Hero to Zero

The summary of the class this week is that WE ARE ALL WEAK. We follow the rules, we do as we are told, we behave, well most of us. I never thought about it as being a slave, but the more you think about it the more you see why you are indeed a slave. We don't go against the "Man," we know not to fight the "Power" and why? Because my momma told me not to. We are good kids, good slaves. The more and more I think about it, it makes me mad. The history books told me that we had abolished slavery, but apparently that was a lie.

The nobel and strong is our government and most of us are the well trained slaves that follow every command because we don't want to get in trouble. 

I am not strong, and sad enough, I will continue to be weak, a slave if you must. I will hide behind the laws and rules that protect me because without them I might not be here.
Nietzsche, this goes out to you!

To Promise or Not to Promise

Let's face it everyone in their lifetime has broken a promise or two. Maybe it was intentional or maybe it was just due to a conflict that occurred. Today in class we discussed how Nietzsche believed that to breed an animal that is entitled to make promises. When a person decides to make a promise they are basically committing themselves to that action. Now if you make a promise to go out with your friend to a party, but you end up getting shot and end up on the operation table; you are still breaking your promise. You did not break the promise intentionally, but technically you still did. If you choose to flake on your friend and come up with some type of BS excuse then you are truly breaking your promise. You are testing your will as a slave because, you chose to lie instead of committing to going to the party with your friend. According to Nietzsche you are weak. Now like Larshay mentioned today in class, if you say " If God is Willing" that is kind of different to me. You are making a promise, but you are not at the same time so it is kind of like a 'maybe.' Nietzsche makes valid points when it comes to breaking promises, but when you break the promise and it is not in your control I disagree with Nietzsche. If a person is intending to make good on their promise and something happens to them, that is out of their control. Like with my previous example, if it was your intention to go to the party with your friend, but you got shot; you were still intending to make good on your promise. Promises are made with the thought that nothing bad will halt your future plans.

Rules are for the Weak!

On Wednesday, we discussed about how moral laws were created to help the weak. I completely agree with that. If there was no moral law, there would nothing to stop the aristocrat from doing whatever they want. Growing up since a baby until our old age we are brought up to follow rules. If we are conditioned to follow the rules then we basically become really weak. We can not even stand up for what we believe in. One example that was given was recently the incident of Spring Valley High School. If you didn’t hear what happened, basically one student was being disruptive and did not want to leave the classroom. So the teacher called the police in an effort to remove her. When the police officer came, the student was still disobedient. That is when the police officer used extra force to remove her. The video shows how the officer was aggressive to a point where he slammed the student on the floor with the desk and dragged her out. The video went viral within a couple of hours. The police office and school went through an investigation. Now when you look at the video, one of the biggest thing you notice is how quiet and motionless the other students in the class is. They didn't not want to get involved. They just wanted to follow the rules and move on their days. That is one thing Nietzche was afraid of. people would be so conditioned to follow rules that they can not stand up for themselves even if they know it is wrong. Following the rules has made us weak. This is another point I completely agree with. Especially in this era, whatever the media shows us or tells us, we just agree with it. There are millions of issues that need our attention but we are too afraid to not follow the rules or do anything about it. We are too weak to do anything about it.

Reading Assignment for next week: Karl Marx on "Alienated Labor"

Here is a link to your reading assignment for next week.

Ya pinky promise?

According to Nietzsche in The Genealogy of Morals, promises are discharging the will that nothing in time or space will stop a person from doing the duty. When people make promises then they are pretty much saying no matter what happens they will do whatever to make the promise happen. For example, if I promise my friend that we will have a movie night at my house but a tornado comes and destroys my house to where we cannot have the movie night then I am still breaking a promise. Even though I could not predict that the tornado was going to come, I still said no matter what we will have it. However, if I text my friend and said that we could not have it because I have to go eat dinner with my family then that is truly breaking a promise. I agree with Nietzsche because I have the freedom to choose to have the movie night but decided not to. That is testing my will as a slave, which shows that I am weak because I did not go through with the promise I made. On the other hand, I do not agree with Nietzsche in that I broke the promise to my friend because the tornado hit my house because I had no control over that. I do not think that people make promises meaning that nothing in time or space with stop them from doing but nothing in their control with stop them from doing it. I feel that breaking a promise due to a person choosing not to do it shows that a person is very weak not only because they did not do what they said but that it made their friend make a moral judgment on them. Therefore, that action will be held against them and could possible cause bad consequences. For example, in the future that friend may not trust you when you make other promises. Promises are to be held in the case that nothing in somebody’s control will stop them.

