Is it Irrational to be Rational in the Button Press Scenario?

Every time we discuss the button press issue, whether as ourselves or as the philosophers we are studying, we always end up with the same three scenarios: either we push the button first and ensure that, at the very least, we are saving the people in our classroom; we do nothing and risk getting killed, because the people in the other classroom push the button; or no one in either room pushes the button and everyone gets away with their life. For the sake of the argument, let’s pretend that there are an equal amount of people in each room.

According to Mill, the morality of an action is determined by the consequences of that action; therefore, technically speaking, the moral thing to do in this situation is not to push the button. After all, if no one pushes the button everyone lives thereby creating the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. This, I think, is the point Larshay was making in class that everyone so vehemently protested against. Regardless, I think we were all more caught up in the fact that this is not a situation in which we could expect people to think or act rationally. After all, our lives were on the hypothetical line here. We need not look any further than Stanley Milgram's obedience study to prove that normal functioning adults, when put under pressure, can do things that completely overrule their ability to think and act rationally. That being said, I take after the great Philip Zimbardo in thinking that people who are inherently good, or in philosophical terms rational and moral, can commit bad actions when put in stressful and unfamiliar situations. In Mills's philosophy as well as in psychology, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and in this case, past events have shown us that people would push the button.

To press or not to press...the button

This week in class, we had a symposium. During the symposium on Wednesday, the button scenario was brought up again. This time, we had to approach the situation in the way Kant or Mill would. Mill and the Utilitarian philosophy would say that no one in that situation should press the button. This decision is based on the Greatest Happiness Principle. By not pressing the button, you will cause the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. I believe that the decision not to press the button is the obvious choice. In the situation, I am thinking rationally, however, there is no guarantee that everyone else in the room and the next room is thinking rationally. Thus, you have to keep in mind that there may be at least one person in each room that is thinking irrationally and is for pushing the button and will do so if no one stops them. It seems like a no brainer to some not to press the button on the sure fact that everyone lives if no one presses the button. Dr. J brought up a good point noting the fact that historically speaking, in a serious life or death situation people do not tend the think rationally and logically. Because of this historical trend, I believe, once aware, more and more people will agree to press the button in both rooms. I say this because at first, I was on the side not to press the button, but after Dr. J brought the fact up, I, and others began to contemplate my decision. In this situation, I believe that the irrational thinking people could possibly convince the rational people to agree with them. I say this because there are so many “what ifs” in this scenario and when brought to the table will make everyone think about their decision. But then again while everyone is debating whether or not to push the button, someone will slip by unnoticed and press the button and it would be all over, or not, depending on if the person was in your room or not. 

Happiness is defined as the state of well-being and contentment. Happy is derived from the old English word “hap” meaning to have good (or bad) fortune and “-y” having the quality of. Likewise, the word “happen” also has the same origins. I believe that happiness depends on what happens. I believe that we can never be happy for the sake of being happy. With that being said, I do believe that anyone can experience joy no matter their situation. Joy is defined as a feeling of great pleasure and happiness. Joy is happiness, but happiness is not joy. What I means by that is someone can be joyful even if nothing good seems to happen. Being “happy” is being content or “okay” with the outcome of something. Nowhere in the definition of joy do you see anything about contentment or having the satisfaction of something, because joy goes beyond that. Joy can (or not) include being content with something. Happiness happens only at the surface, but joy goes far beyond that. Abraham Lincoln once said, “People are just as happy as they make their minds to be.” What Lincoln is saying that happiness occurs in our mind, and ultimately we choose whether we want to be happy or not. However, Sai Baba said, “Joy needs no object; it is our own nature.” He is saying that joy does not need a cause, it is within in us and occurs whenever. According to Aristotle, poor people cannot be happy. I disagree with that. I believe that poor people can be happy and I believe that they can also experience joy. I do not believe that people can experience happiness for the sake of itself, but I do believe that anyone can experience or have joy for the sake of itself.

Is it really happiness?

Happiness is pleasure without pain. So, if you live a life without any sort of pain at all, you are living a truly happy life. As defined by Mill. But if you don't experience any sort of pain, how do you really know what makes you happy? Mill also says that morally good action also brings you happiness. But if a good action causes you pain, that is not happiness by his definition. I think of happiness as like a muscle, or a callus. You put it through much pain and it gets stronger. Your sense of happiness is stronger by how much pain you have had throughout your life. 

People would not learn some of the important things in life without pain also. The basic trial and error would not be existent because without the pain of failure, no one would learn the basics of life.

According to Mill, the utilitarian's standard for judging an act is based on the happiness of all people. This is true because an act shouldn't be about the individual's happiness, but the happiness of his act onto other people. 

Is your happiness more important than Others?

