I think there is something more to be said on the subject of indulgence which I had not followed through with in class.
The scene with the tea and sugar seems to point at a certain amount of indulgence in Father Flynn's character. Three lumps of sugar and long fingernails (which may or may not be a sign of effeminacy, but displays a sign of being both clean and more so a small sort of vanity). Not being Catholic I can only generalize about the accepted behavior of members of the clergy, and it would seem that any sort of indulgence would be unacceptable, or at least there would be a strong attempt to do everything in moderation in order to curb indulgence, even when it comes to something so simple as sugar. It just seems that if Father Flynn lacks that sort of decorum, lacks the reservation and self-control in even the smaller aspects of his life, whether it be in his consumption of sweets or in minor narcissistic tendencies, then he would not hesitate to indulge in other more serious ways.
It seems as if he is also very presumptuous and takes liberties, such as when he sat down in the chair behind Sister Aloysius' desk during the chair scene. He's very sure of him self to the point of being very rude and self-important, marking his place as the superior in the scene and even seeming to disregard Sister Aloysius' own position of power. And upon leaving the scene he does not opt to talk to the monsignor about the situation and settle it in that manner, but instead states that he will suggest that Sister Aloysius take a break from her job. Seems as if there are some power plays going on in Doubt, mostly Father Flynn making a play for power over Sister Aloysius and she in turn trying to circumvent a structured church hierarchy that is will not support her, right or wrong, in order to do what she thinks is right. In one of the last scenes Father Flynn also instigates a private meeting with Sister Aloysius, which is clearly against the rules, and granted I could appreciate a private conversation in order to resolve a conflict betweeen two people, but if he was innocent and had nothing to hide he shouldn't have had a problem with there being a third party present. If we could arguably see all of these as indicators of an abuse of power, then to what extent could Father Flynn take that abuse of power, especially over those who are most vulnerable to his influence?
At first I was like Sister James during the tea scene, relieved that there was a logical explaination for what had happened and quick to accept it. There seemed to be evidence to the contrary later on in the story, especially in regards to Mr. McGinn. Father Flynn said that it was Mr. McGinn who had caught Donald Muller with the wine, but it was later reveiled that Mr. McGinn had known that the boy had been drinking, but had not caught him in the act nor did he know the exact circumstances as to how he had acquired the wine. So this doesn't do anything to prove Father Flynn's innocence. While I agree that Sister Aloysius is a hard-ass and had taken some great liberties and stepped out of bounds in order to weasel him out, I don't feel that she was entirely out of line, she did what she had to do and that meant breaking some of the rules of the church and general social rules. As far as I'm concerned she called his bluff, if he was trully innocent he wouldn't have accepted to leave so readily faced with the knowledge (which was a lie) that Sister Aloysius knew something about his past, had confirmed it with other nuns at other parishes, which was breaking the rules, but while he pointed his finger at that he broke rather quickly. No, Sister Aloysius was unable to really stop him in the end and he moved on to become pastor at another parish, but she got him out of her school and away from those children which was her immediate concern. If faced with the choice it is better to damage his reputation in order to protect the children. But remember, it never really got out and she never managed to question his reputation to a wider audience. He wound up safe.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Doubt 1
I'd have to say that the character I sympathize the most with is Sister James. She seems so innocent and trusting and, yes, naive. The reason I sympathize with her the most is because she seems to be a good teacher, someone I would like to learn from because she is so invested in her teaching and her students and seems like she would be a fun teacher. But it is because of her naivity that makes her so succeptable to the lies of others, she can't think anything but but good of anybody and she will willfully fool herself into believing Father Flynn, so long as it could erase a terrible situation and provide a logical explanation she can preserve her illusion of reallity. Or at least the illusion that within the church there is an immunity to such horrible things.
I think the gender roles in the play are interesting, and the ways in which the hierarchy within the church is very gendered and how that hinders Sister Aloysius in her crusade.
I don't know who I really admired, it seems like a combination of sister Aloysius and Sister James. I liked Sister James for reasons stated above, she is sweet and loving. I disliked Sister Aloysius, but had a grudging respect for her. Though she was cold and distant she wasn't unfeeling, she cared about the welfare of those around her and refused to just let things be. Next two questions, not really sure.
And last but not least, I believe to doubt can only make the realization of truth of faith all the more stronger, and shows a healthy individual character who refuses to accept anything at first glance. This, however may not be the true meaning of Tillich's statement.
I think the gender roles in the play are interesting, and the ways in which the hierarchy within the church is very gendered and how that hinders Sister Aloysius in her crusade.
I don't know who I really admired, it seems like a combination of sister Aloysius and Sister James. I liked Sister James for reasons stated above, she is sweet and loving. I disliked Sister Aloysius, but had a grudging respect for her. Though she was cold and distant she wasn't unfeeling, she cared about the welfare of those around her and refused to just let things be. Next two questions, not really sure.
And last but not least, I believe to doubt can only make the realization of truth of faith all the more stronger, and shows a healthy individual character who refuses to accept anything at first glance. This, however may not be the true meaning of Tillich's statement.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Abortion
This is a severly tough subject to tackle, even for someone who has a decided opinion on the topic. I'm going to come right out and say that I am pro-choice (which is not what many call pro-abortion, which is a misnomer, and a terrible misconception of the idea). No one, not even pro-choicers are okay with the idea of an abortion. It is under what conditions is it acceptable is the issue, not whether it is good or bad.
My personal feelings stand on the basis of the rights of the mother. It seems that many have lost sight of the fact that the mother is also a living being, with her own rights to her body and her life. There are some on the pro-life side who say that even in the eventuality that the mother will die it is still not acceptable to have an abortion. So much for being pro-life, especially since in many of these cases the baby will most likely die with the mother. I'm going to use the case of one of my cousins for example, who has some sort of unusual condition that makes being pregnant poisonous to her body and therefore unable to carry a baby to full term and also running the risk of killing herself. Would it be wrong for her to have an abortion then, if it were to save her life? I'm going to use various examples from my family because they seem to have a lot of trouble with fertility and childbirth. My mother, when I was in elementary school, had what is called an ectopic pregnancy (or tubal pregnancy) when the feritlized egg implanted itself in the fallopian tubes (tubes leading from the ovaries) instead of in the uteran wall. This condition, if the fetus is left to grow instead of being removed, is fatal to the mother at a very early stage in the pregnancy, and therefore to the baby as well. Only option here is an abortion.
My grandmother was faced with life/death situation in which the doctors told her she would most likely not survive giving birth to her third child. My mother was her second child and when going into labor she suffered something called placenta praevia, when the placenta attaches itself in a certain way to the uteran wall, and when the water breaks it tears open the blood vessels in the uterus and results in severe hemmoraging (the same thing happened to my mother when she gave birth to my brother). My grandmother did die giving birth to my mother, but they were able to bring her back and she was told not to have any more children, because next time they may not have been able to save her. And of course, by a freak accident, she became pregnant and they advised her to have an abortion, which she refused so my grandparents where sent back to America (grandpa was in the navy, and they were stationed in Scotland) so that grandma could say good-bye to her family in the event that she did die. All of these stories have a happy ending, for those of you who are reading this and possibly feeling sad. My grandmother gave birth to my uncle with no problems other than he was a very big baby, my brother was born safely (though my mother almost hemmoraged to death because several doctors and nurses left her sitting in the hallway of the hospital). Mom ended up having an abortion for the ectopic pregnancy, and my cousin, the one with the condition that made pregnancy poisonous to her body, has successfully given birth to two children the first was premature (which was expected given her condition) but she gave him up for adoption which she regrets, and the second she managed to carry to full term without any complications and who just turned 2 years old this week.
Of course none of these really illustrates the im/morality of abortion, other than these are legitimate life/death situations in which having an abortion is/would be morally acceptable. To disregard a woman's reproductive rights in any instance is wrong, and to say that protecting her own life by getting an abortion is wrong is thereby disregarding her status as a human being with a right to life. Historically a woman's body and health were not treated seriously. She has been a possession, a vessal for the continuation of a family line, it was her husband who controlled her life and reproductive capablities. Women's health has also been very misunderstood, even during times of medical advancement, such as in Victorian England, where doctors where beginning to make breakthroughs in medicine, but they were only allowed to examine a woman only where her skin was exposed, which was difficult because victorian dress women were covered from throat to feet, with only her face and hands being exposed. Nore were they allowed to perform autopsies on women, so they knew very little about how a woman's body functioned compared to that of a man's. To cut a long story short, my defense of pro-life is on a woman's right as a living entity to her own life and body. And it's not just the term of pregnancy we are talking about, it's literally the rest of her life, or at least until the child reaches adulthood. I wouldn't suffer a rape victim to not only carry and give birth to her rapist's child, but to be forced to raise that child. It would be an extraordinary woman to do that without hatred and resentment, what kind of environment is that for either mother or child? And the physical damage it does to the body, often disfiguring, let alone the emotional/hormonal stress and the physical stress it places on the body. A pregnant woman is supporting two bodies and the baby gets what it needs first, even at the harm of the mother. I know of a woman who lost all of her teeth because the baby had drained calcium from some of her bones.
