In Kant's Defense

Kant's Supreme Law of Morality states that the only thing that is good unconditionally is good will. His theory of morality is based on a duty of what we ought to and what we ought to do is morally right. It is not concerned with the consequences of what you do but rather with doing the right thing regardless of the consequences. In many ways this does echo the Ten Commandments because these commandments do not come with conditions. I think when you take in account the consequence of the action being right or wrong, you loose the real reason for having a duty or moral law. It seems that Mill's consequential beliefs can change the idea of a law by saying the law can change depending on what you think the outcome will be. For instance, we have talked about lying. Is it ok to lie if you think the outcome is better than if you did not lie? Lying in itself is still morally wrong. It seems that Mill's idea of morality is one of convenience and making morality suit your needs. I agree with Kant that all humans have a internal moral compass and they know what is right. This is the principle to act on, the moral duty, not that the consequence of the action is the moral thing to do.

Felicific Calculus or Good will

In Unitarianism, John Mill states that there the good of thing is what causes the most amount of happiness. The felicific calculus is what Mill use to understand Unitarianism in scenes. Felicific calculus states at that the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. It is interesting to think that the act in depends on the cause that would give the most happiness to a lot of people. In the Kant vision, he states that the act depends on what ought to be done even though it could cause a lot of unhappy to many people. The good will has a lot of parts to it, but in summary what ought to happen equals what did happen that determine if the act is good. Mill and Kent ideals are dealing with if one’s act is good. Mill would say it would depend if that a person’s action cause the most amount of happiness of the people in the situation that they were in with. Kent would oppose Mill statement and would state that the action would need to be what should have happen then the action can be said to be good. In a situation where there may be people in need, which method would be the right one to use? In the example of the homeless and the donuts, with Kent’s method the thing that ought to happen is to give the donuts to the homeless people. In the example the homeless die because of them being diabetic. In the case of Mill, he would possible start with asking them if they were capable of eating sweets, but if they do not know Mill would most likely give the donuts to them because even though they might be diabetic the homeless people would be happy to receive food. It would seem cruel to not them food and the homeless would be sad because of it. In some case they may act the same way even though they may be different methods of responding to a situation. 

Consequentialism vs. Non-consequentialism

This week in class we learned the difference between non-consequentialism and consequentialism. Kant believes in non-consequentialism which is deciding whether an action is morally right or wrong based on the morality of the choice but not based on the consequences of the choice.  Mill believes in consequentialism which is deciding whether a choice is morally right or wrong based on the consequences the choice brings.  In consequentialism the way people determine if the consequences will be considered morally right or wrong is through felicific calculus. Felicific calculus is a way of measuring the consequences where they will bring the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people, or the least amount of pain for the greatest amount of people.  In class we discussed a problem where the classroom we were in and the classroom directly next to us were rigged with bombs. Each of the classrooms had buttons that controlled the opposite’s bomb. If one of the buttons is pressed it blows up the opposite classroom and kills everyone in it but if neither buttons are pressed then both rooms blow up. In consequentialism the answer to the problem would be to press one of the buttons because the consequence would be that it would save some lives. However in non-consequentialism the answer would to not press either of the buttons because killing people is a morally wrong thing to do. I believe that most people today live with a consequentialism way of thinking. Most people would press the button to save some lives rather than letting everyone die.  I believe that consequentialism is the best theory for everyday life because the guidelines are laid out in a way that it benefits the whole. In the classroom example it would do no one good if everyone died so it benefits the whole if part of the group of people survives. Living by consequentialism is better than living by non-consequentialism. 

Mill's Great Sacrifice

            This week in class we discussed how John Stuart Mill differs from Emmanuel Kant. Kant believes that our actions determine whether or not we are considered a good person whereas Mill believes that the consequences that come from the actions that we take determine whether or not we are good. When in class, we discussed whether or not Mill would see sacrificing a human to the gods as just. Take the Aztecs for example. The Aztecs would sacrifice humans so that they would have a good harvest. Would Mill see this as a just act even though killing a human is obviously not just?