Mill states that "happiness is pleasure in the absence of pain." Morally good actions are done to produce happiness. I definitely agree and disagree at the same time with Mill. I agree because, no one wants an action or decision to make them miserable or unhappy in the long run. The common goal of many people is happiness. The reason I disagree is because, you can have a life with pleasure and a life with pain at the same time. A world with pleasure and no type of pain is not a world we are living in today. Pain teaches us lessons, it makes us appreciate things more. A life where pain and pleasure coincide together makes you both happy and appreciative of things you have. A life without either one is boring. Furthermore, in the reading Mill uses the example of the Martyrs who give up their happiness for some kind of "greater end." The greater end for martyrs are the happiness for other people. If we had more caring souls in the world today who though like this, the world would be an entirely different place. According to Mill the Utilitarian's standard for judging an act is the happiness of all people, not of the agent alone. Basically they believe that a person should not value his own happiness over the happiness of others. To me this shows the selflessness of the Utilitarian's culture, that they do not think of themselves. They think more of the good of the people, and what kind of aspect it will have on them. I do agree with what the Utilitarian culture believes in when it comes to putting others happiness before your own, because people should think of others before themselves , but that is not the world we are living in today.

kant versus mill or situation versus theory

Kant versus Mill… To be honest, it hard to agree with either sides. They both are flawed. I am in favor of Kant’s theory on responsibility of actions. His view is that we should reach happiness as long as we do not lie. We cannot always determine what the consequences of our actions would be. There are too many considerable factors. Sometimes while acting with reason, we would still make the “wrong” or “nonmoral” decision.

I like the theory of Utilitarianism when it mentions act and rule. No we cannot label actions as completely right or wrong—but, we change our minds while considering certain situations. For example, what if I promised to give my cousin a necklace for Christmas. Approaching Christmas, I realize I do not have the funds. I am asked to buy the same exact necklace from someone I know who sells stolen merchandise. Should I purchase the necklace from the person who steals.. KNOWING he/she steals.. or should I break my promise?

This is where we find dilemmas and issues with the theories. Should we change theories according to situation? Or should we follow them explicitly without situational factors? 

The Good, the Bad, and the Consequences

Mill states that morals are based on the consequences of an action. I think this is an interesting theory. Many times when thinking about a moral person we are thinking about a nice person. We don't think about that nice person's actions. We think about it as part their personality. However, if we think about what makes a person kind I believe that it would be similar to what makes a person morally right. They follow the Greatest Happiness Principle. They try and make the greatest amount of people happy. Although, someone can be a kindhearted person but do something to make someone unhappy. They could try and give someone back their coat and they might be giving it to the wrong person by mistake. It is possible to have good intentions and bad consequences. Would that mean what the nice person did was wrong according to Mills? We wouldn't say that they weren't nice. We know that they didn't mean to give away someone else's coat. But we could say their action was wrong. Does that mean that since their action had bad consequences that it was immoral? I think that saying this kind persons actions were immoral due to the fact the consequences were bad is harsh. It's purpose was to help and make another person happy. I believe that judging morality based on actions can get complicated. For instance, if someone is genuinely good for most of their life and then goes and kills someone the action of killing someone is still morally wrong. However, if someone tries to help a group people and fails miserably their moral actions could be considered wrong as well. I think that my ideas of morality are a mixture of Kant's and Mill's theories. I believe that goodwill motivates and action and that it is important to try and make that action a positive for the people around you.  

Kant, Mill, and Peanut Allergies

     According to Kant, an action is determined if its morally good depending on the motive itself and completely disregarding the consequences. Right or wrong is based simply on what an individual intended for it to be when he acted upon it. However, Mill takes a different approach to moral good, and possibly less selfish. Mill believes that what determines if an action is right or wrong is the greatest amount of happiness it causes for the greatest number of people. Basically, a morally good action seeks to bring about happiness to as many people as possible, rather than being satisfied with its good intentions alone. For example, if I give my best friend a peanut butter sandwich to make her day, but she's deathly allergic to peanut (assuming she didn't notice what she was biting into) and ends up dying, Kant with still consider your action morally good because of its intention, whereas Mill would argue that the action was wrong, because it didn't end up bringing happiness to anyone. At least, that's how I understand it.

Kant or Mill?

This week, we discussed two different moral theories. These were proposed my John Stewart Mill and Kant. I personally agree the most with Mill's Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a type of hedonism and focuses on happiness. Happiness is defined as pleasure and the absence of pain. Mill states that Utilitarianism is about choosing a moral decision that will produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. This is known as “The greatest happiness principle.” It also states that everything we believe is morally good is done for happiness. I agreed with this the most because we spent so much time debunking common misconceptions about Utilitarianism. This allowed me to have a more sound understanding and confidence in this theory. I appreciated that we had time to go so in-depth with this concept. I also enjoyed the fact that Mill covered the problems in virtually all moral theories. For example, he said that almost all moral theories could be manipulated if someone desires to do so. I also liked that he does not focus on any single god in his theory. This makes it more accessible to different people of different religions. I also appreciated Mill’s attitude towards his critics. His sarcastic replies made learning about his counterarguments enjoyable. I also liked how he believes the morality of one’s actions should be judged by the actions themselves, and not by the person. I personally feel like a majority of people live by Utilitarianism, even if they don’t know it. Most people do what they do to achieve happiness, whether for themselves or for others.