I guess what I'm getting at is less philosophical than what the authors have been getting at, but I feel rather strongly about Thomson's essay. The analogy of the violinist with the bad kidneys was good. Under what circumstances would I myself have an abortion? I can't claim definite answers to any situation, I can't know how I'll choose if ever faced with the situation. If I were raped, I think most definitly yes, for reasons I stated above. If I were to become pregnant now, before I've finished my education, I don't know. I'm not in a position to be able to care for a baby, I can't support it well without a career and being tens of thousands of dollars in debt, but I feel that if I did have an abortion I would regret it for the rest of my life, because I did kill my own child. What about adoption you say? I wouldn't suffer any child to be in the American adoption system, I've heard too many horror stories to subject any child to a life of parentlessness and a feeling of being unwanted, to foster or adoptive homes where they could most likely suffer horrible abuse, or the rare eventuallity that they end up in a home with loving parents who decided not to adopt from asia.
I'm done for the night.
My personal feelings stand on the basis of the rights of the mother. It seems that many have lost sight of the fact that the mother is also a living being, with her own rights to her body and her life. There are some on the pro-life side who say that even in the eventuality that the mother will die it is still not acceptable to have an abortion. So much for being pro-life, especially since in many of these cases the baby will most likely die with the mother. I'm going to use the case of one of my cousins for example, who has some sort of unusual condition that makes being pregnant poisonous to her body and therefore unable to carry a baby to full term and also running the risk of killing herself. Would it be wrong for her to have an abortion then, if it were to save her life? I'm going to use various examples from my family because they seem to have a lot of trouble with fertility and childbirth. My mother, when I was in elementary school, had what is called an ectopic pregnancy (or tubal pregnancy) when the feritlized egg implanted itself in the fallopian tubes (tubes leading from the ovaries) instead of in the uteran wall. This condition, if the fetus is left to grow instead of being removed, is fatal to the mother at a very early stage in the pregnancy, and therefore to the baby as well. Only option here is an abortion.
My grandmother was faced with life/death situation in which the doctors told her she would most likely not survive giving birth to her third child. My mother was her second child and when going into labor she suffered something called placenta praevia, when the placenta attaches itself in a certain way to the uteran wall, and when the water breaks it tears open the blood vessels in the uterus and results in severe hemmoraging (the same thing happened to my mother when she gave birth to my brother). My grandmother did die giving birth to my mother, but they were able to bring her back and she was told not to have any more children, because next time they may not have been able to save her. And of course, by a freak accident, she became pregnant and they advised her to have an abortion, which she refused so my grandparents where sent back to America (grandpa was in the navy, and they were stationed in Scotland) so that grandma could say good-bye to her family in the event that she did die. All of these stories have a happy ending, for those of you who are reading this and possibly feeling sad. My grandmother gave birth to my uncle with no problems other than he was a very big baby, my brother was born safely (though my mother almost hemmoraged to death because several doctors and nurses left her sitting in the hallway of the hospital). Mom ended up having an abortion for the ectopic pregnancy, and my cousin, the one with the condition that made pregnancy poisonous to her body, has successfully given birth to two children the first was premature (which was expected given her condition) but she gave him up for adoption which she regrets, and the second she managed to carry to full term without any complications and who just turned 2 years old this week.
Of course none of these really illustrates the im/morality of abortion, other than these are legitimate life/death situations in which having an abortion is/would be morally acceptable. To disregard a woman's reproductive rights in any instance is wrong, and to say that protecting her own life by getting an abortion is wrong is thereby disregarding her status as a human being with a right to life. Historically a woman's body and health were not treated seriously. She has been a possession, a vessal for the continuation of a family line, it was her husband who controlled her life and reproductive capablities. Women's health has also been very misunderstood, even during times of medical advancement, such as in Victorian England, where doctors where beginning to make breakthroughs in medicine, but they were only allowed to examine a woman only where her skin was exposed, which was difficult because victorian dress women were covered from throat to feet, with only her face and hands being exposed. Nore were they allowed to perform autopsies on women, so they knew very little about how a woman's body functioned compared to that of a man's. To cut a long story short, my defense of pro-life is on a woman's right as a living entity to her own life and body. And it's not just the term of pregnancy we are talking about, it's literally the rest of her life, or at least until the child reaches adulthood. I wouldn't suffer a rape victim to not only carry and give birth to her rapist's child, but to be forced to raise that child. It would be an extraordinary woman to do that without hatred and resentment, what kind of environment is that for either mother or child? And the physical damage it does to the body, often disfiguring, let alone the emotional/hormonal stress and the physical stress it places on the body. A pregnant woman is supporting two bodies and the baby gets what it needs first, even at the harm of the mother. I know of a woman who lost all of her teeth because the baby had drained calcium from some of her bones.
I guess what I'm getting at is less philosophical than what the authors have been getting at, but I feel rather strongly about Thomson's essay. The analogy of the violinist with the bad kidneys was good. Under what circumstances would I myself have an abortion? I can't claim definite answers to any situation, I can't know how I'll choose if ever faced with the situation. If I were raped, I think most definitly yes, for reasons I stated above. If I were to become pregnant now, before I've finished my education, I don't know. I'm not in a position to be able to care for a baby, I can't support it well without a career and being tens of thousands of dollars in debt, but I feel that if I did have an abortion I would regret it for the rest of my life, because I did kill my own child. What about adoption you say? I wouldn't suffer any child to be in the American adoption system, I've heard too many horror stories to subject any child to a life of parentlessness and a feeling of being unwanted, to foster or adoptive homes where they could most likely suffer horrible abuse, or the rare eventuallity that they end up in a home with loving parents who decided not to adopt from asia.
I'm done for the night.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Mill: Utilitarianism Part 2 and On Liberty 1
It would seem that the main argument against utilitarianism is on the grouds of justice, though it doesn't seem immediately clear as to what the objection is. So I'm going to speculate a bit and say that some would argue that a doctrine that is based on happiness and on the practical means of obtaining happiness for both individuals and a group would be antithetical to the idea of justice because if everyone were constantly seeking would make them happy then there would be a lot of selfish and greed and, by extention, unjust behavior, and that, in short, what is best for the individual isn't necessarily best for the whole group. I think my speculation may be a bit flawed, but I will continue.
I really like the way Mill describes the origin or justice, not as Hume would describe it as an artificial virtue, but as something that is a natural instinct that arises from natural inclinations of right and wrong, or harm fight or flight. If one person takes it to harm them, and it would be universally understood by each individual of the group, or accepted, that they too would consider it a harm towards them, then it is then unjust. Justice is then exacted when the group exacts vengence against the wrongdoer in order to protect or defend those individual members of the group that have been harmed, because (as we saw with the lions and the waterbuffalo) if you hurt one of them you have harmed them all and they will do anything to protect one another.
Yay for individuality! Personally I don't want to be a lemming, zombie, whatever, though I can understand that it is difficult for a society to balance between what is best for the individual and what is best for the society as a whole. I am complete (but never static) and unto myself, though every single one of us, no matter how strong of an individual, has been guilty of following the crowd at some point or other, it's whether or not we find the strength to overcome the peer pressure that's important. And I'm stubborn and outspoken enough that if I had been born a couple of centuries earlier I probably would have been burned at the stake. That's where many outspoken people ended up, because they were obviously in league with the devil. Medieval scare tactics are pretty amusing. I somewhat disagree with Mill on this point, ages such as these really did suppress the individual and those who displayed individuality (at least of those who were not in power) were severly punished. It was when such individuality eventually did flourish that we have such times as the Renaissance, which began when Johannes Gutenburg invented the printing press, when art flourished (under the patronage of the Church and other powerful patrons, think Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel and the Meddici's). But some did run into trouble, like Galileo who's ideas (as I learned in my Astronomy class) weren't what infuriated the church but his satire The Dialogue Concerning the Two Cheif World Systems in which he made a mockery of the Church and their outmoded conception of geocentricity. Even Michelangelo got into trouble, his David was actually very unpopular when it was first made and his fresco of the last judgement in the sistine chapel? (painted many years after he completed the ceiling) made a lot of people angry. I think it was the nudity that was deemed inappropriate, something about angels, saints and martyrs should be clothed. Okay, enough with the art history lesson.
Now for my favorite quote from Mill: "In proportion to the developement of his individuality, each person becomes more valuable to himself, and is therefore capable of being more valuable to others." A perfect statement to illustrate the necessity of individuals in a society, especially those strong independent individuals. Many might say that those people are outspoken or dangerous because they don't always follow the norm, and normality, or mediocrity, is societies security blanket and uppity individuals threaten that security. But as we have seen it is those strong creative individuals who help shape history and can benefit others. Mill's line reminds me of something I read in a book on chakra healing, dealing with the heart chakra, that you can't fully love another person until you have learned to love yourself. A strong individual has integrity and self-respect, and therefore loves themself, and people tend to gravitate towards the strong and that attitude has a tendency to rub off on other people and they become the better for it, it is a person whose strength and self-love (not narcissistic) who has a greater capacity to love other individuals who is the most beneficial and useful to society, and who is more likely to be actively interested in their community.
