For Journal entries after 25 October, be sure to make then in two parts: Part 1: key issues in the reading; Part 2: your own philosophical and personal reflection on the readings or those key issues.
29 November 2022
============
“Philosophy is meaningless unless applied to real problems.”
Singer writes first that suffering from lack of resources is bad, and that this suffering is avoidable. Wealthy people have the power to prevent this by sacrificing some of their wealth. When Singer says this, he does not just mean the crazy-rich billionaires, but also anyone who has any excess money. He thinks that people should give to charity rather than spend money on frivolous things. He also believes that governments should give more. Additionally, Singer brings up an analogy about saving a child that is drowning. He says that any person would save the drowning child, even if it was an inconvenience to themself. He says that we have a moral obligation to fix or prevent something if it is in our power to do so.
I agree with most of these points. It is not common enough in our society to give to charity. Almost all global issues could be solved if we gave up excess wealth. It is interesting that he brings up the belief of many people that this is the government’s job. If everyone thinks that someone else is going to do it, then nobody will end up doing it. While it is true that our governments should give more, it is also very important that individuals do the same. In our capitalist nation, we spend so much money on unnecessary things, and that is not morally correct. Personally, I know that I spend money for pretty much no reason, and I seldom give to charities. If anything, I give to the church collection, but I almost always say no when stores ask me to donate to charities at the checkout. My family budgets for charity donations every year, but we could easily give more. This reading has caused me to reflect upon my family’s affluence and made me question whether or not it is right for me to be spending this much money on a Marquette education.
One of the biggest takeaways I had from this article was the principal Singer creates. He says that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought, morally, to do it”. I think this argument kind of forces you to think about your actions and understand that you are most of the time able to contribute time and money to things such as aid. This is based off the fact that what you do will always most likely fall short of the bad spectrum compared to what you are helping. I think this made me reflect on all the moments I have chosen not to do something because “I didn’t have the time or money”, but in reality, I used it as more of an excuse not to do something that is helpful.
One question I have about the article is about the extent of the help we should give. Singer mentions the limit occurring when you start to harm yourself but when does that necessarily happen. Although you can give away as much as you can, shouldn’t you still be allowed to indulge in some of it. For those who do work hard for the money they earn, would it continue to be morally wrong if they do choose to use it on clothing even if they might not need it or going out. When does the moral line stop and start when it comes to helping others but also living our own lives.
(FAMI) “Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and med bad.”12
(FAM2) “If it is in [one’s] power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, [one] ought to do it.”13
(FAM3) By giving away one’s excess money to a relief organization, one can prevent something bad from happening.14
(FAM4) By giving away one’s excess money to a famine relief organization, one will not lose anything of comparable moral significance (to the bad prevented in FAM3).15 Thus:
(FAM5) One ought to give away one’s excess money to a famine relief organization.
To me, Singer is talking about a similar form of idea as communism. This is interesting because Singer is kind of describing a system of shared wealth. I feel like this is controversial too in our current society (at least in the US). I like how Singer describes how one should be generous though with the surplus of money that one has. I think in the long run if society tried to spend more time and money on those who are systemically set back, the world could be a more inclusive and better place.
There is though, the issue of people becoming complacent with having help, as in if they are getting free food and shelter without any cost of work or anything to them, they will just reap the benefits. Now, clearly not all people do this, but it can become an issue if the government is simply handing large sums of money out with no restrictions. The government seems to hand checks out as solutions often when something better could be done about a bad situation at hand. While handing out money is not a morally wrong solution, it is not always the best solution for preventing bad things from happening, there should be a better option here. I feel that it has become a norm that money fixes everything, throwing money at something will fix it or make someone happy, but it is not a long term or ideal solution for all things.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ten-examples-of-welfare-for-the-rich-and-corporations_b_4589188
I found a lot of Singers thoughts and supposedly profound statements to be general thoughts a preteen child could think of when asked, “how can we make the world a better place?”. Obviously offering support to those in need and leading a minimalist lifestyle is very good natured and the right thing to do, but in a world of free will and every individual person having their own thoughts and beliefs it is nothing more then a fantasy. What I can take from this is a reminder to think about my purchases in day to day life and what I can do to live a more minimalist lifestyle and offer what I can to a charity or organization I believe in.