Mill would see this as a just act because even though the killing of a human is not just, the happiness of a whole nation of people is brought from this. Mill wants the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. One person is unhappy from this decision, yet hundreds of others are brought some sort of comfort. The sacrifice would bring comfort and hope to the Aztec people, and because of this, the crops would be better taken care of. In contrast, Kant would believe that this is an unjust act. These actions would break the categorical imperative. Kant says that if this is broken, despite the outcome of the actions being positive, morally wrong decisions have been made. The killing of a human as sacrifice for gods would be wrong in Kant’s eyes. This relates to the effect of prayer on a sick patient. If several people pray for the sick patient, his or her attitude and hopes would be more positive. This positivity and comfort would give the sick patient a better chance to recover, just like the positivity of a sacrifice to the gods would make the members of the Aztec community take better care of the crops. I believe that even though the crops may be better after the sacrifice, the killing of a human is never justifiable.

Emotions and Utilitarianism

My view on utilitarianism is that one has to be removed from the situation emotionally to be able to actually use the felicific calculus correctly. For instance, what happens if there is a burning building and I could see my father behind one window and a scientist with the cure for cancer behind another window, and I can only save one? Utilitarianism states that it is for maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain for the greatest amount of people. That being said, utilitarianism goes completely against human nature. Surely human nature in this situation, at least for me, would be to save my father. I would be emotionally involved in the situation and that would disrupt my use of the felicific calculus. However, if the hero in this situation did not know my father and it was simply two strangers (one with the cure of cancer), of course the hero would save the scientist because they have no direct emotional investment in the situation. This hero would be able to correctly use the utilitarian calculus. Another example is that say I am the President of the United States and I have to choose whether to save the city of Memphis or the city of Atlanta from a bombing. I am the President, therefore I am required to choose what is the best for this country. Say that for some reason saving Atlanta, Georgia would greater benefit our country, I probably would not be able to choose that option since my entire family lives in Memphis. I would not be qualified to make this decision because of my emotional involvement. I would not be able to apply a utilitarian approach because my feelings would affect my decision. In conclusion, utilitarianism is relative to each person given the situation. If the choice was either Atlanta or Nashville, I would be able to correctly use the calculus and make the best decision for our country.

The Batman Scenario

In class on Monday we discussed scenarios that challenged the felicific calculus of utilitarianism. The felicific calculus is a way to calculate the moral rightness of an action. An action is morally right when the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people is a consequence. An action is morally right when the least amount of pain for the greatest amount of people is a consequence as well. In one of the Batman movies we see that the Joker places a group of people in one room and a group of criminals in another. Each room has a set time to decide whether or not to push a button. When this button is pushed then the room opposite of the room who pushed the button will explode, leaving people in the room who pushed the button alive. If I were looking at this situation in a utilitarian point of view, I wouldn't push the button. I would actually rather have the other room press the button so that my room would explode. I think this would be in agreement with the felicific calculus because I wouldn't have to live through the fact that I pushed a button to be selfish and live. I would rather die so that the other people in the room live feeling the greatest amount of happiness, and in turn the least amount of pain on my part. 

John Stuart Mill said a famous quote: "I would rather be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied." I think I could also apply this quote to the scenario above. I think Socrates could argue that it is most virtuous for me, if I were in the situation, to not press the button because it might be my purpose or ergon. It could be my ergon to forsake my life to save other lives. Because John Stuart Mill referred to Socrates I feel it necessary to bring up the fact that Socrates said appetites were controlled by the spirit and the spirit by reason. In this situation, the appetite would say to push the button so I could live. My spirit would be chaotic with emotions on whether I wanted to live or die. If my reason was built in the utilitiarianistic view, I would probably not push the button in hopes that maybe the other room does not push the button and both rooms lives, or they push the button and I don't have to live with a selfish decision of pushing the button killing innocent lives for the sake of mine and others I don't know. If I were to push the button I would be the "pig satisfied." I'd rather not be the pig satisfied. 

