you that they feel like they got the very best high school education that there was to offer, if any. I, for one, went to a public high school in an impoverished, primarily African American county that has been struggling with literacy levels in ADULTS, let alone teens. I honestly can say that the only reason I have so far been able to stay afloat here is because my parents encouraged me to be different and to go above and beyond in every single way I could, all day, every day. And I still am struggling...because my calculus grade on my transcript is an A, when in reality, I've never seen the inside of the calculus book. My teachers had grown far too accustomed to none of the students being able to keep up with the material, that they had just given up entirely. Why try to teach calculus to a room full of kids who can't even do multiplication in their heads? This could be so much different though, with Utilitarianism in place. The greatest good for the greatest number of people is to ensure that our young people are getting the attention and the education that they need in order to succeed tomorrow. The only way to do that is to start with kindergarten and begin raising the standards. Don't allow the leniency we've all come to expect by now. It is killing us slowly but surely. America is falling behind because we are coddling our young. Trophies for participation. Even our gym and fitness courses were seriously lacking. The teachers are punished for the kids not learning, but in reality, if we would just up the standards, the results would show. And the results would help the economy, the job industry, and so much more- in other words, it would be good for a huge number of people.

Utilitarianism and Injustices

Utilitarianism doesn’t fall into the trap of being purely relative. By the very virtue of human beings being 99.9% genetically similar there simply will not be an extreme variation in what people need to be happy. This does of course lead to small minorities being thrown under the bus so to speak. No matter what though there will always be people that don’t agree with everything. Nowadays minorities are treated poorly such as people who murder and get satisfaction out of it or pedophiles and people widely and rightly recognize that as okay. You can’t rationally criticize utilitarianism when such a scenario is unavoidable and possibly preferable. Some people just aren’t going to be happy and people must accept that. Of course the ideal scenario is for this group of unhappy people to be vanishingly small and is the ultimate goal of any utilitarian society. Utilitarianism gives you the proper target to be aiming at and due to the relative same-ness of humanity there are few outliers to be neglected. It is a perfect solution for an imperfect world. Scenarios where this could be vastly upset is if we made contact with aliens and they had completely different needs and desires. Of course this is something of red herring as many things would need to be rethought if such a thing happened.

            Mill also raises a good point when he defends his position against those saying utilitarianism is irreligious. When he says that wouldn’t any god want people to maximize their happiness it seems as if he is taking a jab at religion. He seems to want to life any abstractions and get to the core of what every human is searching for; happiness. Any laws which in any way inhibit the greater happiness being done and restrict people’s happiness while preventing no pain are unjust to any utilitarian. Many places that place God or anything else as an objective truth end up leading to a greater amount of unhappiness than good.  Felicific calculus can be used to see what really the better choice is although errors might be made such as can happen with any judgment of morality. Further reading on Mill shows how deeply he applied this calculus to his beliefs and this lead to him putting in support for movements way ahead of his time such as women’s rights. Jeremy Bentham another proponent of utilitarianism was even more ahead of his time by wanting the decriminalization of homosexual acts among other forward thinking ideas.

are martyrs truly happy?

According to the 5th criticism of utilitarianism, happiness isn't or shouldn't be something that people strive for since the most virtuous people have renounced happiness and are considered virtuous. Mills response to that argument is that will those virtuous people may not have acted in a way that gave them the most satisfaction at the moment, it does not mean that they renounced happiness. Mills argues that those people made a distinction between happiness for themselves and that of the greatest amount of happiness/pleasure for the greatest amount of people. I would like to give some examples of Mills' argument. One example is that of religious/social martyrs, we named some in class like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. or Mahatma Gandhi, these two and the countless others along side them willingly gave up things that made them comfortable or happy and sacrificed their lives to give the general population happiness. If it were not for Dr. MLK Jr. we as a country would not be in a place where voting rights are (supposedly) equal, and persons of color are able to dine, shop, and do other things that make them happy in the same places that Caucasians do. If it weren't for Gandhi, India would still be under British rule. He gave up things that made him happy (food for example) in order to make a point so that his grandchildren's generation onward would be able to be happier than his generation. The main point that I am attempting to illustrate is that the martyrs willingness to give up their personal happiness for the greater happiness of the most amount of people is in a way (to quote Kant) fulfilling their telos which makes them happy. By fulfilling ones telos or purpose, one can rest assured in knowing they have done their life duty and can rest in peace no matter the circumstance.