What interested me most in this reading was the distinction that needed to be drawn between charity and morality, that it is not thought that anything is wrong with not giving if people are thanked for their “generosity” when they do give. I also was interested by his discussion of the government’s responsibility in the matter, and his comment that the way of life that has come to be is taken for granted.====================
15 November 2022
The first point that I find to be particularly important in Jean-Paul Sartre’s “Existentialism and Humanism” is his definition and expected applications of existentialism. Sartre defines existentialism as “the least scandalous and most austere [of teachings]: it is intended strictly for technicians and philosophers”. This defined intention for existentialism is the first instance where I began to question Sartre. I wonder, why develop philosophy that is only exclusively applicable to certain people? One of the most prominent points from Kant’s Categorical Imperative is the universal applicability of belief, and that if it cannot be applied to every person equally, then it is undesirable. In any case, Sartre further describes existentialism, explaining that existentialists stand by the point that “existence comes before essence”, and that humans have no inherent purpose, nature, or predestined aspirations. Another important factor to consider is that Sartre is an atheist, which eliminates any belief in purpose assigned from a God or a higher being. All of these factors come together, leading Sartre to place a heavy emphasis on the freedom to choose what we are. I found this way of thinking to be initially depressing, as the idea that we are born with absolutely zero inherent purpose is a bit morbid. However, upon further thought, I did find some comfort in the idea that we can be whoever or whatever we want.
So the action a man takes is the action that all humanity should take.
This last idea is very confusing to me. How can a man be responsible for all man if it he is only choosing his own actions? Sartre writes, “I am thus responsible for myself and for all men, and I am creating a certain image of man as I would have him to be.” Is Sartre trying to say that when a man chooses his actions, he is choosing what he thinks humanity do, but it is not actually affecting humanity. Overall this concept is very confusing and I am interested in an explanation.
I find this to be weirdly uplifting and optimistic. In a way, better than being conceived for a purpose. It’s not that we do not have a purpose given that God does not exist, it’s that we give ourselves a purpose (or a lack of if you prefer) to see how we best fit within our contexts of humanity. I believe I watched a video about this on “existential optimism”. So, I hope I am not going too far away from how I am supposed to interpret Sarte.
“What was the main goal Jean-Paul Sartre wanted to prove when writing this book”?
Free will has continued to be a prevalent topic, especially in this read regarding character development. Personal morality is determined by the decisions we make and how we, again, choose to live our lives. After reading these concepts, I’m able to put into perspective where this idea comes into play in my personal life. Every decision that I have made has influenced the course of my life and where it is planned to go. Since it was explained that we oversee our decisions, is there a point in life where there’s an external influence impacting our decisions?
Although we have an existence that somewhat overrides our essence as we have the power of free will, I also believe that there is human nature for us to do good. I am a Christian, though, so it makes sense for me to disagree. It is interesting that he also says in the Abraham example that ultimately in the absence of the idea of G0d it is the individual who decides whether they are hearing God or an angel or if it’s just their brain playing tricks on them. Yes, it is the individual’s choice to believe something or not, but I do not think Abraham was hallucinating. I also do not like how Sartre is kind of throwing shade at a biblical account. It is a bit difficult for me to see from the authors perspective as I do believe in God, and part of his accounts are going against the existence of God and beliefs of the Christians, although yes, I agree we are all responsible for our individual choices. I believe in universal human nature while the author believes in a human condition, which is kind of like an atheist version of the human nature I suppose but it is not an equivalent.
10 November 2022
When watching your video lecture, I was slightly confused with Mill’s standpoint on Kant’s philosophy (being a posteriori rather than a priori), would you be able to discuss this more in class?
Utilitarianism is, in my thoughts, the main driver for selfishness.
Personally, I find that my values seem to align most closely with this ideology. While Kant’s teachings on intent seem noble, I think that they have little impact on real world problems. With Utilitarianism, the intentions behind actions have less weight than their outcomes or consequences, and I think that this is a better strategy to increase good in the world; it is a more effective way to achieve summum bonum. In addition, I think that the intuitive nature of Rule Utilitarianism makes it easier to grasp for more people, thereby increasing the number of people who follow it, and thereby try to increase common good.
“Given that Kant and John’s theories relate to each other, what kind of things should be considered a pleasure and an act of good according to them”?
