Good Will

The definition of good will is very evident by Kant. People these days, when asked why they did something, usually say it was the right thing to do. I don't believe that all people are like that now a days. People may say that it was the right thing to do, but most would actually do it to make them look better or so they didn't look bad. Which, in Kant's definition, would not be good will.

Good will in the modern world is very rare now. Only in the most extreme situations does good will show in people. After doing a good deed, the person should feel good about performing the deed in a way of service, not reward. Kant says that good will will overcome every circumstance, so maybe the world needs to start doing good deeds for the sake of good will instead of personal gain.

Kant also says that good will will overcome the circumstance even if a bad event occurs. So, lets say there was a child walking out in front of a bus and an adult pulls the boy out of the street, but ends up dislocating the boys arm. That would not effect the adults morals, since he was trying to do a good will.

Kant Moral Ethics

In chapter 1 in Immanuel Kants' Grounding for the Metaphysics of morals, one thing that really stuck out was the position of doing one's duty. One of the main things that really stuck out was how logic, physics, and ethics were all connected to one another. This meant that all of them are reliant on one another. Another significant topic that was talked about was how good will should be unconditionally good, which meant that no good deed should be for self-interest. I agree with that premise, because I believe good deeds should be done because people should feel like it is their duty to do what's right. In the motive of duty, it is believed the human action is morally good not because it is done from immediate inclinations, but because it is for the sake of day. It should make since early thinkers would have that particular mindset, because the enlightenment period in the sixteenth century highly stressed the concept of reason.
    Another concept that was significant for Kants is the consequence of the deed that was done. He believed that good will overcame everything in every circumstance, even if someone wanted to help someone and a bad circumstance occurred. For example, if someone brought food to the homeless, but the food was unknowingly poisoned beforehand, it would not affect the persons morals, because the intent was to help the individual. I somewhat agree with that premise, because someone wanted to genuinely help another person, even if it did not work out that way, but in some circumstances I would not agree with that.

Kant or Kan

So Kant was a big thinker during the enlightenment period, and he believed that the motive of duty was irrelevant in determining the good will of an action. As Dr.J explained in class, you would still be helping the old lady just not for the right reasons, and that's fine. However, what happens when its you do a good deed, but you end up hurting someone in the end? I mean with the old lady and the money, she just loses money and its okay cause apparently she was a rich widow. She has no body to support and she willingly gave it to you. Yet, what about Robin Hood? He gave back to the poor, but stole from the rich. I mean, the good will was there, the motive was there, but it was still stealing. However, to Robin Hood he felt it was his duty to give back to the poor, and that it was also the riches punishment because they were rich and selfish. However, does that make it ok? Is it ok to do bad things to help good people? I believe that Robin Hood is also a good example of an immoral person being irrational because his subjective and objective principles are opposing. His subjective principle is that its his duty to steal money from the rich to give to the poor even though rational person would automatically think, "No I can' t do this, its still wrong." It goes with the whole, two wrongs don't make a right. However, who would be the better person, Robin Hood, the stealer from greedy selfish mean people, or the guy that intentionally helped an old lady across the street knowing he'd get half a million dollars. Then again, it should be addressed that implying they were his intentions adds certain emotions into it and distracts from the question itself of whether it is still good will.

Doing your duty

In chapter one of Immanuel Kant’s book, Grounding in the Metaphysics of Morals, he talks about “The Good Will.” The Good Will, as he explained, is the only thing in the world that is unconditionally good where one’s action is for the sake of duty alone. The two categories under duty are, the motive and the formal principle, however I am going to focus on the formal principle of duty. The two subcategories of principles are the subjective and objective principles. Kant believes that one without the other results in irrational morals/duty. I agree with Kant because when you actively acknowledge the objective principle but it is not consistent with the subjective principle, what you actually do, it just does not make sense for someone not to do the right thing. However, at one time or another, not all of our subjective principles were equal to the objective principle. We are not perfect people, and thus we will do things that are, according to Kant, irrational. For example, the objective principle may be “the rational person acting rationally would come to a class with a start time on time,” and a subjective principle that is equal to the objective principle would be “I came to a class with a start time on time. However, one that is not equal would be something like “I went to the mall instead of going to class.” It is irrational for you to go to the mall instead of going to class. By going to the mall instead of going to class and being on time, you are ultimately saying that the mall is more important than going to class. Some may disagree, but to me it just makes sense to have the subjective and objective principle equal to have rationality because when they are not equal your morals/duty are not in accordance with nature, and we all want to be in accordance with nature. Right?😊😂

Univeral Laws of Ethics

According to Kant, the philosophical areas of logic, physics, and ethics are all intertwined, meaning they do not function independently of each other in the natural world. We have learned that nature is purposive and that the laws of nature (i.e., physics) are necessarily universal. If we think of ethics and morality in the same way then that would mean morals and ethics are also universal. As always, the majority of us were skeptical of this idea because we like to think morals are culturally learned (i.e., they differ depending on one's own culture and beliefs). However, are cultures really so uniquely different that there can not be a universally shared concept of reason and morality?