I would like to make two more points concerning this, and they are going to be more like critisisms. First Mill also pointed out that many strong individuals are also very intelligent individuals (I don't think that intelligence and integrity necessarily go hand in hand, it doesn't take a genius or even someone of mediocre intelligence to make a good moral decision, there are many people out there who we may call unintelligent who stick to their guns in the face of opposition and take an active stance in the wellfare of their community) though many of those individuals are deemed eccentric. Some eccentric people can be fun, some are weird and some are downright strange and people try to avoid them (like Van Gogh). In this instance people would not gravitate towards them no matter how genius they are. Some eccentric people really aren't all that scary, their just offbeat and that makes them more interesting.
Secondly Mill also points out that many strong willed individuals can also be extremly dangerous and bad. And I would say that the difference between the good strong willed individual and the bad one is the point of self-love. It may be a little difficult to make this point so bear with me. As stated before, the person who respects and loves themself has a greater capacity to love others. If this is a true statement than it would only seem to be that those who are strong willed but bad and hurtful to others does not love others and therefore does not really love themselves. Now for examples, and I know that this one has been overused but I'm going to utilize Hitler. Hitler obviously didn't have a lot of love for anyone (definitely not a utilitarian) but I believe that this arises from a lack of self-love. I believe that Hitler was a very self-hating individual, and such individuals can lash out at others who they see as representative of themselves, in this instance the Jews (It is rumored that Hitler had some Jewish heritage) so why kill off your own people? It was a part of himself that he wanted to destroy; then he goes on to idolize physical ethnic attribute by building the Aerean race, blonde hair and blue eyes, which Hitler did not have. (I've read recently that the whole "ethnic cleansing" was Hindler's idea and that Hitler wasn't quite on board with it, but obviously he didn't stop it and definitely propogated it.) Another example comes from a movie Rebel Without a Cause when the character known as Plato who is introduced at the beginning of the movie in a police station having been taken into custody for shooting to death a litter of puppies. I watched this film for my Masculinities in Film class so we analysed his character quite a bit. Plato was from a wealthy family, his parents were never around and he was in the care of a nanny. He is a highschool student who is small and gets picked on a lot and has violent spurts of anger periodically throughout the film and he is slightly effeminate (I thought he was more timid and quiet than really effeminate) but it is pointed out that he may very well be homosexual (there are signifiers in the movie that point to this, and at the time this movie was made there were laws applied to the cinema that banned depictions or references to homosexuality). In short Plato was insecure, angry, and for the most part, helpless and innocent, like the puppies. So why would he take out his anger so violently on creatures that were powerless to defend themselves? It seems to me that he killed them because he saw them as being like himself, it was a way to try and kill that helpless aspect within himself and to take control and dominate those insecurities. In the end of the movie those insecurities get the best of him and he snapps, which leads to his death (sorry to spoil the movie).
Okay I think that is enough for tonight, long story short strong self-loving person is good, strong self-hating person is bad, and as for the eccentrics, there good weird and there is bad weird. And don't kill puppies!
I really like the way Mill describes the origin or justice, not as Hume would describe it as an artificial virtue, but as something that is a natural instinct that arises from natural inclinations of right and wrong, or harm fight or flight. If one person takes it to harm them, and it would be universally understood by each individual of the group, or accepted, that they too would consider it a harm towards them, then it is then unjust. Justice is then exacted when the group exacts vengence against the wrongdoer in order to protect or defend those individual members of the group that have been harmed, because (as we saw with the lions and the waterbuffalo) if you hurt one of them you have harmed them all and they will do anything to protect one another.
Yay for individuality! Personally I don't want to be a lemming, zombie, whatever, though I can understand that it is difficult for a society to balance between what is best for the individual and what is best for the society as a whole. I am complete (but never static) and unto myself, though every single one of us, no matter how strong of an individual, has been guilty of following the crowd at some point or other, it's whether or not we find the strength to overcome the peer pressure that's important. And I'm stubborn and outspoken enough that if I had been born a couple of centuries earlier I probably would have been burned at the stake. That's where many outspoken people ended up, because they were obviously in league with the devil. Medieval scare tactics are pretty amusing. I somewhat disagree with Mill on this point, ages such as these really did suppress the individual and those who displayed individuality (at least of those who were not in power) were severly punished. It was when such individuality eventually did flourish that we have such times as the Renaissance, which began when Johannes Gutenburg invented the printing press, when art flourished (under the patronage of the Church and other powerful patrons, think Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel and the Meddici's). But some did run into trouble, like Galileo who's ideas (as I learned in my Astronomy class) weren't what infuriated the church but his satire The Dialogue Concerning the Two Cheif World Systems in which he made a mockery of the Church and their outmoded conception of geocentricity. Even Michelangelo got into trouble, his David was actually very unpopular when it was first made and his fresco of the last judgement in the sistine chapel? (painted many years after he completed the ceiling) made a lot of people angry. I think it was the nudity that was deemed inappropriate, something about angels, saints and martyrs should be clothed. Okay, enough with the art history lesson.
Now for my favorite quote from Mill: "In proportion to the developement of his individuality, each person becomes more valuable to himself, and is therefore capable of being more valuable to others." A perfect statement to illustrate the necessity of individuals in a society, especially those strong independent individuals. Many might say that those people are outspoken or dangerous because they don't always follow the norm, and normality, or mediocrity, is societies security blanket and uppity individuals threaten that security. But as we have seen it is those strong creative individuals who help shape history and can benefit others. Mill's line reminds me of something I read in a book on chakra healing, dealing with the heart chakra, that you can't fully love another person until you have learned to love yourself. A strong individual has integrity and self-respect, and therefore loves themself, and people tend to gravitate towards the strong and that attitude has a tendency to rub off on other people and they become the better for it, it is a person whose strength and self-love (not narcissistic) who has a greater capacity to love other individuals who is the most beneficial and useful to society, and who is more likely to be actively interested in their community.
I would like to make two more points concerning this, and they are going to be more like critisisms. First Mill also pointed out that many strong individuals are also very intelligent individuals (I don't think that intelligence and integrity necessarily go hand in hand, it doesn't take a genius or even someone of mediocre intelligence to make a good moral decision, there are many people out there who we may call unintelligent who stick to their guns in the face of opposition and take an active stance in the wellfare of their community) though many of those individuals are deemed eccentric. Some eccentric people can be fun, some are weird and some are downright strange and people try to avoid them (like Van Gogh). In this instance people would not gravitate towards them no matter how genius they are. Some eccentric people really aren't all that scary, their just offbeat and that makes them more interesting.
Secondly Mill also points out that many strong willed individuals can also be extremly dangerous and bad. And I would say that the difference between the good strong willed individual and the bad one is the point of self-love. It may be a little difficult to make this point so bear with me. As stated before, the person who respects and loves themself has a greater capacity to love others. If this is a true statement than it would only seem to be that those who are strong willed but bad and hurtful to others does not love others and therefore does not really love themselves. Now for examples, and I know that this one has been overused but I'm going to utilize Hitler. Hitler obviously didn't have a lot of love for anyone (definitely not a utilitarian) but I believe that this arises from a lack of self-love. I believe that Hitler was a very self-hating individual, and such individuals can lash out at others who they see as representative of themselves, in this instance the Jews (It is rumored that Hitler had some Jewish heritage) so why kill off your own people? It was a part of himself that he wanted to destroy; then he goes on to idolize physical ethnic attribute by building the Aerean race, blonde hair and blue eyes, which Hitler did not have. (I've read recently that the whole "ethnic cleansing" was Hindler's idea and that Hitler wasn't quite on board with it, but obviously he didn't stop it and definitely propogated it.) Another example comes from a movie Rebel Without a Cause when the character known as Plato who is introduced at the beginning of the movie in a police station having been taken into custody for shooting to death a litter of puppies. I watched this film for my Masculinities in Film class so we analysed his character quite a bit. Plato was from a wealthy family, his parents were never around and he was in the care of a nanny. He is a highschool student who is small and gets picked on a lot and has violent spurts of anger periodically throughout the film and he is slightly effeminate (I thought he was more timid and quiet than really effeminate) but it is pointed out that he may very well be homosexual (there are signifiers in the movie that point to this, and at the time this movie was made there were laws applied to the cinema that banned depictions or references to homosexuality). In short Plato was insecure, angry, and for the most part, helpless and innocent, like the puppies. So why would he take out his anger so violently on creatures that were powerless to defend themselves? It seems to me that he killed them because he saw them as being like himself, it was a way to try and kill that helpless aspect within himself and to take control and dominate those insecurities. In the end of the movie those insecurities get the best of him and he snapps, which leads to his death (sorry to spoil the movie).