Kant and Lying

Last Friday we concluded our discussion of Immanuel Kant. The last day of discussion revolved mostly around the idea of lying. We discussed how Immanuel Kant believes that an individual should avoid telling a lie in order to be what they think to be moral. He believes that the morally right thing to do is to tell the truth no matter the situation. He then provided us with a situation in which your friend is being chased by an ax murder coming to you for help. So you help them by hiding them. Then the ax murder comes to your door and asks if you have seen your friend. Do you lie? Kant says that even in this situation one should tell the truth because you, as an individual, do not know what  the future holds. There is a chance that you lie to the ax murder and tell him your friend went in a different direction. While you are telling the ax murder this lie and believe it to be a lie, your friend in the mean time could have gone in that direction and now you have just told the ax murder where your friend is without intending to. Kant has a compelling argument, however I would disagree with Kant. I feel that if your lying to protect someone who is in grave danger than in that  instance a lie, in my opinion, is right. I have acted in a manner in which my intention to save my friend, which makes the lie morally right. So, I would say that if an individual were to lie to protect someone, then I would say the lie was not wrong but right despite any outcome that may occur.

Friends and Acquaintances

According to Kant, the second formulation of the categorical imperative is to treat a person as an end unto itself, rather than as a means to an end. While the most extreme form of using people as a "means to an end" is slavery, it occurs in every day in less extreme examples. While these examples can include calling a repairman to fix something, or seeing a doctor to get well, it also occurs when we use other people to network. How often is it said, "It's not what you know, but who you know." And this is true. There are so many situations where this is helpful--getting an interview with a company because you know someone that works there or using a recommendation letter written by an alumni of the college you want to attend. These kind of things happen all the time and it does give a person an edge to getting a job or internship. While having good credentials is important, being able to meet the person in charge or having someone who has some "pull" put in a good word for you can go a long way. While I do agree with Kant that we should not use people as a "means to an end" to the point that we treat a person unkindly, I do not think there is anything wrong with using "connections." While you may already be friends with a person and see your friendship as an end unto itself, there are many times when you meet a person and you do not automatically become friends with that person. While you should still be kind to that person, I do not think you need to become good friends with everyone you meet. I think this is the difference between a friend and an acquaintance. With a friend, you see that relationship as an end unto itself. With an acquaintance, you know that person, but you don't view them  and their friendship as an end.

Utilitarianism: Maximize Happiness

John Stuart Mill's work on Utilitarianism is pretty straightforward. The goal is to maximize utility by maximizing benefit and reducing the amount of suffering. In other words, all our actions have to have the purpose of happiness intended. In case of two options both ending in happiness, we are to choose the most positive one or the most desirable. Happiness is defined as the "intended pleasure and the absence of pain" and unhappiness as "pain and the privation of pleasure".
I personally prefer Mill's theory to Kant's. Mill's essay is more realistic and more relatable to our daily lives. Mill also shows us how moral issues, justice and utility intertwine. Suffering is the result of people not following Mill's ideal principle of utility. A moral way of life is in itself a reason enough to oblige.

The Cause of Crime

In todays society we have seen the value of life diminish. In abortion as well as in gun violence. Many politicians have said in order to rid our society of gun violence we should impose laws to make it harder for criminals to purchase guns. The only problem I see in this is that criminals do not obey the law that is why they are criminals. Instead what these laws do is they eat away at the right for the law abiding citizens to purchase firearms to protect themselves and their families. Now the answer to the violence we have all seen take place concerning murders is that we should teach our children the value of human life. Teach them that they may also teach their children so that they will have a brighter  future. Also as we teach our children we must deal with the criminals that are so violent that they must be imprisoned for the rest of their lives by imposing stricter punishments. No more should these rapists and murderers be aloud to live at the expense of the tax payer money. If a human is so depraved and dangerous that he must be put in prison for life why not sentence him to hang and so release our society of these heinous people. Gun control is not the answer. Look at all the countries that have imposed gun control, yes the gun violence has plummeted but the murderers use knives instead. Should these countries impose knife control not at all for the criminal will use a screw driver as many have. Instead allow the law abiding citizens to arm themselves and protect themselves. In the countries that due arm their citizens with firearms such as Switzerland their crime rate is the lowest in the world. In conclusion let us not remove our rights to defend our selves but instead arm our selves against those who mean us harm to us and our families, and let us teach our children values and the value of life so that our future remains bright.