Compare and contrast the Chinese and American ways of dealing wiht COVID.
It is interesting to think about it politically – utilitarianism as applied to government. Is this different than socialism?
“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides. “
“Social sympathies”
The idea of the ends justifying the means hit hard at home for me, because that is logic that one of my siblings often argues with when it comes to certain topics. They have a lot of different opinions and beliefs on varying things that the rest of my family does not. When everyone is home and a touchy topic comes up, it usually ends up in an unresolved argument with them. Testing the means though, to see if the ends seem justified can be dangerous. Utilitarianism is all about if something benefits the majority, so it is justified or right because of this. I do not like this logic. I believe in part that my sibling holds this logic in part because they define their religious status as agnostic but come across as atheist, and if someone thinks that way I could kind of see how they think that all in this world that matters from right and wrong is how it benefits the majority. It is hard for me to wrap my head around that though. Promoting pleasure is temporary, it is a long-sought chase that is not sustainable. Obviously pleasures of doing things in it of itself are not inherently bad, but it depends on what sorts of pleasure are being talked about. Many earthly pleasures, especially nowadays, are not truly fulfilling. Utilitarianism is a human invention, it is not a moral standard, it is not a religious idea. I know that this chapter tries to deduct against the common misconceptions which as I type this journal, I am speaking on some of these misconceptions, but I have a hard time agreeing with his logic, because I think that everyone has a different idea on these levels of happiness and pleasure. To think of ultimate fulfillment and pleasures and happiness has a different meaning for everyone, and that is where I find utilitarianism falls short. Yes, I understand morally what the chapter is getting at and how it is not just about individual happiness, but about the happiness of the whole, but as utilitarianism is a human invention I do not like viewing it from a moral sense. I am also biased because of the whole “ends justify the means” bringing up bad memories of arguments for me. I do though think that this logic can be used, but for it to be used correctly someone must have the proper sense of the levels of pleasures and fulfilment, and who is to determine what those are? I think that many people would fall short using this logic alone primarily because they are not equipt with the proper knowledge to use this human invention. I am not saying that people do not have knowledge, because obviously human beings are very intelligent creatures, I just think from this logic alone and the confusion much of the world has among what pleasures and happiness are most important, that things can go wrong.
One of the questions that I have about the reading deals with the explanation that Mill John Stuart gives near the beginning of the article. He says, “Of the two pleasures if there be one to which all or almost all who have experienced both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure. ” I took this as saying that even if the most desirable pleasure is morally wrong it is still okay to choose it, simply because it is the most desired pleasure. If this interpretation of mine is accurate, I find this statement very unsettling and almost sad. However, if this is to just state that at times others tend to find the most pleasure in the wrong things then I would agree that to be true.
One of the points that I did enjoy from the reading talked about dignity. Stuart describes the inability to exchange one’s own “happiness” for something that would be inferior, such as dignity. He even states that we all possess this and says, “…which is so essential a part of the happiness of those whom it is strong, that nothing which conflicts with it could be, otherwise than momentarily, an object of desire to them.” I interpreted this as saying that if there is something that goes against your dignity then it would be absurd to find pleasure in that thing. I think this relates to Kant and the importance of respecting yourself and that is our dignity. At times, I think we tend to ignore our internal dignity in the sense of morals and virtues and get caught up in the daily pleasures of life. I don’t want to lose my dignity over small insignificant pleasures that will not follow me into the afterlife.
Mills makes a great anthesis to Kantian morality. From what I have taken from the reading, he shows that we should do what is the greatest good for ourselves and the people around us because it will lead to this higher or more rewarding sense of happiness. This has its faults on its own. One example I can think of is the classic stealing of bread to feed your family. If the store owner has no family and is already super wealthy, is it okay to help most people by stealing the bread? Could this be somewhat related to a “sharing the wealth” type of ideology where you should do what is good for the greatest number, and by doing so, you make a government that fairly (probably not possible) distributes wealth to everyone evenly? Wouldn’t that be the best for everyone, or am I thinking too materialistically?
But one gripe I do have with their beliefs is where are the checks and balances for the power that is the majorities pleasure. Are big corporations correct in using child labor because it gets the masses their product faster and thus makes the majority happy or was Truman right in dropping the nukes since they saved an inestimable number of soldiers who would have died if the war carried on. Questions like those above need a form of checks and balances that maybe I missed in the reading or didn’t understand, but from what I grasped was missing and is an incredibly large problem.