Okay I think that is enough for tonight, long story short strong self-loving person is good, strong self-hating person is bad, and as for the eccentrics, there good weird and there is bad weird. And don't kill puppies!
Response to Reading list
To JMc: the series by Piers Anthony that you mentioned is called The Magic of Xanth, which did get pretty silly after a while, and there are far too many of them for them to not get silly (I think I found book 24 of the series in a used bookstore once). The Incarnations of Immortatlity are different than the Xanth novels. It is a collection of only seven books that form an intricately woven story, each book is a different perspective of the same plot, which all cumulate in the the last book. Each one is the story of one of the main characters who are human beings that stepped up to fill the office of the beings that control our world, Death, Time, Fate, Nature, War, Good, and Evil. Throughout the first five books the incarnation of evil (Satan) is the antagonist and you will spend most of the series believing he's a complete asshole, until you get to For Love of Evil, which is his story and you find out why he is doing the things that he does and he will become your favorite character. These books challenge the widely accepted Christian moral doctrine, though the author tends to use outlandish and make believe situations to make his point.
Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged was a great book I really liked the ideas behind it though I can't say that I agree with everything. Everytime we learn something new in this class I always relate back to it in my mind, though the memory of what happened in the book is no longer fresh in my mind, so I'm not going to make a serious attempt to relate it back to Utilitarianism, well maybe, but not yet.
Memnoch the Devil is very religious in nature, the basic plot being that the Devil has been stalking Lestat and wants him to be his right hand man. Memnoch takes Lestat through time to witness the Creation, the Fall, and the Passion and then to Heaven and Hell. It's interesting points are that like Piers Anthony's books, it challenges Catholocism and raises interesting questions about such issues as Creationism v. Evolutionism, fear and death, gender and God, and what it means to be human (that last part is a little vague)
To Nick: I don't know those other books, so I am sorry to dissappoint. Secondly, Ayn Rand is considered one of the most influential philosophical minds of the 20th century, her area is called Objectivism. Richard Bach is also well known, though it is for Illusions but his previous work, Jonathan Livingston Seagull, which is also read within an academic setting, though I'm not sure that he is given much thought outside of the highschool level. And I don't think that having a degree in philosophy is all that important when it comes to writing philosophy. Great minds don't always come out of an academic setting, and it doesn't take years of intense study to be able to seriously contemplate the world around us. The very first philosophers weren't schooled in philosophy, it takes thoughtfulness, inquisitiveness, and a mind for abstract thought.
Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged was a great book I really liked the ideas behind it though I can't say that I agree with everything. Everytime we learn something new in this class I always relate back to it in my mind, though the memory of what happened in the book is no longer fresh in my mind, so I'm not going to make a serious attempt to relate it back to Utilitarianism, well maybe, but not yet.
Memnoch the Devil is very religious in nature, the basic plot being that the Devil has been stalking Lestat and wants him to be his right hand man. Memnoch takes Lestat through time to witness the Creation, the Fall, and the Passion and then to Heaven and Hell. It's interesting points are that like Piers Anthony's books, it challenges Catholocism and raises interesting questions about such issues as Creationism v. Evolutionism, fear and death, gender and God, and what it means to be human (that last part is a little vague)
To Nick: I don't know those other books, so I am sorry to dissappoint. Secondly, Ayn Rand is considered one of the most influential philosophical minds of the 20th century, her area is called Objectivism. Richard Bach is also well known, though it is for Illusions but his previous work, Jonathan Livingston Seagull, which is also read within an academic setting, though I'm not sure that he is given much thought outside of the highschool level. And I don't think that having a degree in philosophy is all that important when it comes to writing philosophy. Great minds don't always come out of an academic setting, and it doesn't take years of intense study to be able to seriously contemplate the world around us. The very first philosophers weren't schooled in philosophy, it takes thoughtfulness, inquisitiveness, and a mind for abstract thought.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Diane's Suggested Reading List
For those of you who are interested.
I mentioned a book in my last blog, buried somewhere towards the bottom of one of the paragraphs, so I thought I would compile a list of books that I have read which I think are relevant to ethics and morality and even spirituality (since religion and morality have a tendency to go hand in hand). These are mostly novels, which to me is the best way to read philosophical ideas, in story form, it's much more interesting and usually makes more sense (for me at least)
1. Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah by Richard Bach
2. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
3. Memnoch the Devil by Anne Rice
4. The Incarnations of Immortality Series by Piers Anthony (especially On a Pale Horse, For Love of Evil, & And Eternity)
I mentioned a book in my last blog, buried somewhere towards the bottom of one of the paragraphs, so I thought I would compile a list of books that I have read which I think are relevant to ethics and morality and even spirituality (since religion and morality have a tendency to go hand in hand). These are mostly novels, which to me is the best way to read philosophical ideas, in story form, it's much more interesting and usually makes more sense (for me at least)
1. Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah by Richard Bach
2. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
3. Memnoch the Devil by Anne Rice
4. The Incarnations of Immortality Series by Piers Anthony (especially On a Pale Horse, For Love of Evil, & And Eternity)
Utilitarianism 1
I think I like this book, it takes some concentration but it is a little easier to follow and Mill gets to the point in fewer pages, which is something many philosophers have trouble with. Many of them are far too wordy (I hate you, Descartes...) so their point gets lost and confused. Or Hume, I liked Hume's ideas but I wanted to take the Treatise and throw it against a wall.
Anyway, as of now Utilitariansim makes sense to me (but I don't pretend to have a full understanding of it). Basically Utilitarianism is the logical or reasonable decisions which produce the most amount of good or the least amount of bad for the most people. I take the word utility to mean useful or practical. To use the WWII example from class the other day, if we applied utility to that situation allowing the Germans to bomb the English village in order retain the knowledge of how to crack the german's secret code would have been not the right thing to do but the appropriate thing to do. It would save far more people in the long run. It may seem cold, and I think it is safe to assume that anyone would assume the person who would make the decision to allow the village to be bombed would have made said decision heartlessly. Even I am guilty of this thought. But on second thought I would say that the decision would be very difficult and painful to make and would have haunted that person for the rest of their life.
As for those people who argue against Utilitarianism, saying that happiness is an unreasonable and unachievable goal for human beings I say whatever. As Mill pointed out those things which we find most desirable in life are those things that make us happy. "-if human nature is so constituted as to desire nothing which is not either a part of happiness or a means of happiness, we can have no other proof, and we require no other, that these are the only things desirable. If so, happiness is the sole end of human action, and the promotion of it the test by which to judge of all human conduct; from whence it necessarily follows that it must be the criterion of morality, since a part is included in the whole." (p.213:9) I like this, a practical ethical system that is based on not only on what is needed for our society to function as a group but that happiness is the goal for both the group and the individual.
Another interesting claim against Utilitarianism is that it is a godless philosophy. I like how Mill counters this as well. "If it be a true belief that God desires, above all things, the happiness of his creatures, and this was his purpose in their creation, utility is not only not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other." (198:22) It was the first part of this sentence that struck me in particular to the rest, because it reminded me of one of my favorite books (and probably one of the greatest books ever written), Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah by Richard Bach. If anyone is reading this blog, please read this book, and if you decide not to read the whole thing (it's barely 100 pages) at least read the first chapter, which is what I referring to, but I won't explain further because I don't want to spoil it.
There was something in Mill's writing which I found a little puzzling or more intriguing. When he was talking about education or intelligence and basically said that those with greater intellectual faculties have a more acute sense of what happiness and pain are than say a fool, and therefore experience happiness to a greater degree and seek to attain more because it takes more to make them happy, and on the same turn experience pain more acutely than others. Maybe I am misunderstanding the point he is making, and he makes his argument well but I can't say that I totally agree with it.
Anyway, as of now Utilitariansim makes sense to me (but I don't pretend to have a full understanding of it). Basically Utilitarianism is the logical or reasonable decisions which produce the most amount of good or the least amount of bad for the most people. I take the word utility to mean useful or practical. To use the WWII example from class the other day, if we applied utility to that situation allowing the Germans to bomb the English village in order retain the knowledge of how to crack the german's secret code would have been not the right thing to do but the appropriate thing to do. It would save far more people in the long run. It may seem cold, and I think it is safe to assume that anyone would assume the person who would make the decision to allow the village to be bombed would have made said decision heartlessly. Even I am guilty of this thought. But on second thought I would say that the decision would be very difficult and painful to make and would have haunted that person for the rest of their life.
As for those people who argue against Utilitarianism, saying that happiness is an unreasonable and unachievable goal for human beings I say whatever. As Mill pointed out those things which we find most desirable in life are those things that make us happy. "-if human nature is so constituted as to desire nothing which is not either a part of happiness or a means of happiness, we can have no other proof, and we require no other, that these are the only things desirable. If so, happiness is the sole end of human action, and the promotion of it the test by which to judge of all human conduct; from whence it necessarily follows that it must be the criterion of morality, since a part is included in the whole." (p.213:9) I like this, a practical ethical system that is based on not only on what is needed for our society to function as a group but that happiness is the goal for both the group and the individual.