 

Kant describes the relationship between reason and morality as being one in which something that is morally bad is such because a rational person would not commit the act. In other words, if one ought not to kill and does so, that person is both irrational and immoral. I don't think most people would disagree that killing is both irrational and immoral as a universal concept, but what about things that we describe as being unique to our culture as a whole; can we say that another culture is irrational or immoral when judged according to the ethical standards set by our culture? So far, it seem as though Kant would say that because ethics are governed by natural law, then all ethical things are necessarily universal. To some extent, I would agree with Kant. I think cultures can look different on the surface, act different in social contexts, and even come to different conclusion about things based on their individual cultural beliefs; however, what I do not believe to an absolute certainty is that we are all so different that we can not, or should not, reason in similar ways. If we take the example of physics, no rational being in any culture would reason that dropping an object would cause it to float upwards. If it is the case that the principle of ethics function similar to the principle so physics, then why can't the same be true of murder, or honesty?  

 

-Andrea

Goodwill...i love that store!!!

I believe that Kant is very logical when it comes to his perspective of ethics. When anyone is asked why they did something, they answer because it was the right thing to do. When asked what the right thing to do is, the response is usually what I am suppose to do, thus duty. Duty needs not any emotions and therefore cannot be put in the same category with intent. How do we judge what is good? Kant also believes in the maxim and if such a law can be applied to everyone (like physics) then it would be the case that such a law is right to do. We cannot separate ourselves from the laws of physics because they are principles, without our control, govern our lives. Even though you can choose to act against rational behavior and be immoral, you cannot do things outside of reason and still be correct in calling yourself a reasonable human being. I would like to propose that if it is the case that being a reasonable individual also allows you be a moral on, because being the opposite would mean immorality, then the Good Human being is the one of duty. For if the goodwill is duty and goodwill is unconditional and good within itself, then so is she/he that does their duty. Such a person would be the model human for all and would walk in the way of a person not ruled by emotion, although having them, but by living according to the natural world. The only flaw I have with Kant is that emotion or perhaps intuition has no necessary logic and yet can save lives. In class it wouldn't make since for Dr. J to not give poisonous donuts to the homeless. by goodwill, she would've been obligated to feed the needy, but intuition would've saved the homeless. Duty, if taken by a righteous idiot, can be manipulated to case unrighteous harm. although the goodwill will not be blamed, the soul of the good man will forever be unbalanced.

Peas in a Pot

In class today, we discussed Kant. He believes that philosophy can be divided into three areas: physics, logic, and ethics. He also believes that all three of these areas are exactly the same. I absolutely disagree. You can gain the knowledge of logic and physics by learning and studying the factual evidence and information that are provided for them. Because the information is factual, it is the universal truth. A person can not debate factual evidence or have their separate opinion against it. However, a person can do this when it comes to ethics. Everyone doesn’t have the same morals or ethics. What’s important to one person might not be important to somebody else. We all were not raised with the same values and beliefs. Therefore, logic, physics, and ethics are not the same. Ethics are not a universal truth. Culture can reflect a person’s ethical belief, and everyone doesn’t have the same culture. For example, cheating on your significant other can be considered morally wrong. Everyone doesn’t believe this. A person who believes that cheating is wrong, most likely values their relationship. They believe in the virtue of loyalty. Everyone is not loyal and does not believe that loyalty is important. It all depends on a person’s standard. That’s why ethics are not a universal truth because everyone is not similar. A person’s ethics comes from their own moral beliefs and moral conduct. Physics and logic are not debatable. Physics and logic has laws and factual evidence to prove that it is true. A person can read a textbook and gain information about these two areas. For ethics, that’s not the case. A personal gains their ethics from their upbringing or personal experiences. It is not something that can be obtained from a textbook because it doesn’t have any factual evidence on this subject. Who’s to say what’s right, and what’s wrong?

Life Without Suffering?