In conclusion, I enjoyed learning about Utilitarianism very much. It was interesting to think in depth about why we act the way we do.

Living the good life

In Utilitarianism, Mill states that happiness is pleasure and the absence of pain. Morally good actions are done to produce happiness. I agree with him because we never do an action to make ourselves unhappy. The Greatest Happiness Principle states an action is morally good in as much as its produces the greatest amount of happiness for greatest amount of people. People should consider this more in today’s society because one of the main causes of unhappiness is selfishness. If we did not have selfish people in the world then there would be less pain in many lives. Everybody has the possibility of living a life with little pain. If people lived by basing their action off the consequences then people would not be selfish. People often have a gut feeling about an action but they still need to think about the number of people it brings happiness to. However, everybody’s dream of happiness is becoming a millionaire with out working or going to school but if we lived a life with no pain then we would be bored. People would not be prideful for their accomplishment because there was not pain or challenges we had to overcome. A happy life is not always a completely pain free life but a life with many joyful moments and very few painful moments. Even though there are many criticisms of Utilitarianism, I agree with the ninth one that we do not always have the time to consider all of the consequences at the time of a decision. The decision for the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people is common sense based on history. For example, if I had to choose to tell a robber where all my money was that supported my family or he was going to shoot then I would have very little time to decide if I was going to lie. A consequence is not directly linked to a person but whether the decision was moral or immoral.

And That's What Makes You Beautiful...

On Wednesday, Dr. J told us the first four ways that people misunderstand Utilitarianism, but she left us with just the first statement and not John Stuart Mill’s argument against that. The fifth misconception stated, “People object to Utilitarianism because they say the most virtuous people in history have renounced happiness.” She also asked us to think about what that means and why John Stuart Mill would argue with that. The way I would rephrase that meaning would be that, “People object to doing something useful for the greatest amount of good, because the most renowned morally good people have abandoned their happiness.” So, why would John Stuart Mill have a problem with that?

I’m going to talk about Mill for a brief moment. He is all about Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is all about doing something useful for the greatest amount of good is a morally good action. He describes a morally good action as something that produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people.

For an example of an argument he could have against it, I’m going to use Gandhi. Gandhi was a peaceful man who believed in the good in people. Some would also say that Gandhi was a generally happy man. Well, I can see an argument that could be used against that. One could say that maybe Gandhi lost sense of his own happiness because he was too focused on making others happy. But on the other hand, one could say that Gandhi was a morally good man who was happy with himself because his happiness came from the joy he brought to others. I believe Mill would side with the latter. Mill could see Gandhi as man who made morally good actions by bringing happiness and wisdom to people. Gandhi was doing something not only useful for the people, but also for himself. He was passionate about what he taught. He was fulfilling his needs to do something worthwhile.

Overall, that’s just what I personally think. I could be wrong, but we shall all find out tomorrow.

The battle between Kantianism and Utilitarianism

Yesterday in lecture, we started to discuss John Mill’s extension on Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, according to Mill, is the basis for determining what is useful in producing happiness and is therefore the basis of the Greatest Happiness Principle. According to this principle, a morally good action produces the greatest amount of pleasure (and the least amount of pain) for the greatest amount of people. The only way this is possible is by examining the consequences of potential actions in certain circumstances (or moreover, consequentialism). Consequentialism has two principles which are: an action is right or wrong depending on the results of the action and the more good results (consequences) an act produces, the more right that action is. Mill’s view on consequentialism vastly differs from Kant’s view, whom rejects consequentialism all together. According to Kant, the moral worth of an action is not determined by it’s consequences but instead by the reason of that action. Moreover, a moral action is done with respect to morality itself and without motives. Hence, Kant identifies a priori knowledge which is the knowledge independent of experience. A prior knowledge is the only knowledge which fits the needed requirements for Kant’s definition of moral worth. Essentially, a priori knowledge is a fit since our actions will take place under different circumstances; therefore it is impossible to know the consequences of our actions and depends mostly on our personality. As Dr. J stated in class, one cannot agree with both Mill and Kant due to their different views of morality. Although it is understandable of the reasons of Kant’s view of morality, I do not completely agree with his philosophy. In my opinion, examining the consequences of a potential action is needed even though that consequence may turn out badly. By examining the consequences, we are able to do the best possible moral action or at least lead us in the right direction in determining the best action.

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