Another interesting claim against Utilitarianism is that it is a godless philosophy. I like how Mill counters this as well. "If it be a true belief that God desires, above all things, the happiness of his creatures, and this was his purpose in their creation, utility is not only not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other." (198:22) It was the first part of this sentence that struck me in particular to the rest, because it reminded me of one of my favorite books (and probably one of the greatest books ever written), Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah by Richard Bach. If anyone is reading this blog, please read this book, and if you decide not to read the whole thing (it's barely 100 pages) at least read the first chapter, which is what I referring to, but I won't explain further because I don't want to spoil it.
There was something in Mill's writing which I found a little puzzling or more intriguing. When he was talking about education or intelligence and basically said that those with greater intellectual faculties have a more acute sense of what happiness and pain are than say a fool, and therefore experience happiness to a greater degree and seek to attain more because it takes more to make them happy, and on the same turn experience pain more acutely than others. Maybe I am misunderstanding the point he is making, and he makes his argument well but I can't say that I totally agree with it.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Kant: On Suicide and on Lust
Okay, I'm going to get caught up on my blog, so here goes.
Duties to one's self as an animal being: First I would like to say that I like this phrase, few moralists give any credance to the animal aspect of human beings, they see this as being a baser aspect that has been demonized and should be overcome through means of morality. It is interesting that the human race believes itself to be above nature, man is the only animal that doesn't believe that it is an animal and yet is always damning itself for being one.
Kant's first issue in this section is the issue of suicide. Suicide goes against the most basic of animal instincts-the instinct of self-preservation. It goes against nature itself. Rarely do you see any other species of animal kill itself (one of my professors once told of an old newspaper article from the late 1800's/early 1900's of an abused circus elephant that ended it's miserable life by walking into a lake and drowning). I know that suicide is antithetical to self-preservation, fight or flight, and that in doing so you forgo your responsibilities for your life, and by extention God who has given you life, and your responsibilities to other people such as your children who need you to care for them, but who can measure the extent of one man's pain? I'm not condoning suicide in any way, shape or form, but wouldn't ending one's suffering be a rational duty? Everyone tries to avoid pain and it can be considered to be a duty to oneself to avoid suffering needlessly (I suppose it all depends on what your suffering for) so couldn't suicide be considered as an act of self-preservation in the sense that it is an act of ending needless suffering? Many would say suicide is an act of cowardice, which even Kant says though he openly acknowledges that actually commiting suicide also takes courage. How do we justify war then? Volunteering for war seems to me an act of glorified suicide (I only say this in reference to those who volunteer for war, not those who are drafted because free will is out of the question, their death is on someone elses hands) and glorified murder. As for the duty to God in the topic of suicide, God had given every one a life and the free will to do with it as they may. And the duty to others, yes suicide is a selfish act, especially when there is more than just one person's life involved, it effects everyone around them and leaving behind loved ones who are now irrevocably damaged, such as children deprived of a parent whom they need not just for physical care but for emotional care.
It is also interesting that Kant should add maiming oneself and depriving oneself of those things needed for a healthy life to the topic of suicide, because most would not really think this a moral issue, disturbing yes, but not so serious as killing oneself. Especially considering that many of the world's religions, Christianity included, all practice some form of self-denial whether it be fasting or celibacy or, in some extreme cases, self-flaggelation.
On Defiling Oneself By Lust-I think that on this point I will have to disagree with Kant and anyone else who implies that sex solely for pleasure is a bad thing. I think that denying oneself this sort of pleasure is more harmful than indulging in it. However, like everything else, it must be subject to moderation, having lots of (responsible) sex exclusively with one person is great, being promiscuous is bad and (in my opinion) shows more lack of self-respect than it does a healthy sexual attitude, and as far as celibacy goes well, it depends under what context, for example a rape victim choosing celibacy is perfectly understandable, some one choosing to be celibate because they believe sex is sinful or that chastity is more holy is taking on a harmful attitude and denying themselves a very natural inclination (I would liken the need for sex to the need for food or sleep) and it can only lead to trouble (take the Catholic church pedophile scandal for example), and then there are those who choose to remain celibate until marriage, fine, whatever it's their choice.
I don't believe that having sex without procreation in mind is in anyway debasing and I don't believe that in doing so we forgo our personality or our humanity. Sexuality is a big part of my personal identity and I think I am all the better for it. Even Kant, at the end of this section seems to relinquish his attack on non-procreative sex (more broadly defined as sodomy which is any unnatural sex acts, which are defined as acts that are non-procreative i.e. homosexuality, oral sex, etc.) and loosely defines love as a "sexual inclination" (p.180, [6:426]) "It is rather a pleasure from the enjoyment of another person, which therefore belongs to the faculty of desire and, indeed, to its highest stage, passion." (p.180 [6:426]) I may be interpreting Kant's meaning loosely.
Meaningful erotic attachment is one of the most important aspects of romantic love.
Duties to one's self as an animal being: First I would like to say that I like this phrase, few moralists give any credance to the animal aspect of human beings, they see this as being a baser aspect that has been demonized and should be overcome through means of morality. It is interesting that the human race believes itself to be above nature, man is the only animal that doesn't believe that it is an animal and yet is always damning itself for being one.
Kant's first issue in this section is the issue of suicide. Suicide goes against the most basic of animal instincts-the instinct of self-preservation. It goes against nature itself. Rarely do you see any other species of animal kill itself (one of my professors once told of an old newspaper article from the late 1800's/early 1900's of an abused circus elephant that ended it's miserable life by walking into a lake and drowning). I know that suicide is antithetical to self-preservation, fight or flight, and that in doing so you forgo your responsibilities for your life, and by extention God who has given you life, and your responsibilities to other people such as your children who need you to care for them, but who can measure the extent of one man's pain? I'm not condoning suicide in any way, shape or form, but wouldn't ending one's suffering be a rational duty? Everyone tries to avoid pain and it can be considered to be a duty to oneself to avoid suffering needlessly (I suppose it all depends on what your suffering for) so couldn't suicide be considered as an act of self-preservation in the sense that it is an act of ending needless suffering? Many would say suicide is an act of cowardice, which even Kant says though he openly acknowledges that actually commiting suicide also takes courage. How do we justify war then? Volunteering for war seems to me an act of glorified suicide (I only say this in reference to those who volunteer for war, not those who are drafted because free will is out of the question, their death is on someone elses hands) and glorified murder. As for the duty to God in the topic of suicide, God had given every one a life and the free will to do with it as they may. And the duty to others, yes suicide is a selfish act, especially when there is more than just one person's life involved, it effects everyone around them and leaving behind loved ones who are now irrevocably damaged, such as children deprived of a parent whom they need not just for physical care but for emotional care.
It is also interesting that Kant should add maiming oneself and depriving oneself of those things needed for a healthy life to the topic of suicide, because most would not really think this a moral issue, disturbing yes, but not so serious as killing oneself. Especially considering that many of the world's religions, Christianity included, all practice some form of self-denial whether it be fasting or celibacy or, in some extreme cases, self-flaggelation.
On Defiling Oneself By Lust-I think that on this point I will have to disagree with Kant and anyone else who implies that sex solely for pleasure is a bad thing. I think that denying oneself this sort of pleasure is more harmful than indulging in it. However, like everything else, it must be subject to moderation, having lots of (responsible) sex exclusively with one person is great, being promiscuous is bad and (in my opinion) shows more lack of self-respect than it does a healthy sexual attitude, and as far as celibacy goes well, it depends under what context, for example a rape victim choosing celibacy is perfectly understandable, some one choosing to be celibate because they believe sex is sinful or that chastity is more holy is taking on a harmful attitude and denying themselves a very natural inclination (I would liken the need for sex to the need for food or sleep) and it can only lead to trouble (take the Catholic church pedophile scandal for example), and then there are those who choose to remain celibate until marriage, fine, whatever it's their choice.
I don't believe that having sex without procreation in mind is in anyway debasing and I don't believe that in doing so we forgo our personality or our humanity. Sexuality is a big part of my personal identity and I think I am all the better for it. Even Kant, at the end of this section seems to relinquish his attack on non-procreative sex (more broadly defined as sodomy which is any unnatural sex acts, which are defined as acts that are non-procreative i.e. homosexuality, oral sex, etc.) and loosely defines love as a "sexual inclination" (p.180, [6:426]) "It is rather a pleasure from the enjoyment of another person, which therefore belongs to the faculty of desire and, indeed, to its highest stage, passion." (p.180 [6:426]) I may be interpreting Kant's meaning loosely.
Meaningful erotic attachment is one of the most important aspects of romantic love.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Hume An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals
Yay!!! I finished it! Since I didn't post on the first reading of this book I'm just going to post on the whole book now. This one was much easier to read and it was really more of a condenced version of the Treatise of Human Nature, so I may get a little confused as to what was said in what book.