Kant's Supposed Right to Lie

I have to agree with Immanuel Kant in his rational mind of saying that there cannot be a good reason to lie. While I want there to be a good reason to lie and I want to make a good excuse for lying the argument that we cannot know the outcome of lying for a good reason makes more sense to me. If I was able to know that the outcome of my lie was going to result in good then I could say that  there is a good reason to lie but since I cannot know if the result of my lie is going to come out well, I have to agree that it is best in all circumstances to tell the truth. I don't like this. But I do see his point. Add this to the fact that if we say that you can lie in these circumstances then telling the truth loses all value and holds no weight. Of course, this is how it will be in a world of perfectly moral agents and that is not how humanity is. Because we are human and are all fallible, we will all lie and be immoral at times, no matter how hard we try not to lie or try to be perfectly moral.

Moral Lie? Kant says no

In class today we discussed Kant and his philosophy on telling a lie. His belief is that a lie should never be told in order to be moral. He believes that the morally right thing to do is to tell the truth always in the idea of “non-consequentialism”. He used an example where a friend of mine was to come to the door running from an ax murder. My friends comes to my door asking to hide in my house. Not too long after my friend, the ax murder come to my door asking if my friend is hiding in my house, when I lie and say “No he went that way.” At this point in time I was aware that my friend had gotten scared and snuck out the back door and went the way that I directed the ax murder, leading to his death. Kant’s take on this situation is that I should not have lied to protect my friend because I cannot predict the future or what the consequence would be behind telling a lie. In the case the lied I told got my friend killed. However, in my opinion the lie does not make me wrong morally. I don’t agree with Kant’s philosophy on telling a lie because in this case it was for the benefit of my friend’s life. I was playing the hero trying to save him. Even though my lie lead him to his death I had good intention, unlike telling the truth were to my knowledge he had no choice but to be killed. I feel like if someone was to tell a lie with good intentions to help someone that is still moral. Lying to protect someone is not immoral in my opinion no matter what the consequence turns out to be.

I Kant Even

When it comes to Immanuel Kant's views on ethics, it seems to forever go around in a circle. My main question is if it ever stops and how is something morally the right thing to do and the morally wrong thing to do. If we take the in-class example into perspective and say you were in the situation of being able to save your friend from an ax-murderer. Does it really matter then if you lie trying to protect someone's life? What, if any truth does the potential killer deserve if you don't know who that person really was? Would it be the case if it were a stranger, and you were at the door and a stranger asked you politely to hide him from someone trying to kill them and then the killer came barging in, would you give up the stranger's hiding spot for the sake of being morally correct both times? If we link this to Aristotle's view on lying, or telling white lies, the guilt one would feel after having someone's -- a stranger's or a friend's-- life in your hands would be enormous. Going to a funeral and saying "I had a chance to keep him alive" would be the single factor that would haunt you for the rest of your life. Even lying I would think would tie back into the four examples of duty, being life preservation, and the welfare of others.

Third law

In class we're always discussing different scenarios about what we would do in case this happened and how we would react. Well today I found it very interesting that we couldn't win in any way just because we didn't know what the outcome (We Never Will). If we ended up lying about where whether we saw our friend it would still be lying and if we didn't lie then he would most likely be murdered. Did we need to lie out of the sake of duty or because it was our friend? Maybe it was our duty to save him and if we had to lie to do it then is it justified. The fact that we told them to go look for him in the backyard and he ended up finding him and killing him is pure coincidence and not our fault.The third proposition, also related to the first two, is that duties should be undertaken out of "reverence" for "the law." Any organism can act out of instinct. We reacted to save the life of our friend because thats your first instinct but in doing so we did something "immoral" which is lying. It is obvious that in this case it is okay to lie but how far can it go?

Kant even Formulate

     Kant’s final formulation states, “act in accordance with the maxim of a member giving universal laws to a merely possible kingdom of ends.” At first, this was very confusing. Dr. J explained that it meant to act like a person who is living with perfectly rational moral agents. People who are living with these agents are like people who would be living in this perfect kingdom that is mentioned in the formulation. 