"There goes my herooooo"

Today in lecture, we started to discuss a key idea which is fundamental in Nietzsche’s philosophy – the Ubermensch. In this blog, I will give an example (or what I think is an example) of an Ubermensch. However before I do, I will discuss what exactly an Ubermensch is. Ubermensch has several translations such as superman, superhuman, ultraman (my favorite translation; it just sounds cool), and above-man; nevertheless, the literal translation is overman. An Ubermensch is a being or a “creature” which is considered to be the next level up from normal humans and sees him/herself as superior (not necessarily in a physical manner). Unlike slaves, an Ubermensch has the freedom of being able to learn to command himself due to being dissatisfied with what he is and/or has been. In this, he is not only able to command himself but others as well in that the Ubermensch sets values that goes beyond the realm of morality. What is characteristic of the Ubermensch is the will to power; the power to set his/her own values and goals due to the obedience to the self. The will to power can be characterized with having a strong and enduring self-determination. Further, the reason why the will to power is characteristic of the Ubermensch is that it is devoid of weakness (or in other words moral values). The Ubermensch is equilivant to a modern day hero in that the being is ready for hardships and struggles and has no pity or other weakness. This being discharge their will into action; if he/she wants to seek revenge, then revenge they will seek!

Now to my example of an Ubermensch. There were a few I initially had in mind, such as Ghandi; however, when thinking about it, he clearly was “working” within morality. Next I thought of the example of religious cult leaders (such as Jim Jones and Marshall Applewhite of Heaven’s Gate), or just cult leaders in general. 

  The Ubermensch =)

Also, here is a video clip of the Heaven's Gate initiation for those interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqSZhwu1Rwo

The Basics of Moral Values

This week, we discussed Nietzsche. His idea is that moral values were only invented to protect the weak and slavish. He describes the slavish as being most ordinary people. For example, he would think that everyone in our class was slavish. He also asserts that the slaves believed the statement “God loves me, therefore I am wonderful.” They also supported the notion that moral values are about good and evil, not good and bad. I thought the idea that all moral values are around to protect the week was rather jarring, but insightful. It definitely made me think about why we do what we do and where the values came from. I support protecting the weak wholeheartedly, as I believe everyone deserves to have the chance to live their lives as fully as possible. Eliminating them because they are below intelligence, ugly, or weak would not be fair to their individual rights as a person. It’s also interesting that, as far as we know, we are the only species of animal that thinks rationally and has moral values. Most other species would not hesitate to leave behind a weaker individual in their group for the sake of making the population stronger. This makes humans unique. I think this week was very insightful and made me think about the grounding of morals.

"Weak" Summary

Okay so, for those who may have missed a day of class this week or for those who need a fresh recap, here is a summary of what has gone down in Dr. J’s class this week.

          We’ve been discussing a philosopher named Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche believes that genealogy relates to morality. What does that exactly mean? Well he has split his philosophy in to two categories: the aristocratic or nobles vs. the slaves. The aristocratic, preferably known as the nobles, are the good. The slaves are the bad. But what determines why the nobles are considered good and what determines that the slaves are bad? The noble believe they are good because they are beloved by God. Because they are loved by God, they are wise, beautiful, wealthy, strong, and etc. They are also the ”yes-sayers”. The slaves on the other hand, are not loved by God. Therefore, they are not wise, beautiful, wealthy, strong and etc. The slaves are unable to discharge their will and cannot do the things that the “good” can.

          Nietzsche also discusses the slave revolt in morality. This is where it can get a little confusing to understand. What he makes clear is that the slaves are weak people. They are not just weak because they are not strong, but because the slaves have a mentality that their weakness is strength; AKA: the slaves believe in morals to try to hide their weakness. The slaves see the nobles as evil, because they have the power and strength that the slaves don’t. Nietzsche explains that the slaves came up with morals to try to make up for their lack of strength. If you’re still confused, think about this scenario: A kid is being beat up at school by another student for lunch money, and the kid being beat up does nothing. He doesn’t fight back, he stays passive. What did the kid who was beat up do? He did nothing. Therefore, he is weak. If the kid had fought back and showed his strength, he would be considered noble. Some opinions might be that the kid did right by not fighting back, by refraining from violence. They say that is the right thing to do because that is what their morals have taught them. But that is exactly what Nietzsche would consider a slave-like mentality.

          We’ve also briefly discussed what an “ubermensch” is. An Ubermensch is someone who can say “yes” to their life. They are the ones who are content with everything they have experienced in life and who would not go back and change a thing about it. Basically someone who legit lives by “no regrets.”

          Overall, Nietzsche’s mentality about morals is that they are useless for nobles and vital for slaves. Morals pretty much only preserve the weak.