I think my biggest problem concerning Hume is not his ideas and philosophies, it is more trying to make sense of his philosophies. Trying to fight through an archaic writing style, especially when the content is so complex.
In Sections 1-4 Hume continues with his themes of virtue and the origins of virtue (or the general source of morals). Hume's main argument is that morals and virtuous behavior are a product of the passions (feelings/emotions) and not of reason. As in the first book, the passions are responsible for what we want, pleasure is our goal and pain is what we try to avoid, the passions decide what we want and reason, which wants nothing, directs the passions in the appropriate fashion in order to fulfill the goals of the passions. He argues that the ancients' theory that virtue is a conformity to reason is false, reason cannot discern between vice and virtue because it cannot feel.
Moral theory, which teaches the difference between virtue (beautiful/amiable) and vice (ugly/odious) which begs the question: Is morality conditioned? Hume answers that moral beauty is an inherent sense that is conditioned by reasoning. Morals (at least those natural virtues) must be naturally inherent in every human being, because if we lacked the capacity to recognize right from wrong, or to recognize different virtues, then we would have had no basis for comparison, the concept of morality would not exist.
Justice is a main focus for Hume. Hume says that if there was abundance every where and humans wanted for nothing there would be no need for the artificial concept of justice. Justice arises when there is scarcity there is need and people begin to fight and steal and justice keeps them in line. Punishment, however, is a suspension of justice...
Hume also tackles the leveling principal, or the idea of the communist society, where everything, all resources are distributed equally among the population. Hume says this is impossible and I agree, for the same reasons that he gives. Equally distributing resources would actually cause starvation of the masses, there would no longer be a system of merit so all those people that are useful are held back by their ability and those who are not benifit off the sweat of others. There would also be no one in charge because a leader would naturally be above everyone else. So personal property is a good thing; if it is bought, earned or inherited it is your's and no one should contest that right.
It is late and I have more homework. I'll add to this post or make a new one for sections 5-9
I think my biggest problem concerning Hume is not his ideas and philosophies, it is more trying to make sense of his philosophies. Trying to fight through an archaic writing style, especially when the content is so complex.
In Sections 1-4 Hume continues with his themes of virtue and the origins of virtue (or the general source of morals). Hume's main argument is that morals and virtuous behavior are a product of the passions (feelings/emotions) and not of reason. As in the first book, the passions are responsible for what we want, pleasure is our goal and pain is what we try to avoid, the passions decide what we want and reason, which wants nothing, directs the passions in the appropriate fashion in order to fulfill the goals of the passions. He argues that the ancients' theory that virtue is a conformity to reason is false, reason cannot discern between vice and virtue because it cannot feel.
Moral theory, which teaches the difference between virtue (beautiful/amiable) and vice (ugly/odious) which begs the question: Is morality conditioned? Hume answers that moral beauty is an inherent sense that is conditioned by reasoning. Morals (at least those natural virtues) must be naturally inherent in every human being, because if we lacked the capacity to recognize right from wrong, or to recognize different virtues, then we would have had no basis for comparison, the concept of morality would not exist.
Justice is a main focus for Hume. Hume says that if there was abundance every where and humans wanted for nothing there would be no need for the artificial concept of justice. Justice arises when there is scarcity there is need and people begin to fight and steal and justice keeps them in line. Punishment, however, is a suspension of justice...
Hume also tackles the leveling principal, or the idea of the communist society, where everything, all resources are distributed equally among the population. Hume says this is impossible and I agree, for the same reasons that he gives. Equally distributing resources would actually cause starvation of the masses, there would no longer be a system of merit so all those people that are useful are held back by their ability and those who are not benifit off the sweat of others. There would also be no one in charge because a leader would naturally be above everyone else. So personal property is a good thing; if it is bought, earned or inherited it is your's and no one should contest that right.
It is late and I have more homework. I'll add to this post or make a new one for sections 5-9
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Hume 10/1
On natural and artificial virtues. I'm going to try and keep this entry short.
A natural virtue seems to be a virtue that is somewhat universal, could apply to any society, like being good natured or intelligent would be esteemed all over the world. I got a bit lost in understanding Hume during his explanation on natural virtues, somewhere in his comments on pride.
I understood what he meant by artificial virtues, however, and that helped me to better understand what a natural virtue was and how to identify it. An artificial virtue is a man made virtue established solely based on what people thought was best for society such as "justice, laws, modesty, good-manners" (3.3.1.9) "All these are mere human contrivances for the interest of society." (3.3.1.9)
One sentence that particularly confused me was also in 3.3.1.9 "It follows, that sympathy is the source of the esteem, which we pay to all artificial virtues."
A natural virtue seems to be a virtue that is somewhat universal, could apply to any society, like being good natured or intelligent would be esteemed all over the world. I got a bit lost in understanding Hume during his explanation on natural virtues, somewhere in his comments on pride.
I understood what he meant by artificial virtues, however, and that helped me to better understand what a natural virtue was and how to identify it. An artificial virtue is a man made virtue established solely based on what people thought was best for society such as "justice, laws, modesty, good-manners" (3.3.1.9) "All these are mere human contrivances for the interest of society." (3.3.1.9)
One sentence that particularly confused me was also in 3.3.1.9 "It follows, that sympathy is the source of the esteem, which we pay to all artificial virtues."
Friday, September 26, 2008
Hume blog 1 for 9/22
I know I'm cheating a bit, posting this blog after I've already done the readings on Hume, but I don't think that I'm really grasping Hume all that well, so can't really answer the questions involved in this assignment as well as I could if I understood Hume well. So I'm going to go ahead and pretend that I have never read Hume and answer accordingly.
That our emotional state is influenced by that of those around us. Certainly true, sympathy seems to be a very powerful force. But does this always apply? No, I don't think so. With myself I am generally a very sympathetic person (or empathetic would seem to also be a good word for this situation), I'm very sensitive to what others feel, especially if I am very close to that person emotionally. There are times, however, that the emotions of others don't influence me so directly, but really confuse me, like when I come home and I can tell that my roomates have been fighting. I wasn't there for the fight and their not fighting now, but I can sense it and instead of feeling like "well their angry, and I feel angry too" I'm more likely to feel confused and wary and hide in my room until everything blows over. And I often feel my own emotions stubbornly in the face of the emotions of others. I know that Hume means that the emotions of others influence me but they don't necessarily determine my own emotions.
"The second is that our feelings about our own situation are influenced by how we see our situation in comparison to that of others," very true. Seeing other people so happy when I'm unhappy makes me even more so, or if I'm in a good mood and someone else isn't they kind of bring me down.
"The third is that we like pleasure and try to avoid discomfort or pain." This is also generally true, it is natural to do so. But, again not always the case. There is a difference between seeking overall pleasure and seeking instant gratification. We don't always stive for the pleasure of the moment but face pain or discomfort in order to acheive a more rewarding pleasure. Take school for instance. Nobody wants to get up early to go to class (it's pretty sad when you get to college and suddenly 9 a.m. is too early) more class, possibly with homework in between class, work, and stay up until 3 a.m. doing their homework (which may or may not get finished by this time) and then repeat the next day. College isn't easy so why do we put ourselves through constant stress and sleep deprivation (pain or discomfort) when we could just goof off and do whatever we want with our time (instant gratification)? We do this in order to get an education so that we can get a good paying job so that we can be financially secure and hopefully happy (longterm rewarding pleasure)
That our emotional state is influenced by that of those around us. Certainly true, sympathy seems to be a very powerful force. But does this always apply? No, I don't think so. With myself I am generally a very sympathetic person (or empathetic would seem to also be a good word for this situation), I'm very sensitive to what others feel, especially if I am very close to that person emotionally. There are times, however, that the emotions of others don't influence me so directly, but really confuse me, like when I come home and I can tell that my roomates have been fighting. I wasn't there for the fight and their not fighting now, but I can sense it and instead of feeling like "well their angry, and I feel angry too" I'm more likely to feel confused and wary and hide in my room until everything blows over. And I often feel my own emotions stubbornly in the face of the emotions of others. I know that Hume means that the emotions of others influence me but they don't necessarily determine my own emotions.
"The second is that our feelings about our own situation are influenced by how we see our situation in comparison to that of others," very true. Seeing other people so happy when I'm unhappy makes me even more so, or if I'm in a good mood and someone else isn't they kind of bring me down.