Self-Interest and The Golden Rule

In Kant’s point of view, “The Good Will” is the only intrinsic good, and the duty is how good will is expressed. In Kant’s three propositions of duty, he lays out what duty is and ought to be. Now we as a class understand that duty cannot be considered morally good if it is done out of self-interest. However, millions of people know and follow “The Golden Rule,” which is considered to be self-interested. Some of these people have never even realized that what they do is self-interested – not saying that the Golden Rule is a bad thing to live by and follow. Why do we as a society follow such a self-interested rule without even realizing it?

“Treat others as you would like to be treated.” I wasn’t a mean child, and most children aren’t. However, our parents, grandparents, teachers, etc. all told us that we should treat others as we would like to be treated. “Follow The Golden Rule.” For the majority of my early childhood education, that was the main rule discussed in class. However, we never discussed the fact that we should do things just for the sake of doing them. Treat others with respect because that’s how you would like to be treated. Don’t steal, don’t talk when others are speaking, etc. because that’s YOU would like to be treated. It’s never you should just do it out of duty, obligation, or just for the sake of doing. We’ve been taught to do this and care more about doing morally good things for ourselves than just doing it because it is good or it is dutiful. This isn’t bad in any sense of the word, but what I’ve been wondering about since we discussed this in class is: why do we focus so much on ourselves?

I ask these questions because I am not totally sure about the answers. Yes, it is okay to be self-interested. Yes, it is okay to not be self-interested. But whenever we discuss or learn about morally good things in school or from our guardians, we learn to worry about others but only because you want them to be worried about you. As an 18 year-old, I’ve been told to do things for the sake of myself without even realizing that what I thought was morally good and for the sake of others, was also and mainly for the sake of myself.

Just for reference the first proposition of duty is: “A human action is morally good, not because it is done from inclination – still less so because it is done for self-interest – but only because it is done for the sake of duty.”

Not the true meaning.

John Stuart Mill writes Utilitarianism to portray his views of how actions can cause happiness and pleasure. With that, he defines utility as how much happiness for the greatest amount of people you can get with the least amount of pain that comes from it. He also states that there is always going to be  a proportion between the amount of happiness and the amount of pain endured. Mill created the Greatest Happiness Principle to help understand all of this, which basically says that it is important to maximize utility so that one gets the most happiness while also having the least amount of pain.

At first I thought this was an obviously a good thing and would maximize happiness, but then once pondering upon the idea of the Greatest Happiness Principle I took into context that different people have different ideas of happiness and pain. For example, if someone has 3 apples and 5 oranges to give away, one person may see the 3 apples to have more pleasure and take them even though there are less of them, while another person could see that there are more apples so they think that more quantity is more pleasure. Another flaw I see is that a person doesn't always act completely in their own self-interest. One man may want to make another man achieve their greatest level of happiness and personally have less happiness, that  throws the whole sense of utility away. Every theory has flaws, which is why it is only a theory.

Both of the flaws I found I think are in accordance with the second misunderstanding, where the critic said that Utilitarianism isn't a good moral theory, he based that upon Mill stating that the meaning of life is by finding the most pleasure, which I disagree with along with the critic.  

Laws are needed!

1)"A human action is morally good, not because it is done from inclination still less so because it is done for self intrest but only because it is done for the sake of duty". This means act only in a way so that you will the maximum, principle upon which one acts, of your action as a universal law, a law you would gave yourself. Any rational law law that you would give yourself you would also be willing to give it to other community members. 2)"An action done from duty has it's moral worth, not in the purpose it attains(or seeks to attain but rather from a formal principle (maximum) The principle of doing one's duty whatever one duty may be".You should act like you would treat any human being,  that human being either yourself or another human being not because of the value of being seen doing a good dead, but because you as a ratinal moral person would want someone to return the action or duty . It's your moral duty to treat others like you would treat yourself and also a rational thought to do something for another human being that needs the extra  help. 3)Duty is neccessary to act out of reverence for the law, not the law, but a law you would give yourself. If you wouldn't give or allow yourself to follow the law you don't have any respect for that law and so you should't expect others to respect it as well. It's more of a courtesy to follow a law you set forth for everyone and yourself not just others.
 The three Propositions of duty also describe the maxim which is the principles which you act upon. The rationallyity you govern your self with. What a person is doing and what a person ought to do. If both of these extremes of maxim are balanced you are a moral and rational agent. If they are not in balance you are immortal and you are irrational. The "is" factor is what your actions are doing at the time of an act. The "ought" factor is what any rational person would be being at that time. A rational moral person would follow the laws and rules set forth by another rational and moral person. We all as human being may not agree with all laws set forth, but most rational and moral would follow the laws given to us. That way we have some form or norm and organization.