Robotic Nation

This week in class we discussed Nietzsche. He may came off as brutal to most, but I agree with him. He stated that there was a time period where there were no morals. He called it the pre-moral mode of valuation. The two modes are aristocratic and slave. Then, we were taught morals. Plenty of people in society today are slaves. We were taught certain things, so we believe it or do it. These things are embedded in our heads so much that we have become domesticated. A society full of robots. We were taught to be respectful at all times to police, so we do it. We were taught that if we don’t have anything nice to say then don’t say it at all, so that’s what we do. All of these things and more Nietzsche considered weak. I agree with him. Society has become so weak today that a person can be terrified to express their opinion. For example, Bruce Jenner caused an uproar in the media when he became Caitlyn. Many celebrities expressed their opinions about the situation. A formal rapper stated how he didn’t agree with it and many people became upset at him. Was he wrong? Nobody has that say. He simply stated his opinion, but because society has been taught to follow the status quo or agree with the majority, many people were livid that the rapper didn’t agree. This goes into Nietzsche’s other statements about slaves being only able to react, but not act. Slaves can’t take action or voice their own opinion. They rather just keep the morals that they were taught and play it safe. Morals give people a safe haven. Killing a person is considered morally wrong, so most don’t do it. But what if there wasn’t any morals? The strong/aristocratic and weak/slave will definitely be determined.    

Post-Fall Break Reading Assignment: Nietzsche

Here is a link to Nietzsche's essay from The Genealogy of Morals, which you should have read before returning to class on Monday, October 26.

A Kantian in every movie

In almost every dramatic or horror movie I've come across (a lot), there's always been a "Kantian" in it. Every time something goes wrong, there's always that one person who goes against everyone else's plan in order to sustain humanity or morality. Movies like Saw exemplify this in many cases; in order for everyone to live, one person has to die (or something like that), yet most refuse to do it, even to save themselves. An even better example is the show The Walking Dead where at every turn, there's a moral delima, and the most rational choice involves the inhuman or unmoral act, or sacrifice, upon one person in order to save everyone else. In almost every case, the "Kantian" is depicted as the irrational or delusional person. In some cases it is virtually impossible to make a rational decision that ensures the well being of people without carrying out an inhumane duty. The question bothering me is: is the philosophy of Kant generally rational? Is it possible to treat every person as free, rational, and autonomous, and perform all necessary duties for the good of all without sacrificing humanity?

Lets just not.

This situation is literally just like the Batman movie where the joker had two boats and told them the button on the wall blew up the other ship. We should have faith in each other because if they all know that if they wait both side would live, they should have the moral to chose life of everyone rather than the few. According to Mill, the best decision would be one that causes the greatest amount of happiness and the greatest amount of happiness would be everyone living from both buildings. And that is also what happened in Batman, neither ship pushed the button and both the citizens and the inmates lived. Kant would also say that killing others is wrong and so neither Kant nor Mill would push the button. The only reason the people would push the button is out of fear that the other people would push the button. Which, to restate my first point, just means that everyone just needs to keep their faith in peoples humanity.

Would you kill your son?

Imagine you and your family being hopelessly trapped in a concentration camp. Your son, exhausted from all the tourture, tries to escape, but fails. The guard catches him and sentences him to be hung, but there's a catch. You have to pull the chair from beneath him. If you don't pull the chair, your son, along with three others, will die. Now,I believe that Kant would agree to pull the chair, but not Mill? For what reason you may ask? For Kant, whatever will provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people, the categorical imperative, would be his reasoning for pulling the chair. In this case, if you didn't pull the chair, three other innocent individuals lives would be at risk for the consequences of someone else's actions. Not to say that your son's intentions weren't good, but we must consider the lives of the other three people as well. In the case of Mill, I believe that he would not have pulled the chair because I don't think he could stand to live with himself afterwards. The thought of having to kill your own son would be devastating to him. And I wouldn't say he doesn't care about the other people, but he believes that he should be trying to achieve his own happiness. To lose someone close to you is hard enough but to have to kill them with your own hands? Mill would also not want to pull the chair because the consequences of his actions would be be bad and to him, the results of your actions play a great part in utilitarianism. So now it's your turn to decide. Would you rather kill your son, or have your son and three others killed by the hands of someone else?

Mill and Kant symposium

During the symposium, there was one topic that really spoke out to me at the time. The scenario in which there is a button in two classrooms in which they cannot communicate with one another, and if one of them presses the button, the other group dies. However, if no one presses the button, everyone lives. If someone believed in Mill's point of view, no one will press the button, because his belief that the morally right thing to do would be to let everyone live. On Kant's side, he believed in the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people, so in order to save lives, they might feel more inclined to press the button. To me, the most obvious decision would be to let no one press the button. I felt like the situation was much easier to settle than some others, because I felt like the majority of the people would be rational enough to not press the button. Even if there was someone who wanted to press the button for some odd reason, I feel like the majority of the rational people would be able to hold that one individual back from making such a heinous decision.