In chapter 2, Mills says, “It is better to
be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied,” and I believe that it talks about how many of the
wealthy or privileged people in society already have it easy and don’t strive to do good for the happiness
of other individuals that make up the world. For example, I have encountered people who have amazing
lives, access to higher education, and the ability to live their lives without worry. Some of these people,
since they don’t see a problem with the world and are satisfied pigs, they do not strive to make change
for those who don’t have it as easy (dissatisfied human beings) by doing things like voting, donating to
those indeed, and educating themselves on important issues in the world. We all must strive for a better
world.
This is something that is very common in the present world, especially when it comes to those who hold closely, such as family, friends, or a significant other. Men will always try to make their election for the nearer good, knowing that there is a chance of their election being less valuable. What I mean is that men will always perform smaller actions (such as holding the door open or bringing). The reason why they perform acts such as those is because it is part of their duty for doing what is right, along with the societal values of being a gentleman. But what if it’s more than societal values? What if it is part of our duty to do what is right as men?
While the author talked about elections and the values of pleasures/happiness in men, I wonder what it is like in women? Are their elections for the nearer good?, and do they know about the value of their elections?
I found it interesting that “the multiplication of happiness is, according to the utilitarian ethics, the object of virtue” (Mill 20). If this idea is true, why do humans still make decisions that only benefit themselves personally instead of a collective group? This idea shares similarities with how humans are motivated by their personal happiness and pleasure and will meet any needs necessary to obtain these fulfillments. Since individuals have their own definitions of happiness, different paths are taken to achieve these goals, and this idea can explain why individuals put themselves first in situations where decisions are made. They take their own end goals and put them into perspective, and ultimately choose the option that will take them to this personal goal of theirs. On a personal level, these concepts allowme to reflect on how I tend to make decisions and how I place my end goals into perspective. As mentioned in the video, we as humans should “make as much happiness as possible for as many people as possible” (Taylor 40:48). This idea stuck with me and allowed for a realization that we should take our personal happiness and pleasure into consideration, but ultimately make a decision that will positively benefit a group over an individual.
8 November 2022
In Section 2 of Kant’s “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals”, he dives deeper into his Categorical Imperatives, which are Synthetic A Priori Practical Propositions. This means that they synthesize multiple ideas, are outside of the experience of this world, should be put into action, and provide guidelines to follow when making moral decisions. Even though we do not always see respect being shown to everyone in our world, we understand that respect must be shown to all rational beings, or all those that have the ability to reason and put this reasoning into action. When considering will, our will is formed as a result of reasoning, but this does not mean that we do not make mistakes when we reason, or choose to go against our reason. We may also give into hypothetical imperatives, rather than categorical imperatives, and submit our will to conditions and incentives not presented by reason. For example, if we want money, then we get a job. However, this action is not a categorical, or required, imperative.
When exploring section 2, as well as the videos provided, I felt the discussion of autonomy and treating people as ends in themselves to be the most interesting. This means we shouldn’t simply use others for our own pleasure or benefit. However, we do this all the time. We pay to receive an education from teachers, and use them to benefit our own knowledge, but they also willingly volunteer to be used in such a way, and get paid for their services. Most jobs, in some way, use people as means rather than as ends in themselves, so is this ok?
One question I also have is: Although lying is manipulating others, and not treating others as ends in themselves, sometimes we lie to help others, is this immoral action?
=============
After reading Section 2 and watching the video I still have a question about Reason. Kant talks about reason being the guiding factor to our WILL. However, can’t Reason be wrong? Or is it that human reason can be wrong? If so, how do we distinguish between human reason and pure reason? I question how the internal Reason which is supposed to guide us can always be right if we are human beings.
Despite my question about Reason, what I took away from this section is the more imperative command for us to follow the good path. Moreover, the categorical imperative prevents us from doing anything that could cause us to disrespect ourselves and others. In general, I think at times, myself included, we as human beings tend to engage in activities or even thoughts that are disrespectful to ourselves or others. Although I think at times it is not due to us being evil or bad people, maybe our intentions were not in the right place. I reflect on this because achieving the categorical command to the utmost perfection is difficult. Therefore, I think it is important for us to reflect on our daily lives and determine what areas of ourselves must change or improve to achieve the categorical imperative.