     A perfect example would be Ghandi. Many people of all sorts look up Ghandi. If everyone were to act the way he acted, we would be living in this perfect kingdom. Sadly, this is an impossible utopian society to achieve. Even though Kant is explaining a perfect society that is not achievable, he says that if we strive to be like that person, we will be closer to actually being good willed and moral. This would then apply itself to the second proposition that he makes, the formal principle of duty. This states, “an action done from duty has its moral worth not in the purpose it attains or seeks to attain, but in a formal principle or maxim- the principle of doing ones duty, whatever that may be.” Once a person finds their maxim, and continues to do their duty, they would potentially be like the person that is being described in the perfect kingdom. 

     I fully agree with the opinion of Kant in these statements. If we were to all act like people in a perfect kingdom, we would always be morally rational. This would then make our world a better place, and in turn, the world would be full of more just and rational human beings.

The Motive of Duty

This week in class we discussed the multiple meanings of duty. Kant believes that duty is something that you ought to do and he goes on to say that there is a motive of duty. The motive of duty says that a human action is morally good, not because it is done from inclination or self interest, but because it is done for the sake of duty. I feel like this description is true for most actions; however I disagree with it because I feel like there are times when a person performs an action that is morally good and also has a personal benefit from the action. Does the fact that the person received personal benefit from the action automatically make the act immoral? I do not believe that it does. For example, if a fireman went to rescue a person from a burning building he is doing a morally good action for the sake of duty, but he is also receiving personal benefit from the action because he is receiving a paycheck for being on duty at the time. Just because the fireman got paid does not mean that the action was immoral. Another example where this would apply is when a teacher helps a student with a project or helps the student learn a difficult lesson. The teacher that is helping the student it is their duty to help and it is the morally right thing to do and the teacher is also receiving a paycheck. So the teacher is still receiving personal benefit from the action but I would still consider it to be a moral action because it is done to help. Therefore I believe that in some situations that even if a person receives personal gain from a situation does not mean that the act is immoral. 

The Good Will & Duty

Kant has a Teleological view of nature in which he believes that we must produce a will that is good in itself.  He stresses the importance of The Goodwill.  The goodwill is the only thing that is good unconditionally and the goodness of the goodwill is not derived from the results it produces.  When we do something, whether or not we actually achieve what we intended to do is beyond our control most of the time, so the morality of our actions do not depend on the outcome.  What we do have full control of is the will of our actions.  No matter how good someone's actions are in itself, if there are any motives behind the action in hopes for a reward, such as wealth, pleasure, honor, etc. then it is not morally good. Because it is done from inclination or self interest and not done for the sake of duty; Duty is something that you ought to do. The motive of duty is an action done that is morally good, not because it is done from inclination or self interest, but because it is done for the sake of duty.

For example, if someone were to make clothing and money donations to charities, it looks morally good, but what you cannot see was the motive behind that person's actions.  They only made the charitable donation because they were looking to save money through tax deductions.  They were only motivated by money, not to actually make a good and charitable donation.  They gladly gave to charity, and fulfilling their duty to give to charity coincides coincidentally (or not so coincidental) with the result of it, which was finding loopholes in taxes and ultimately saving money. The fact that the action that they did appears to be moral and dutiful, it is not because of the ulterior motive.  All in all, your actions can be right, but your will can not, which makes actions with motives immoral.

Duty

          You are driving down the street and you see a homeless woman on the side of the road with children, you look down at your cup holder and you see a few dollars.  Do you roll your window down and give her the money?  I would.  Kant's definition of duty is "something you ought to do", with this definition you think of what is the right thing to do in certain situations.  He also says that you are more willing to perform duties when you see people struggle; with the homeless woman situation, you see her struggling and it makes you want to help her.

         Kant also tells us of the Motive of Duty; here he says that doing duty should be because you are doing it for morally good reasons, not for self interest or to show off, but because you are doing it for yourself.  For example: I play softball, and some people on my team will go and hit on their own but when they do it, they announce it to the whole team and brag about themselves putting in work.  Others will do work on their own to actually make themselves better, but they will not tell anyone or make a big scene with it, they are going specifically for themselves.  Another example: One person goes to a homeless shelter to serve food to them, they do it because it makes them feel better about themselves and for good moral reason.  Another person is also serving food but afterwards they are posting on social media, telling people the act of kindness they did, just to get a "good job" from other people and for other reasons that do not involve actually helping others. 