"The third is that we like pleasure and try to avoid discomfort or pain." This is also generally true, it is natural to do so. But, again not always the case. There is a difference between seeking overall pleasure and seeking instant gratification. We don't always stive for the pleasure of the moment but face pain or discomfort in order to acheive a more rewarding pleasure. Take school for instance. Nobody wants to get up early to go to class (it's pretty sad when you get to college and suddenly 9 a.m. is too early) more class, possibly with homework in between class, work, and stay up until 3 a.m. doing their homework (which may or may not get finished by this time) and then repeat the next day. College isn't easy so why do we put ourselves through constant stress and sleep deprivation (pain or discomfort) when we could just goof off and do whatever we want with our time (instant gratification)? We do this in order to get an education so that we can get a good paying job so that we can be financially secure and hopefully happy (longterm rewarding pleasure)
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Aristotle and Doris
"Behavioral variation across a population owes more to situational differences than dispositional differences among persons. Individual dispositional differences are not as stongly behaviorlly individuating as we might have supposed; to a surprising extent we are safest predicting, for a particular situation, that a person will behave pretty much as most others would." (Doris p. 5)
This quote says a great deal to me overall to the comparison between Doris and Aristotle. Doris is making a psychological study of actual human behavior, whereas Aristotle is merely reflecting on what a virtuous person aught to be, not what a person (good or bad) actually is. This is one thing I disliked greatly about Aristotle, and I didn't notice it until now, is that he is focusing on an ideal, believing that a virtuous person acts accordingly in every way to a specific standard, "when they should, as they should..." He leaves no room to err, his moral ideal seems wholly unachievable, no one could be that perfect or always act in so specified a way. And it is less about what is virtuous as opposed to what moral behavior is socially acceptable. Here Doris is saying that a human being can't be so easily categorized as Aristotle attempts to do, given different situations they don't follow such strict guidlines of moral personalities.
This quote says a great deal to me overall to the comparison between Doris and Aristotle. Doris is making a psychological study of actual human behavior, whereas Aristotle is merely reflecting on what a virtuous person aught to be, not what a person (good or bad) actually is. This is one thing I disliked greatly about Aristotle, and I didn't notice it until now, is that he is focusing on an ideal, believing that a virtuous person acts accordingly in every way to a specific standard, "when they should, as they should..." He leaves no room to err, his moral ideal seems wholly unachievable, no one could be that perfect or always act in so specified a way. And it is less about what is virtuous as opposed to what moral behavior is socially acceptable. Here Doris is saying that a human being can't be so easily categorized as Aristotle attempts to do, given different situations they don't follow such strict guidlines of moral personalities.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Aristotle reading 1
Admittedly I'm kind of tired, so I didn't always grasp what was going on in this reading, but I'm hoping to have understood enough to be able to about it. I wasn't crazy about the style either, maybe it was the reading that was making me sleepy. I kept having to double back and re-read many things because I didn't seem to grasp them the first time around.
I'm going to start with the passage that I found puzzling. Actually, what I found the most interesting and the most puzzling are in the same section, so bare with me.
"(I. 10) Is it the case, then, that we should not count anyone else happy, either, so long as he is alive? Must we agree with Solon, and look towards a man's end? And if we should posit that view, is it then that one is really happy-when one is dead?" I found this most intriquing because it seems so true. It seems that everything mankind does in life is only a cumulation towards their end. Even in my last post I said something to that effect: "Do what you can with the time that you have, that is all anyone can do, and you can die fulfilled." Why must it be necessary to stockpile for the end, to judge one's life by where they stood at that moment? Why can't we think of happiness as where we stand here and now, our happiness, unhappiness or ambivalence being subject to the moment? Overall happiness is definitley a good long term goal.
What I found puzzling was the passage between 1100a20 and 1100a30, which was basically how the dead is affected by their descendants and how those descendants would benefit from the happiness and good fortune of their ancestor. This passage is probably not relevant to the class and I realize that it is an ancient cultural belief being discussed, but when I read it it there was this huge resounding "What?" The idea that the happiness one had attained or earned in their lifetime would somehow rub off onto their descendants based solely on the fact that they are that person's descendants and vice versa just seems very ridiculous and alien to me.
I'm going to start with the passage that I found puzzling. Actually, what I found the most interesting and the most puzzling are in the same section, so bare with me.
"(I. 10) Is it the case, then, that we should not count anyone else happy, either, so long as he is alive? Must we agree with Solon, and look towards a man's end? And if we should posit that view, is it then that one is really happy-when one is dead?" I found this most intriquing because it seems so true. It seems that everything mankind does in life is only a cumulation towards their end. Even in my last post I said something to that effect: "Do what you can with the time that you have, that is all anyone can do, and you can die fulfilled." Why must it be necessary to stockpile for the end, to judge one's life by where they stood at that moment? Why can't we think of happiness as where we stand here and now, our happiness, unhappiness or ambivalence being subject to the moment? Overall happiness is definitley a good long term goal.
What I found puzzling was the passage between 1100a20 and 1100a30, which was basically how the dead is affected by their descendants and how those descendants would benefit from the happiness and good fortune of their ancestor. This passage is probably not relevant to the class and I realize that it is an ancient cultural belief being discussed, but when I read it it there was this huge resounding "What?" The idea that the happiness one had attained or earned in their lifetime would somehow rub off onto their descendants based solely on the fact that they are that person's descendants and vice versa just seems very ridiculous and alien to me.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Prosperity
I believe the goal in every living person's life is to achieve prosperity, in whatever way, shape, or form that may be. Usually when I think of prosperity I think of material wealth and being financially comfortable, but prosperity can apply to any number of things depending on the individual's perception, or whatever goal they can reach to fulfill their happiness. One person's prosperity could mean money another' s idea of prosperity could be being fruitfull and having children.
How does one acheive this end, by whatever means necessary I suppose, whatever it takes to fulfill that goal which drives our life. There doesn't seem as if there would be any one way for all people to follow to allow them to acheive their ends. I'm not going to say something silly, like: be moral and you will be prosperous. If you are talking about human goals morality doesn't seem necessary in order to achieve such goals, though for some people it might be important. The only thing I can advise is: Do what you can with the time that you have, that is all anyone can really do, and you can die fulfilled.
I can't really support this, I could give evidence of my own life goals (idea of prosperity) which is to have a good job with a comfortable income, find someone who loves me, and have a family. Really ambitious, right? But that's all I think I need to be happy and fulfilled at the end of my life.
This is where I stand, but I feel as if I really haven't answered the questions as they appear in the syllabus, but I've said all that I had to say. Maybe some new insight will come later.
How does one acheive this end, by whatever means necessary I suppose, whatever it takes to fulfill that goal which drives our life. There doesn't seem as if there would be any one way for all people to follow to allow them to acheive their ends. I'm not going to say something silly, like: be moral and you will be prosperous. If you are talking about human goals morality doesn't seem necessary in order to achieve such goals, though for some people it might be important. The only thing I can advise is: Do what you can with the time that you have, that is all anyone can really do, and you can die fulfilled.
I can't really support this, I could give evidence of my own life goals (idea of prosperity) which is to have a good job with a comfortable income, find someone who loves me, and have a family. Really ambitious, right? But that's all I think I need to be happy and fulfilled at the end of my life.
This is where I stand, but I feel as if I really haven't answered the questions as they appear in the syllabus, but I've said all that I had to say. Maybe some new insight will come later.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Good Morning
I know it's a bit late to be posting my response to today's ethical query (the ridiculous hour of 5:25 am), but better late than never, or not at all.
"In a situation where one person is being harmed and the other is doing the harming which is most to be avoided, harming the other or being harmed by another?" '
-I personally feel that one should avoid harming another person as much as humanly possible (humanly possible what an interesting phrase) but the plain and simple fact is that you can't never hurt anyone. Have you ever heard the old saying, you always hurt the one's you love. It's true, it seems, that the people you care about the most are the ones you can't seem to avoid hurting. Let's remember the example given in class, about the three friends, one is a girl in a relationship and the other two are her friends who know or at least have reason to suspect that her boyfriend is cheating on her, but those two friends disagree about how to handle the situation-should they tell her or not. They both care about her, and neither one of them wants her to get hurt, but is it really any of their business? It's a difficult descision, and she's probably going to get hurt either way, so wouldn't telling her be the lesser of two evils (another fun phrase)? I've found that in this type of situation (and others that are less touchy) it is in everyones' best interest, theirs and your own, to just be brutally honest. But to deliberately hurt another person out of malice is something else entirely. Someone who is able to deliberately hurt another person and feels no guilt has, or is bordering on, sociopathic behavior (or anti-social personality disorder if you really want to get technical). Here's something else to chew on: where do you draw the line between rational moral judgement and mental illnesses that impair the distinctions between right and wrong?
To avoid being hurt by another is within anyone's best interest. One shouldn't allow another to hurt them, for reasons of self-preservation (it doesn't always have to be life or death, but the preservation of one's sense of self-worth. Basically, don't allow yourself to be bullied, my reasoning stemming from my experience as a seasoned doormat, don't let anyone walk all over you, it's not good for you or for those doing the tredding. I know that this reasoning isn't very solid, so I suppose that I could refer you back to the example I used in my first post, of the killer and the killed, an extreme example, but it gets the point across.
Quote: '"Rational self-interest is ones highest moral obligation."' Ayn Rand. A good point that should be examined further, but probably not now. All in good time.