I also think that despite Kant’s desire to separate religion from morality because we are humans, I think having a higher ground or someone to go to eases the burden of feeling alone in the process. I always go to God when I am having a hard time following the right path and even though I am not able to fix it right away, the desire to be with him in the afterlife, pushes me to do better every day.
=========
Kant’s idea of intention I find a bit too extreme in cases of for example, forgetting a family member’s birthday. He says that we are required out of respect for ourselves and others to remember for example a birthday to make use of reasoning as an obligation. However, I believe that sometimes life really does overwhelm us as humans so much to where there are so many things that we have going on that we forget about some days or don’t even know what day it is.
Moving on to Kant’s thoughts of grounding for metaphysics of morals, he insists a priori, as we all have the nature and moral grounds within us to respect ourselves and others as rational beings. A notion of respect is not learned by looking at the world we just know we should, which I agree as although many people in the world have become selfish and not caring about others, it is what we grow up as a common notion with. It is interesting to think of morality as being brought into the world by somewhere else, because if it was not then all human beings would be respected, and they are not. This is a valid point. All rational beings are supposed to abide by a priori law, and it has apparently been there always. Thinking of morality as something from another world/place being brough is a bit hard to wrap my head around as it is odd to think about if we are born on earth, how as beings, we have morality from outside of this world. If this morality comes from somewhere outside of the world, then isn’t that also part of proof of God or religion? Something that is outside the realm of the world must have some sort of power above us and therefore serve some sort of religious or creation purpose.
3 November 2022
Take it personally.
Kant’s three questions: What can I know?” “What must I do?” and “What may I hope?”
Mental illness.
“Any eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”
What is “the golden rule”? Should it be followed?
Journal Entries:
Contrary to Kant, I do think that happiness is at least somewhat a motivator of good will. Throughout this course I have realized that I am much more pessimistic than philosophers. I might be coming around to some of these ideas now, but I initially held the thought that all humans are selfish. I have thought that we only do things that benefit ourselves. But I do realize that we all have a natural calling for respect.
The idea that good will is the only thing that is good without qualification, is an interesting idea. Do people need to be educated for this? How would one know if their will is formed correctly? Even those though, with so-called good wills or are so-called good people, make mistakes, because we are not perfect. I understand though the idea that Kant is getting at. We may not intentionally know or understand what is good, but if we have it and act according with it then we cannot intentionally do bad and evil. To me, intensions of actions are extremely important, which I like Kant’s stressing of this. Humanities intentions say a lot about them and ultimately determines the outcome of many situations in my eyes, although Kant stresses only the intention not the outcome. For example, in relationships if one side of it or one person has bad intentions then by those means the relationship will likely end badly, and the person with good intentions will suffer. We must do what we ought to because it is right not because of the outcome itself such as money, as Kant stresses our duty and motive is important rather than acting in light of seeking personal benefits or other outside considerations.
Then the reading goes on to say that natural talents can be used for good or bad, therefore they cannot always be good. I think this is a good point. For instance, people having money is neutral, people investing that money into a homeless shelter is good, and people investing that money into a business that uses child labor is bad. It is how people use their gifts that determine their will. We as a society also seem to see people as deserving or undeserving of their gifts based on what they do with them. For instance, if a billionaire invests money into green energy, we view them as worthy of that money, but if they invest that money into foolish frivolous things, we view them as undeserving. // According to the passage we are given reason to make the choice of good will. I think that this makes sense because if we had no reason, we could not complete acts of goodwill that will lead us to a happier more fulfilled life. Reason is guided to make us good moral people, and from this we will reach happiness. We will naturally seek happiness and do not need to purposefully seek it out, I agree with this point because it is natural for humans to want to be content, and fulfilled, and we can often do this be doing good for ourselves and others. This is also how we naturally seek out love, I personally think that love and happiness are intertwined, and that you cannot have one without the other. For instance, you could have a love for another and that could bring you happiness, or you could even just have a love for life itself and that could bring you happiness.