          I agree with Kant with his definitions of duty.  He makes it simple to understand saying it is something to do for the good of the situation and for moral reasons.  We should do our duty for the good of society and not for show for others.  If we keep that definition of duty in mind society could possibly be a better place.

The Second Formulation of Kant's Categorical Imperative

The Second Formulation of Kant's Categorical Imperative says that one should "Act only in such a way that you treat humanity - whether in your own person or that of another - never merely as a means, but always as an end in itself." From this statement I understand it as you cannot treat someone as a means to get what you desire or need. Unfortunately you see this everywhere in the world now especially in America: women using their assets to seduce others into getting them what they want or simply buying them an alcoholic drink; teachers using students as a means for a paycheck; befriending people so they could vouch for you, etc. I also understand that if you violate this formulation, it means that one is irrational. But I have a question, what if you use someone as a means to get what you want but that other person is also benefitting from your manipulation? Would it then be irrational to use someone as a means? For example we talked about prostitution in class on Wednesday. The idea of selling sex or sexual acts is indeed immoral in my own preference, but for Kant I don't think it is. Both people are benefitting from using each other. I know two wrongs don't make a right but in this case someone has a sexual desire and gets it fulfilled by a prostitue. This prostitute in turn is getting paid for his/her services.  In the end both of these individuals are using each other but they are both benefitting each other. I think prostitution is only a violation of Kant's second formulation if this man/woman prostitute were not getting paid. Could there be special exceptions like this one to Kant's second formulation?

I honestly think that we should look at the outcome of the situation before we consider that situation as using someone as a means for something else. Another example would be in the case of befriending someone to vouch for you. What if you befriend that person only to get a job because you know you are very capable of fulfilling the duties required of that job? When you befriend that person and get the job you then are benefitting whatever company/corporation/hospital you are working for because you are performing your job to the best of your ability and thus kind of benefitting the other person because now their word is golden for vouching for you. If this were the situation, befriending someone as a means for a job when you can perform the job well, and that person's word becoming reliable is not violating Kant's second formulation because both individuals are benefitting. If both people are benefitting I don't consider that irrational. But of course it would be, if someone used you to get a job and then in turn couldn't perform a job well. That would be a violation. So in conclusion I think we need to look at the outcomes of each situation before we consider it violating Kant's Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative.

Maxim of duty

It is interesting to think that someone, Immanuel Kant, come up with the idea of Maxim. Maxim seems to be the way to tell if what people did is what they should have done. Maxim is the principle upon one acts and has two parts to it. The subjective principle and objective principle determine if one’s acts are maxim. The subjective principle is the principle upon which we do act, in other words the act that people take in a situation. The objective principle, on the other hand, is the principle upon which we should act, what would be the right thing to do in a situation. For someone’s acts to be maxim the subjective must be that same as the object and it would be consisted morally rational. In the second law of duty, The Formal Principle of Duty, tells that the duty is for the moral worth not the outcome. So it only matters if a person’s acts are what ought to happen and that wherever duty calls people should answer. Maxim does seem understandable and is the right way to look at a situation, but why does not everyone do the duty that they ought to do in most cases? In many cases whenever there is a building burning or someone being robbed some people would stand by or think someone would come and do something about the situation. Those situations would not correspond with the concept of maxim; because it can be stated what acts should a person have taking, like called the police or eased the situation, instead decided to not take act upon the situation that is presented to a person. Maxim is a true principle in the sense that person should do what ought to have. Even though the situation could get worst or not go as expected, it is the act that is important. If the act is morally rational it is good and it should be done.

I Am Aristotle

In the symposium on Friday we briefly discussed “Noble Lies” and what each philosopher thought about it. As I listened to everyone’s comments about why Plato believes a Noble lie is necessary to keep order/balance in his theory of the three parts of the state, I came up with a question that I believed Aristotle would ask. Because I was Plato, I was not able to ask my question.  

To recap, someone mentioned how a noble lie is helpful when one is trying to protect a sibling. If the sibling breaks a lamp, one could easily point the finger to their sibling, but if the sibling has been getting in a lot of trouble (or the parent is harsh on that sibling), one would commit a Noble Lie in order to protect the sibling and maintain some sort of order (like an even distribution of punishment). Now, my question to this is: to “protect” that sibling you must keep telling several noble lies (in a spread out period of time), do you not believe it will eventually corrupt the sibling and they will remain acting unethically? How many times can a noble lie be said to protect someone?