Mill on Pleasures

In class on Wednesday, we discussed John Stuart Mill and his theory of utilitarianism. It is based upon the idea that an action is moral in proportion to how much happiness and pleasure that it produces. At first, I was a bit skeptical of this theory because it seemed to be somewhat lacking in noble purpose.

We then went on to discuss how pleasures are ranked in terms of millian ethics. Certain pleasures are classified in categories of what is a higher and lower pleasure. Lower pleasures were said to be those that we share with other animals (i.e. sleeping, eating, drinking, etc.), and the higher pleasures were named as success, learning, art, love, etc. Mill believed that when faced with a choice, a person would always choose a higher pleasure than a lower one. 

Perhaps I'm not understanding this fully (or missing the point completely), but the problem that I see with this is obvious. I disagree in the sense that given the right situation, almost anyone would choose the lower pleasure rather than the higher. For instance, a person who is starving to death would always choose the lower pleasure (food), over any of the higher pleasures mentioned. It is impossible to attain any of the higher pleasures without first fulfilling the lower pleasures. If you don't have one, you don't have the other--it's as simple as that. If you're starving, how can you have feelings of love? If you're sleepy, how can you enjoy a play? This is why one cannot be said to be superior to the other. The lower pleasures are necessary to our survival and on that basis, a comparison should not be made with the higher pleasures.

Utilitarianism - Maximizing Utility & Misunderstandings

In class on Wednesday we defined utility as the usefulness of something. John Stuart Mill defines utility as happiness with the least amount of pain. This leads into the Greatest Happiness Principle, which essentially states that maximizing utility is key in order to bring the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure (or the least amount of pain) to the greatest amount of people. After we discussed that in class, Dr. Johnson brought up the idea of Felicific Calculus. That is an algorithm that calculates situations to figure out what is going to produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people while bringing the least amount of pain.

I think that John Stuart Mill's philosophical ideas are very interesting because of how he lays out his concepts. They are very easy to interpret compared to some of the other people we have studied so far. I feel this way because he actually responded to criticism of his ideas and refuted them. I particularly enjoyed the following quote by Mill.

“It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.” 

 Humans have unique pleasures (that can come with pain) than animals have. For instance, success (involves struggles, hardships, etc to become successful) is a pleasure that we have as humans, but that animals do not have because they aren't self-aware for the most part. I agree with Mill's quote in that I would rather be Socrates because I know I am dissatisfied rather than a pig that is satisfied by basic pleasures (being fed, awake, nice weather, jumping around in mud, etc) but doesn't necessary know the pleasure behind it, if that makes sense.

What do you think about Mill's ideas? Are they easier to understand than the other philosophers we've studied so far? 

The Misunderstandings of Utilitarianism

When I was going over the notes, I found that I might disagree with John Stuart Mill’s clarification of the 5^th misunderstanding. The person disagreeing with Mill says most virtuous people renounced happiness. John Stuart Mill said that that those famous, virtuous people did it to bring others happiness. After thinking it over for a short while, I realized, in a sense, what he was saying. I figured he was accepting the fact that these famous, virtuous people denied happiness, but they did not. If they denied happiness, I don't believe that they would be trying to make others happy by being a voice for them.

For example, if Nelson Mandela “denied” happiness, he would have accepted that the Apartheid was just going to happen, and wouldn’t have tried to do anything about it. He would not have strived to bring others happiness, or freedom.

Although these people who sacrifice so much to bring others happiness get pleasure from doing so, in the end.

I think this goes back to the second misunderstanding of Utilitarianism discussed in class. The person critiquing Mill’s work said that Utilitarianism is not a good moral theory because it is demeaning to say that the meaning of life is pleasure. Mill’s response was that there are pleasures we share but some of those bring us a little pain. I believe that this applies to the fifth misunderstanding. Going back the example made with Nelson Mandela, he had to go through a lot of pain before he could bring others pleasure, and that highest pleasure outweighs the pain he went through. He did not deserve to go through all of those hardships, but he did anyways so that he could end the Apartheid.

In conclusion, I agree with Mill’s points 100%. I think that they make quite a bit of sense, and that he handled the criticism of his work very well.