Another topic that really stuck out during the symposium is arguing whether or not consequences determine the moral will of an individual. It was an interesting idea to make, because a lot of people have good " intentions ", but the result or idea may backfire in that particular instant, so one would have to determine whether or not they are morally right. That is where Mill and Kant differentiate due to the fact Kant believes in the consequences of actions so in his view he would've been morally long. That is what I learned this week.

Kant and Mill

In class we talked about a scenario of a bomb that would go off in Barry. One person in class had put the bomb there and had the code to disarm or defuse it. The problem is deciding which options to use would be the best one. Using different views by Kant and Mill we can decide which is the moral or right way to handle the situation by their views. Mill believes that the best solution is to find a plan that would bring the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people. By that view, the best answer would be to get the code from the person who planted the bomb there in order to spare all the lives in Barry. They are able to do this either by manipulation or torture.  Either way would be appropriate according to Mill because if they did retrieve the code from the person with the bomb than they would be able to help save the lives of many innocent people. It would be everyone in the class rooms responsibility to help save those in the other building because it is their moral obligation or duty to try to help those people. The other philosopher, Kant, has a different opinion about the situation. He believes that your actions affect your consequences. If you do not help than you do not have any moral problem because you did not have anything to do with the bomb or anyone in the building. He believes that if you do help and you are not successful than your are responsible for the death of all the people inside Barry. You wouldn't be able to torture the person with the bomb because they would go against the categorical imperative. So they would have to retrieve the code from the guy without means of torture. 

#teamrationalandwontpushthedangbutton!!!

The was a lot of discussion on Wednesday, mostly on my part, on whether or not to push the button. Oh that cursed circle of death, how it vexed us so. On that day, I was on the side of Kant, and according to my categorical imperative mind, it is not logic to push the button and even morally wrong to do so. Even by the standards of the follows of Mill, the other side of the classroom, the greatest amount of happiness would be for no one to press the button and everyone live. So what is the problem? Fear is the problem. Our own selfishness will drive us to not think logically about the situations we are in. I truly do understand the argument of preemptive strike and it does have its merits, but I'm not sure if it is enough to make a decision to kill a whole other set of people to completely guarantee your life is spared. There is not true threat. it is only perceived that there is because of the powers of the button. But the true power lies in our rational minds to come up with the most logical conclusion. Does it not make sense for everyone to survive? If it is the case that everyone knows the rules, then if know one presses it, what has truly changed abut the situation? Indeed, it would be naive to think that no one would try to push it due to irrational fear, but we have the whole class to hold the stupid...I mean quite silly person, down. In conclusion, Kant would agree that killing the others is wrong because we are using them as a means in this situation, and Mill will argue the greatest amount of happiness is will be for everyone to survive. I personally don't think the stakes are high enough in this situation due to the safety that it guarantees. I believe the more serious question is the following: What would we do if both rooms of people die if no one pushes the button. I propose we ask this question in class and see what the results will be. Until then, "read more, write more, think more, BE MORE!" -Dr. J

My Life, My Choice

Imagine sitting quietly in class and a deep, loud voice circulates in the room. In front of the classroom, you see a bright red button coming through the wall. The voice tells you that you have two options. You could push the button to save your life and others in the room lives, or you could not push the button and everyone lives.The big red button scenario was very popular and controversial this week in class. No one wants to take the chance of dying, so many chose the option of pushing the button. However, many were looking from Mill’s perspective and chose to not push the button, which meant the greater amount of happiness for the most people. The problem in that choice is trust. That’s why I would push the button. Although I want everyone to live, I don’t know what’s going through the minds of others. Just because myself and others in the room made the decision to not push the button, doesn’t mean that everyone in the next room has made the same decision. I would not take a chance with my life. If I trusted and believed that everyone in the next room had trust in me and the individuals in my room to not push the button, I wouldn't have a problem with not pushing the button. It is every man for himself. Most likely, somebody in the next room has the same mindset as me and believes that somebody is going to push the button. Waiting to see if I am going to die or not would be very nerve wrecking. All of those nerves would cease, if the button is pushed, and it is guaranteed that I am going to live. Many believe that a rational person would not push the button. However, who knows if everybody in both rooms are rational? You might feel that the best choice is to not push the button, so that everybody lives. But a “irrational” person might not feel the same. As I previously stated, this is where trust and selfishness comes into play. Do you trust the people in the next room to not push the button? Do you believe that everyone in the next room is rational? Are you willing to to take a chance with your life? My answer to all of these questions is no, which is why I would push the button.