I do not believe that anyone agrees that suffering is the best thing to happen to anybody. I believe that suffering is a part of life though. You cannot appreciate things if you do not go through the good and bad of life. Suffering teaches people not to take things for granted and appreciate the things that you are blessed with. My family took a lost last year that was very hard for the family. My family took my Uncle Brian for granted. We never had time for him, or time to support any of his goals. He was suffering with cancer and did not let anyone know of his condition. Because, he did not want anyone to  treat him differently, by time he was on his death bed all of us felt bad and full of regret. We lost him in October of 2013. His death made us appreciate our family members that are here even more. Even though the suffering feels hard at the time it makes you appreciate things. Whether it is family, time, or something that is dear to you. Most people would probably love a life with high highs instead of highs and lows. But, most people do not realize that suffering made them who they are. You have to take the good with the bad. That is just a part of life. I do not understand, why others would want high highs. I am not saying that I love suffering, but because of the suffering I have experienced I do not take my life, family, or everyday for granted. Would you want a life without suffering? Do you think you would appreciate things the same without the good or the bad? Most people believe that everything happens for a reason. They would not want to change not one aspect of their lives and I agree with that. I guess if you agree'd with Lucretius, you would want to eliminate pain all together and not experience any type of suffering.

To Suffer or not To Suffer

To suffer or not to suffer. That is the question. Having to choose between a life of no suffering or a life of suffering is actually a hard choice because of having to imagine a life of no suffering.Suffering in life can be compared to scraping your knee when you are a kid in that it is bound to happen at some point. Suffering has always been around us and is seen in our everyday lives. People have suffered so long that it is seen as the status quo. Therefore, seeing people suffer while you prosper will eventually cause guilt and sadness. If someone actually chose a life of no suffering I believe that they would be miserable. A life of no suffering can be seen as a utopia that is too good to be true. Everyone wants a life of no suffering, but can we actually imagine having a life of no suffering while seeing other people suffer. Us as people have been so equipped to suffer that even in class we asked about how much no suffering would actually occur. In my opinion I believe that in order to keep sanity there has to be suffering. Seeing people suffer can show people how imperfect life can be and how lucky you are to be able to live a life of less suffering than those who suffer tremendously. To see people suffer is to show that other people are not as fortunate as those who do not suffer as much. However, people can help those who are suffering to offer a glimpse of hope.  If everyone got to live a life of no suffering, then people would not grateful for what they have and may eventually take things for granted. Furthermore, I believe that suffering is a lesson that teaches us to be kind, generous, and humble.

A Life without Suffering is Boring?

In class, this week, Dr. Johnson gave us two options to choose from.  Option one, either choose a life with no suffering- but no high highs or low lows, or option two, we could choose a life with extremely high highs or extremely low lows. To everyone’s surprise no one chose to pick the life with no suffering. Not that we wanted suffering or anything but we in today’s society can not imagine a world without suffering. At first I didn’t want to choose the first option because I felt like life would be so boring. Anything you do would just be like just a routine boring stuff daily. However, later on after exploring the topic further more I came to the conclusion that I would chose option two. Not because I want to choose a boring life, but because I want to live a life without suffering. I don’t have to worry about someone getting into a horrible car crash or living life not knowing where my next meal will come from. Most of the people however believe that they would not like a life without having their extremely high highs. If you go through hard obstacles in life (extremely low lows) to reach a goal that you have set for yourself then it is more pleasurable when you reach that goal. Yes that is true but can you not be happy without pain or suffering. I think you can be happy without the pain and suffering. A world without suffering sounds perfect! A world where you are free from pain, Aponia. I would choose to live in that world anytime! I might get to the extremely high points in my life, however at least I would not experience the feeling of pain and the daily struggles of everyday.

Eliminating Attachment

While talking in class this week, we compared close people in our life to glass vases. According to Epictetus, people are irrational for suffering when they lose relatives, children, or close friends because they are emotionally attached to them. If a person were to not become attached to them then they would live a better life because they do not have pain. However, I disagree with this belief. A person can never truly be happy because they would lack friendship or feel lonely. Even though people do not get upset over a vase breaking does not mean that we should compare objects to people in our life. Vases are replaceable but people that mean something to us are not. We do sometimes become to attach to the wrong people and face heartbreaks but that only teaches a person a lesson. Without suffering a person would not learn from their mistakes. For example, if a girl dated a really rich guy that everybody wanted and he was so sweet to her then all of a sudden one day decided to break up with her. She would learn her lesson that being rich and popular is not the best characteristics when choosing a guy. Although, I do believe that there is a certain extent as what too attached could mean. If a person is so attached to someone that when they lose the person it causes mental harm to them then that is irrationally. I think there should be logos to a person’s attachment. An attachment is also sometimes hard to control. In conclusion, a person’s existence is nowhere comparable to a glass vase or an object; therefore it is not irrational to be attached to a person in our lives. However, I think Epictetus is right about less suffering in a person’s life will make a healthier person but attachment is not best suffrage to eliminate from a person’s life.

