The Walking Dead

**Walking Dead Spoilers inside. Do not read unless caught up.


Lately we have been discussing the good will of a person. I believe there must be more to being noble than simply having a good will.

A show that I enjoy quite a bit is the walking dead. It is a story about people living in a zombie apocalypse. In the show every one is doing everything and anything to survive. Throughout the entire  show people begin to change and begin to show how hard they're willing to work to not only save themselves but the people they love. The character Rick starts off as a police officer holding on to as many moral values as he possibly can but begins to see that in order to survive in this world one must do certain things that at first glance might seem horrid but in the long run will benefit him and his family. He only does what is ABSOLUTELY necessary however.


The governor on the other hand is a man that will and has done anything to survive. He kills those whom think may be a threat to him or his people, he silences anyone he thinks might disturb the peace of his community and he uses deception to influence people into doing what he wants. He does all of these things because he think that in the long run it will benefit his community. My question to use if both of these men are doing what they do with good intentions does that meant that they both are just as moral.

Kant's Third Proposition

In most circumstances I would agree with all of Kant's Propositions of Duty. However, this is not a perfect world and I think the third proposition is not always correct. In general, most laws are just. But there are some that were not enacted with proper reasoning. These laws do not deserve reverence. I'm not just talking about the incredibly unjust laws, such as any law that condoned slavery, but rather some relatively recent ones as well. Many people view the Patriot Act as a law that was agreed upon unwisely following the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Americans have seen many freedoms taken away, and everyday we learn of more ways our privacy is violated. In an ideal world all laws would have the people's best interests in mind. Until that time though, Kant's third proposition will be slightly flawed.

Karma and Traffic

Today in class, we talked about Kant, and got a little sidetracked on the topic of karma. A lot of the class seemed to be not-quite-happy with Kant's 1st proposition of duty. By definition, karma(which I DO NOT believe in) is the "force" generated by a person's actions to perpetuate transmigration and its ethical consequences. Basically, it's this universe juice that perpetuates the non-Christian belief that good deeds beget a good life and a spot in Heaven, while bad deeds beget a horrible life and a spot in Hell, and the driving force is not people, or society, but rather a spiritual force somewhat like that of chi. What I was trying to get across in class was that karma is entirely different from the psychologically proven fact that when people see you or perceive you to be a virtuous, goodhearted person, they tend to react to you in a more kind and generous fashion. It isn't some weird universe juice, or voodoo or even karma. Just the simple idea that people are more sympathetic toward those who seem more worthy and appreciative of sympathy and compassion. My theory is that this is because every person alive has had to ask for help in one way or another at some point in their lives, and they remember that. And whether or not they received the help they asked for or not, they remember feeling entirely helpless, and desire to help others with that same feeling of helplessness.

Now that we've established that, back to Kant. He had three propositions of duty, which make a good amount of sense, especially if you have a strong moral compass that often guides you into making good decisions. But what about those people who were raised differently from us and have  a different set of moral beliefs? Whose are right and whose are wrong? Who is to say? And would his actions driven by that moral compass still be considered good because it was done out of his sense of duty?

I was late to class today, and when Dr. Johnson made the reference to a student's motives for being late to class, I couldn't help feeling that they were somewhat pointed at me. I was not trying to be disrespectful, and in fact, I HATE being late. I hate that it makes people wonder about my level of respect toward them. I hate that it undermines my reputation with the person with which I have an appointment. I was late today for the simple fact that I have had a really terrible day, and one of the things that made it terrible was the traffic which made me slightly late to class today. That is, I wasn't acting in a purposeful way in order to be late to class for some means to an end. I was late because my car broke down Wednesday, and I just got it fixed today in time to come to class, and got stuck in traffic along the way.

Duty

In Todays Class Lecture We Talked About Duty. The First Proposition Of Duty Says "The Purpose Of Reason Is To Produce Good Will.  A Human Action Is Morally Good Not Because It Is Done From Inclination And Still Less So Because It Is Done Out Of Self Interest But Only Because It Is Done For The Sake Of Duty" How Do We Know If It Is Our Duty To Do Something Or Not ? If We Are Inclined To Do Something That Is Morally Good, Does That Mean It Is Our Duty ? I Think Our Duty Is To Complete The Task We Were Put On Earth To Complete. Everyone Must First Figure Out Their Calling In Order To Know What Their "Duty" Truly Is. Just Because We Feel Like It Is Our Duty To Do Something, Does Not Necessarily Mean That It Is. Since Everyone Has Different Morals And Values, The Way Each Of Us Determine What Our Duty Really Is Can Be Very Unique.

The two must coincide to right

In today's lecture an interesting topic arose in what Kant believes to contain moral value. Kant believed that an action done from duty has its moral worth if the action done follows a formal principle. To many that is an obvious statement, but to take such a simple yet abstract concept and give it guidelines that make sense in even today's society is remarkable. It is even MORE remarkable that Kant came up with so many years ago. Kant believed that there is an objective principle which is a principle that any RATIONAL person would deem to be true. On the other hand Kant describes what subjective principle is, which is nothing more than the principles a person follows to produce an action. The hardest part for me to grab about this concept is that there is no right subjective principle. That relies solely on the agent. However, the objective principle remains constant and does not change no matter what the moral agent does.

Bad results of a Good Will

I honestly don't fully understand the concept but I am slowly getting it. What I am about to say is solely based on what I understand so far and I will try to reiterate it into my own perspective.
 What I can say is that no matter the consequences a good will's intentions can never be compromised. If the urge to do something beneficial to others in purely from the heart then; the outcomes can not compromise that goodness. For instance,  there was a time in high school that I brought treats for my Spanish class. Unfortunately, one of the students came severely close to having an allegiance reaction. On the bright side, however,  the crisis was avoided. However,  even if that student suffered from the treat my good will remained in tact.
Good will motivated me to feed my peers, and I thought it to be a rational notion. My telos, no matter the outcome was to be friendly. This goes to say that when ever someone is being genuinely kind, and everyone doesn't benefit in the way you intended, it does not lessen the goodness of your actions. One can't always satisfy all, but the attempt to do so is good will in its own.

An unfair assessment of motives

This week in our philosophy class we’re discussing Kant and Groundwork for the Metaphysics of morals. The Grounding for the Metaphysics of morals focuses on moral and how to develop a clearer understanding of moral principles so that we, as moral agent may avert distractions. In the book, Kant gives three duties or deontological moral principal. They are as follow; An Agent actions are moral if and only if undertaken for the sake of morality (which means it can’t be with motives) An agent moral quality of an actions are not based upon the action’s consequences, rather according to the motive in which it creates. Agent actions are moral if and only if morals are taken out of respect for the moral law (it can’t be based upon desire). What Kant is saying is that moral principles must have absolute validity and independent of all circumstances.  

While I do I agree with Kant deontological principal morals, i have an issue with the 1^st principal in term motives. I think it’s unfair to judge every agent moral actions based upon motives. I think there’s such a thing as good and bad motives.  For instance here at CBU students go out into communities and get involved in community services. In that comes an immense amount of attentions that they probably never wanted. This to me is the bad motive.  However, community service also helps students in long run. In term of a resume, it helps students build their future. Also, Aristotle may argue that It would help students acquired an ethical virtue. I like to think that this is good motive. It wasn’t based off the desire of one to gain but in which both the community and the student gained.  Again, I do agree with Kant duty principals but I just think it’s unfair to say all motives are just motives. It may be crazy but it just my thoughts and opinion.