Another question that was proposed towards the end of the symposium was whether you would lie to your soon to be spouse on your wedding day about an affair you had a while ago, or confess. As Aristotle I would confess. I would confess because if I lied to my fiancé I would have a guilty conscience and would not reach my true happiness. I would lack the virtue of honesty. I would definitely start confessing by mentioning how it happened “a while back ago” than going straightforward to “I cheated on you.” Even though it is a possibility that he would not forgive me, I know I would be fully happy with telling him the truth, better late than never. I believe that happiness is pursued for itself, not for the benefit of another person.

Lying

In class we discussed noble lies as a way to sum up our symposium. One of the scenarios discussed was whether or not one should confess to their fiancé on the night before the wedding of an affair that took place several years ago. Looking back at some of Aristotle's views, one in particular that seemed to help explain what to do in this scenario was reason. He states that the function of the human is reason because it is what makes a human unique from any other thing. Since we as human beings are capable of reason we are therefore capable of acting according to principles and also knowing what is right and what is wrong. With that in mind, it should allow us to understand that the right thing to do in this situation should then be able to take full responsibilities for our own choices and actions. It does not go without saying that the other person involved may be hurt by the news. However, I do feel that it is better to be told by the person that you care about rather than finding out by some other means. It would probably hurt a lot more.  An argument can be made that there is high possibility that the affair may never be found out but I think getting it off your chest before taking the giant leap of faith in marrying this person is better than being married to them with a guilty conscience that may later affect their marriage. So in my opinion I feel that one should be forthright and honest and accept the consequences of their actions.

Can't we all just get along?

I know we have talked about Plato a lot but I still seem to have a hard time with his philosophy. I know that he says there are three parts of the soul and makes the analog that there are also three types of people in a society. At first, I really liked his analogy but as I thought about it more later, it began to bother me. For starters, because it seemed like the guardian class was allowed to pick the virtue of wisdom over the virtue of truth. They were trusted to make this decision because they were wise, but where/how/when do you draw the line? Does the guardian just get to pick which situations in which he will lie. I guess the idea is that his wisdom will guide him. With that said, is he just born wise or did he learn to be wise, because then it does not seem fair that he got that chance while others are told they are metal blood that prevents them from overstepping. It seems like Plato's society does not trust that the population is capable of controlling its own appetites if even the knowledge and virtue to do so, which begs the question if "to err is human" then why does he make it sound like some people where just meant to be wise.

I suppose he did not mean for it to sound as demeaning as it sounds, but for this reason I believe that the real truth lies somewhere between what Aristotle and Plato thought. That fulfilling ourselves and being virtuous is important, but we also have a place (though I believe it is a place we decide, that also makes us happy) and a duty to other people. Life will not always be fair and emotions will always be there but if we can make friends and find people in our lives to help us moderate our desires to find a "golden mean", and  I believe we could have a much better society.

Theoretical Versus Practical Wisdom

During Tuesday's symposium, we discussed the practical wisdom of Aristotle versus the theoretical wisdom of Plato. While I believe both are necessary in order to truly succeed in a particular area, and master a particular task, I believe that Plato's practical wisdom is more important for most areas. For example, when horseback riding or running, my two favorite sports, practical wisdom is required to be able to do either. One can read all the books on horseback riding that they can, written by the best Olympic riders and trainers, but until they actually get on a horse, they cannot know how to actually ride. They haven't built the muscles required to post the trot or sit through a spook or buck. The same is true with running. One can read articles about running all day, learning how they are supposed to time their breaths; how they should strike the ground with their foot; and how many days they should run, or cross train, or rest, but until a person actually ties their shoes and goes for several runs themselves, they will not be a "good runner." They will not be able to run long distances at a good pace, and they will get tired after only a few minutes. It takes practice and lots of hard work to build up the muscle strength and stamina to be able to run several miles. Many school subjects, such as math, are also the same way. Students can study the formulas and the steps required to work a particular problem for hours, but they will never truly understand how to work that particular type of problem until they work several of them for themselves. Although theoretical knowledge is helpful to know how to do something, the majority of people are better able to learn through jumping in a trying something, figuring it out as they go.