But Beyonce said You Are Replaceable

When we talked about the irrational attachment people have with people in class it reminded me of a discussion I had with some friends in high school. A similar question was asked, "can a step mom replace your mom?" One of my friend said that their mom is irreplaceable.

Honestly everyone is replaceable. If my mom was to die, and my dad remarried I would have a new mom. This lead to hours of discussion and a text group that wouldn't be quiet. They all talked about how their mom was unique and no one could ever take her place. While I see the value the children have for their mom because that is someone who has invested a lot of time into them; the children also know that even their mom's are human and one day will die. When the conversation was going on in class I wanted to say that I agree humans die nothing abnormal about it, not to say I won't miss them. I see how it would be irrational attachment, why that one human? What was so special? What did that person give you that someone else can't? 

I just find it so interesting. It is easier to say that everyone will die and come to terms that it's okay, because when the time comes and someone dies, we are not okay. 

Suffering: A Difficult Question to Answer.

This week in philosophy we discussed the question of whether we would choose a life with extremely high highs and extremely low lows, or a life without suffering. Most people in class were set on keeping their suffering and experiencing the high highs and the low lows. It made me think about which I would choose. I couldn’t help but think about Buddhism. The main idea of Buddhism is eliminating suffering by following the eightfold path. It also talks about reaching enlightenment through ending suffering. This made me think about what my life would be like with no suffering. This made it even more difficult to make a decision on which option I would choose. There are benefits to having a life with no suffering. If I never suffered, I would be interested in learning more about the world if I was not bogged down by worries and inconveniences. Additionally, no one in class really talked about the magnitude of facing the lowest of lows. Having something happen to you that could be classified as a “lowest of low” could be traumatic and effect how you act for the rest of your life. Most of the problems brought up in class were minor to moderate inconveniences. No one mentioned the effects of lows such as life-threatening illness, losing an immediate family member, being assaulted, or other possibly traumatic experiences. However, this is still a difficult decision to make. You really could emerge out of a traumatic experience as a better person. Additionally, experiencing the highest of highs could be really inspiring and wonderful. It is also hard to choose because I have no experience with living a life with no suffering. There are few people who have ever existed who I believe have completely eliminated suffering. If I had a better idea of what a life like that would be like, I could make an informed decision. However, with much thought, I have decided that I would like to experience a life without suffering. I feel like it would be a very interesting experience. However, I am extremely open-minded to both possibilities. In conclusion, I’m really glad this question was presented to me. It really got me to think about the foundation of how I would live my life.

Stoicism, loss, and getting over it.

Growing up my mom has always told me that I didn't have to act so stoic all the time. While my dad constantly would tell me, it is what it is. While reading and discussing Epictetus in class I felt like I could relate to him in many instances. For instance when he says in passage 8, “ Do not seek to have events happen as you want them to, but instead want them to happen as they do happen, and your life will go well” (56). 

Always wanting what you can’t have at the moment is a hard way to live. I try and enjoy what is going on around me now and go with the flow. Although I will say being a senior college student does not help me to live by this passage. I am constantly anxious about the future. But I usually tell people that I am just going to wing it and do the best I can. It is what it is. Studying the stoics helped me to get a better idea what the word stoicism means. I had always viewed it as a compliment. When my mom told me I was being stoic I always interpreted that as meaning strong and less whiny. 

After going over the material in class I realize that it could be viewed as somewhat unfeeling and uncaring. Basically to a stoic, pleasure just means not experiencing pain or suffering. Having experienced the loss of my father I recently, I remember having to take both of my parents’ advice. I let myself not be stoic for a moment. I let out as many emotions as I could and then I said to myself, it is what it is. I know logically that people don’t live forever and that the last thing that my father would want would be for me to be upset. But I was. I did not view his death as a broken glass or vase. 