"What skills should we work to possess, the skills to persuade others to agree with our beliefs or the skills to discern whether the beliefs we have are true or false?" Admittedly I'm writing this portion of my post after the class discussion. When my group and I had started our discussion we did not notice the typo in the syllabus, where the r in our was a t, and what a difference one little letter made. So it was 'the skills to persuade others to agree with our beliefs' opposed to "the skills to persuade others to agree with out beliefs.'
I would think that the skill to discern whether or not the beliefs we have are true would certainly be a more worthwhile goal than to simply possess the skills to be persuasive. Persuasion seems useless unless you have the ideas to back it up, though there are great many persuasive people who can spin a convincing web of bullshit (which is unfortunate for those of us who don't possess the talent for bs, but at least whatever we accomplish with the skills that we have we have come by honestly). I think maybe there is some distinction between persuasion and manipulation, you can be persuasive without trying to be manipulative, which is why I don't agree that we can't work to aquire the both the skills of persuasion and the ability to discern or evaluate our beliefs. There's nothing wrong with being able to articulate your beliefs in a convincing manner, but it should be complimented by the ability to step back and evaluate those beliefs.
"What do (a) and (b) have in common?"
I suppose being able to persuade others to our beliefs without having first considered the validity of our beliefs would fall under the category of harming another. But only having the skills to discern whether or not our beliefs are right or wrong without also have the ability to be persuasive (which would provide us with the ability to defend our beliefs) would leave us susceptible to others' beliefs and convictions. We can believe in something all we want, but if we can't defend our beliefs and ourselves then we are vulnerable and others could try and take advantage of that.
"In a situation where one person is being harmed and the other is doing the harming which is most to be avoided, harming the other or being harmed by another?" '
-I personally feel that one should avoid harming another person as much as humanly possible (humanly possible what an interesting phrase) but the plain and simple fact is that you can't never hurt anyone. Have you ever heard the old saying, you always hurt the one's you love. It's true, it seems, that the people you care about the most are the ones you can't seem to avoid hurting. Let's remember the example given in class, about the three friends, one is a girl in a relationship and the other two are her friends who know or at least have reason to suspect that her boyfriend is cheating on her, but those two friends disagree about how to handle the situation-should they tell her or not. They both care about her, and neither one of them wants her to get hurt, but is it really any of their business? It's a difficult descision, and she's probably going to get hurt either way, so wouldn't telling her be the lesser of two evils (another fun phrase)? I've found that in this type of situation (and others that are less touchy) it is in everyones' best interest, theirs and your own, to just be brutally honest. But to deliberately hurt another person out of malice is something else entirely. Someone who is able to deliberately hurt another person and feels no guilt has, or is bordering on, sociopathic behavior (or anti-social personality disorder if you really want to get technical). Here's something else to chew on: where do you draw the line between rational moral judgement and mental illnesses that impair the distinctions between right and wrong?
To avoid being hurt by another is within anyone's best interest. One shouldn't allow another to hurt them, for reasons of self-preservation (it doesn't always have to be life or death, but the preservation of one's sense of self-worth. Basically, don't allow yourself to be bullied, my reasoning stemming from my experience as a seasoned doormat, don't let anyone walk all over you, it's not good for you or for those doing the tredding. I know that this reasoning isn't very solid, so I suppose that I could refer you back to the example I used in my first post, of the killer and the killed, an extreme example, but it gets the point across.
Quote: '"Rational self-interest is ones highest moral obligation."' Ayn Rand. A good point that should be examined further, but probably not now. All in good time.
"What skills should we work to possess, the skills to persuade others to agree with our beliefs or the skills to discern whether the beliefs we have are true or false?" Admittedly I'm writing this portion of my post after the class discussion. When my group and I had started our discussion we did not notice the typo in the syllabus, where the r in our was a t, and what a difference one little letter made. So it was 'the skills to persuade others to agree with our beliefs' opposed to "the skills to persuade others to agree with out beliefs.'
I would think that the skill to discern whether or not the beliefs we have are true would certainly be a more worthwhile goal than to simply possess the skills to be persuasive. Persuasion seems useless unless you have the ideas to back it up, though there are great many persuasive people who can spin a convincing web of bullshit (which is unfortunate for those of us who don't possess the talent for bs, but at least whatever we accomplish with the skills that we have we have come by honestly). I think maybe there is some distinction between persuasion and manipulation, you can be persuasive without trying to be manipulative, which is why I don't agree that we can't work to aquire the both the skills of persuasion and the ability to discern or evaluate our beliefs. There's nothing wrong with being able to articulate your beliefs in a convincing manner, but it should be complimented by the ability to step back and evaluate those beliefs.
"What do (a) and (b) have in common?"
I suppose being able to persuade others to our beliefs without having first considered the validity of our beliefs would fall under the category of harming another. But only having the skills to discern whether or not our beliefs are right or wrong without also have the ability to be persuasive (which would provide us with the ability to defend our beliefs) would leave us susceptible to others' beliefs and convictions. We can believe in something all we want, but if we can't defend our beliefs and ourselves then we are vulnerable and others could try and take advantage of that.
S.O.S.
Thank you, to all of my classmates who invited me to your blogs, I would be completely lost trying to find you all myself, which is why I am sending out this call for help. I am not really a technology buff, if it has numbers and buttons then I am completely baffled. This blog has me confused and if anyone could help me by showing me how to use this site so that I can successfully manage my blog on my own, (with things such as inviting people, displaying blogs to which I am a reader, etc.) it would be greatly appreciated. I've been poking around my blog every free moment trying to figure it all out and it's going right over my head.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
my basic assumptions of morality
My initial interpretation of "intended impact" was that someone other than myself would be trying to affect me by determining whether or not my behavior is moral. That other person would pass judgement upon my actions and determing the extent of my morality or immorality based on their own individual assumptions of what is right and wrong. The impact is that this person would be trying to make me conform to his/her own moral ideal by trying to impose upon me a sense of guilt or shame. Whether or not I am right or wrong is unimportant, every one has their own opinions and many often follow a similar moral doctrine, often of a religious influence (religion being a cultural influence), which often means that these moral doctrines not often questioned.
"Why does anyone care what makes behavior moral or immoral?" I believe that it goes back to the earliest civilizations. All laws are based upon the moral standards of a culture, and every society must have a system of laws by which it's people must abide in order for that society to function peacefully and flourish. Both laws and morals are meant to be good but they are both reinforced with negative consequences. Where laws are based in an idea of morality and reinforced by the threat of punishment, so are the ideas of morality reinforced by the aforementioned sense of guilt or shame. Do we adhere to our morals only for fear of punishment? When we are taught that doing something, such as lying, is wrong but we do it any way, and we may or may not get caught, but don't we feel guilty any way? What if we were not taught that it was wrong, would we feel guilty then? I'm not trying to say that morality is something that can only be taught, though it is to an extent, but surely there must also be some inherent sense of right and wrong.
What makes behavior right or wrong? I personally believe that morality is a fluid idea that cannot be set in stone and that it is dependent upon the circumstances. We can all agree that killing is wrong, but what are the circumstances? There are many who would argue that killing under any circumstances is wrong, but what if it were in self-defense? There may be a self-righteous individual among you that would even go so far as to argue that it is wrong, even under such a circumstance because you would still be taking a life, but if someone were about to kill you and you let them without offering any defense, wouldn't it be more wrong to facilitate your own murder in order to preserve the life of your murderer? You've killed somebody either way.
We can all agree that certain things are right or wrong, but who really decides that they are for certain? We do. I personally believe that there are no absolutes when it comes to right or wrong until morality is brought into the context of a specific situation.
"Why does anyone care what makes behavior moral or immoral?" I believe that it goes back to the earliest civilizations. All laws are based upon the moral standards of a culture, and every society must have a system of laws by which it's people must abide in order for that society to function peacefully and flourish. Both laws and morals are meant to be good but they are both reinforced with negative consequences. Where laws are based in an idea of morality and reinforced by the threat of punishment, so are the ideas of morality reinforced by the aforementioned sense of guilt or shame. Do we adhere to our morals only for fear of punishment? When we are taught that doing something, such as lying, is wrong but we do it any way, and we may or may not get caught, but don't we feel guilty any way? What if we were not taught that it was wrong, would we feel guilty then? I'm not trying to say that morality is something that can only be taught, though it is to an extent, but surely there must also be some inherent sense of right and wrong.
What makes behavior right or wrong? I personally believe that morality is a fluid idea that cannot be set in stone and that it is dependent upon the circumstances. We can all agree that killing is wrong, but what are the circumstances? There are many who would argue that killing under any circumstances is wrong, but what if it were in self-defense? There may be a self-righteous individual among you that would even go so far as to argue that it is wrong, even under such a circumstance because you would still be taking a life, but if someone were about to kill you and you let them without offering any defense, wouldn't it be more wrong to facilitate your own murder in order to preserve the life of your murderer? You've killed somebody either way.
We can all agree that certain things are right or wrong, but who really decides that they are for certain? We do. I personally believe that there are no absolutes when it comes to right or wrong until morality is brought into the context of a specific situation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