Lies in a Relationship

  In class today was raised a question as to, "who would tell their fiancé on the night before their wedding if they had an affair that took place several years before?" I think that we would all say no because we don't want to hurt the other person. Where as this is a reasonable answer I believe that if the person asked you the question you should be honest, careful, and be prepared for the utmost worst scenario. To begin with I think you should tell the person as soon as possible of the mistake that you made.  Now some people may say that you should use the honest lie so as to not hurt the other person but with this you run the risk of two things. First you run the risk of hurting the person even more down the road if and when they find out that you cheated because it will come out eventually. Second even if you do manage to pull of the charade of being faithful you will always be in terror worrying about when your spouse will find out and kicking yourself for not telling them the truth to begin with. Now does this honesty mean the end of your relationship perhaps, but a relationship should be made strong through honesty. In a relationship that is full of lies and guilt is one that will not last or be happy. Instead you should be able to talk to your spouse honestly about the mistakes you made in the past as well as having your spouse have the same relationship with you. But I do think that this topic should be brought up only once and that the mistake should be made only once. Now concerning the scenario in which the person breaks up the relationship I believe that you will have to live with this punishment because it is a fitting punishment. But the relationship could grow stronger if in fact it does survive this trial because where the perpetrator could not be trusted for some time if he/she where the ones to confess willingly and ask for forgiveness the other person should listen and if reasonable give forgivness.

Hitler Wasn't Virtuous

On Friday, we discussed several topics, one of which was about Hitler. We went back and forth about whether or not Hitler was virtuous and happy. I believe Hitler was not virtuous because as Aristotle teaches, virtue is a mean between the two vices of two much and two little. Hitler had a vision and was following it, but I don't believe that that is enough to be considered happiness, and thus not enough to be virtuous.

Hitler met a lot of resistance, especially as Germany started invading other lands. The second World War broke out in part because of Hitler's expansion, and the "cleansing" he did, which we know as the Holocaust, helped to rally his opposition. Not only did Hitler find resistance outside, however, but he found it within his own walls: his government, troops, and people. Not everyone was okay with what he was doing but were simply "following orders" or felt what was happening was too far along to stop. Following what you believe to be your Telos and suddenly finding out everyone is trying to knock you down and stop your dream is more than enough to cause a lot of stress. near the end of his days, even MLK was growing weary of the movement and the toll it was taking on his health and motivation.

I do not believe Hitler was correct, but I do believe he wasn't virtuous because I feel he did too much with his vision and actions (a vice), and was not truly happy because pursuing that dream wasn't what made him happy and he never fully reached his goal.

Failing Plato

Since starting this class, we have learned that Plato believes there are three parts to the soul: the appetite, the spirited, and the reason.  Plato believes that the appetite consists of basic animal desires such as food, drink and sleep.  He also states that the appetite aims to satisfy itself.  The reason part of the soul is supposed to make good decisions and keep the appetite (and spirited) in check.  Unfortunately, I do not believe in today's society that Plato would be happy with the misuse of the "appetite."
Lately I have been reading many articles about the obesity, diabetes, and artificial food epidemic that is consuming our country.  Statistics show that 1 in every 3 Americans will develop type 2 diabetes from the unhealthy, artificial, Standard American Diet.  Americans are spending billions of dollars per year in health care costs due to this disease.  Why are so many Americans becoming subject to this epidemic? I believe it is because people no longer use the reason part of the soul to make decisions that will benefit the whole person.  The reason part of the soul should not allow the appetite to eat cheeseburgers and drink soda everyday, but many Americans do it anyway.  This means that they are not using their reason to make sure their body stays healthy.  American's let the appetite make the decisions for health, and it is clear that these decisions are NOT beneficial to the whole of the person because they lead to illness.  The reason portion of the soul must come back into play and take control of the appetite if Americans want to get out of this obesity and diabetes dilemma.  It makes no sense that people would choose to make themselves sick based on the foods that they eat, but of course it doesn't make sense because it lacks reason.  We are failing Plato and his beliefs of the soul by this course of action.
But for those of you who still let the reason control your appetite, I say a job well done.