Although I think that would have been his explanation to me. Life is temporary but I believe that having a completely irrational deep connection to someone is worth the suffering. Which I guess means I am not really a stoic after all. I might not get upset about break ups as much as the next person. I also tend to take criticism well. I live by the notion that what other people think of me is none of my business. So I would say I am a human being with stoic tendencies. I would prefer not to suffer but I would rather be allowed to feel deeply even if that means getting hurt.       

Guignon, Charles B. "Epictetus, Encheiridion, or the Handbook." The Good Life. Indianapolis, Ind.: Hackett Pub., 1999. 56. Print.

passion and virtue

Why is it we view the stoics and epicureans as “different”? Yet, we use some of the same ideas today. Like Epicureanism, we strive to live at peace—or to ultimately reach tranquility. We strive to do things that will make us happy. The stoics seem to be more honest about life without spirituality or religion. They look at humans and nature from a natural, common way. They use nature to explain everything. Would we honestly reach a place of happiness if we took the stoic’s position and viewpoint? If I do not listen to my own natural passion or any emotional factors, would I eventually find the happiness that I am searching for?

For example: let’s say I fall in love with someone.  We develop a relationship. I gain an emotional attachment with them. I plan on marrying this person and making a family one day. For me to be happy in the future, I tell myself that I will continue this emotional attachment with him and to have a family. We break up. Yes there are other men in the world, but what if I imagined only us two—not me and anyone else? Would I reach that happiness?

The stoics would tell me to leave the emotions alone. If I do not separate emotion and what is in “nature”, I will not find the virtues. What they define as the optimal virtues would be wisdom, courage, justice and temperance. If I fell so in love with him, it would be a passion of mine to have a family one day. The stoics would say to find wisdom, courage, justice and temperance, it would be best to not have that passion and to let it go. They use the appeal of logic and common reason. To separate is to find those virtues.

Know Myself

Before I started writing this blog, I was having extreme writer’s block. I opened up to the Epictetus chapter in “The Good Life” to get some ideas. That’s when I realized that Epictetus’ philosophy was on point. He states: Do not seek events to happen as you want them to, but instead want them to happen as they do happen, and your life will go well. Basically, don’t sweat the things that you can’t control. We are all selfish. We are all impatient. We want things to go our way, and when they don’t we can get upset over it. We are hurting ourselves by doing that. This is our life, and it’s not going to last forever. Every day we are faced with things we cannot control, the only thing we can control is our judgement about the unexpected plot twists we encounter. We can either let it annoy, frustrate, and hurt us. Or we can let it help us. Whether that be a challenge that can teach us endurance, or an end to something that can take us somewhere else. But that is not the only point I want to discuss. Epictetus stated something that I can’t let go of, which was basically if you are doing something, but not in the right way, avoid it. But if you’re doing something right, why do we fear the criticism of others? This is our life, we do things for ourselves. We all have a goal that we aim for, so why are we so scared of what others think? It’s not their decision, it’s not about them. Whatever you do is for yourself, to make yourself satisfied by completing whatever you’re going for. We should stop criticizing ourselves and others. We need to respect other’s decisions. After all, if we do things only for others and what they will think, how far will that get you?

You control your emotions; Your emotions don't control you.

How much are we actually in control of the events around us? When discussing Epictetus on Monday, we discussed the concept of the relationship between free will and determinism. According to Epictetus, we should avoid having an attachment to things since they interferes with our happiness. It took me a while to fully grasp and agree with this concept however, after reflecting on the events of my life (and my response to them), I completely agree with Epictetus. What is the point of being bothered by something that is beyond our control? There is no purpose, at all, in worrying about things. The only goal worrying about something achieves is it ruins our happiness. If we want to experience happiness, we have to ensure that our emotions does not dominate our response to a situation.

An example that can be used is being stuck in traffic. We don’t have any control of the traffic; although it would be fantastic if we have powers to control the traffic similar to Bruce Nolan like seen here. Nonetheless, we have two choices in emotion in which we can exhibit. One, we can become bothered and furious, all while having an increase in blood pressure. Or, we can be calm in the situation and listen to our favorite tunes on the radio. Another example that can be used is anxiety. I, personally, get extremely anxious whenever I have to present in front of a class. There can be a few days, or even a week, until the presentation and I worry so much about the presentation to the point where I am unable to think rationally. The thought of having to complete a presentation dominates my mind so much in which that is almost the only thing I can thing about. Now looking back, it is irrational that I let a little thing affect me so much. What was the point of being so anxious about it? I had to do the presentation, I have no other choice or else I would not receive a grade for it. Instead of living in the moment leading up to the presentation, I allowed my emotions (anxiety) about it to dominate my happiness.