His aim in this section is to uncover what possible candidates for the role of something that is good without qualification are available. My thoughts about this section were all over the place. Kant kept saying that it is our duty to do the right thing and not for happiness, but everyone has different interpretations from right and wrong. Some people might think abortion is right while others think it’s wrong. Some people may think driving on opposite sides of the road in different countries are right when they’re right in their own place. The quote I thought of when reading the first section was, “Two wrongs doesn’t make a right”.
My question for today is: Would we be able to discuss Kant’s view on our duty of self-preservation a bit in class? I found his view interesting and would enjoy to see how other classmates feel about it.
“For since reason is not sufficiently effective in guiding the will safely in regard to its objects and the satisfaction of all our needs (which it in part itself multiplies), and an implanted natural instinct would have guided us much more certainly to this end, yet since reason nevertheless has been imparted to us as a practical faculty, i.e. as one that ought to have influence on the will, its true vocation must therefore be not to produce volition as a means to some other aim, but rather to produce a will good in itself, for which reason was absolutely necessary, since everywhere else nature goes to work purposively in distributing its predispositions.” I found this reading to be the most confusing one of all that we have read so far (and as such am having difficulty identifying issues in the argumentation), and in particular was befuddled by the above passage. As the video lecture states, reason was given to human beings in order to achieve good will, but this passage seems to disagree with that notion (“…reason is not sufficiently effective in guiding the will safely…”).
I thought that this was true of the relationship between reason and happiness. If this is not the case, what bearing does reason have upon happiness and fulfilment?
To me, Kant is trying to say that this “Good Will” is the definition of what humanity should strive for. It is, by lack of the best terms, the qualities of a good/virtuous/moral person. I agree that these “natural talents are viewed as good in people with the “Good Will” and bad in those who have ill will/intention. But what Kant does a great job of describing is the fact that intention plays such a massive role in how virtuous one’s actions truly are. Kant does an excellent job of examining the motives on why and how we form such ideas on morality by breaking it down into the will that we exert into being a good person, otherwise known as our intentions, rather than the outcomes that may come from action. I totally agree that the intentions of one’s actions surround morality. But it doesn’t define if one’s actions are moral. My question is: Does morality totally rely on intention?
There is one part of the reading that I found very interesting and would like to talk about. Kant’s third proposition as to how humans have developed a good will is: “Duty is the necessity of an action from respect for the law” (Ak 4:400). I believe the proposition is very correct today. We all follow the law out of the fear of the consequences that we will receive if we do not follow the law. I wonder how society would be different if we all did things with the inclination of our own happiness or duty. Society would be hectic without the control of laws, but not all laws are just and have often gone against the happiness our duties of many. Overall, after reading section one, I have realized that there are a lot of aspects that contribute to our good will such as happiness, inclination for duty, and laws. I still feel like there is a lot more to learn about who gave us good will and why we have it. Kant mentioned that nature appointed reason in creatures to accomplish an aim, whether that be with reason or not. I am not a misologist and I strongly believe that there is a reason behind our good will, whether I find that through philosophical conversation or science.
Having the ability to decipher the difference between good and bad is up to our own personal discretion. Choices are proven to stem from individuals and what they wanted the goal of the decision to be . . . On a personal level, self-control does truly play a role in the decision-making process, as it helps to determine whether a choice is right or wrong. Determining whether the choice that I make affects myself individually or a group, utilizes different components within myself to determine, which include self-control and awareness.
I am very confused by his talks about duty and what he is trying to establish from these examples. I feel like he is maybe trying to establish good will and how duty relates to it but honestly because of the number of examples and the tangents he goes on it was difficult for me to determine whether or not that is what he was trying to do.
. . . I find particularly relevant is the notion that a “good” action committed with malicious intent is not at all a good action. Likewise, an objectively evil action committed with “good” intentions is once again evil. . . However, the question I find myself asking is where do I draw the line between permissible and impermissible? Is it reasonable or realistic to expect everyone to act with a good will all of the time?
a potential conflict but also a relationship between goodwill and free will. . . I also see a relationship between free will and good will. As I said before, there are people who choose to not act on good will and put themselves before others. However, there are those who would freely choose to act on good will and put others before themselves, like walking an elderly person across the street, or helping our parents bring in groceries. I think the reason people would mainly act on good will is to be nice. Yet, there might be a deeper reason, which is the golden rule: “Treat others the way you want to be treated. People put others before themselves because they want others to put them in front of their selves.
The Categorical Imperative:
402: “I should never act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law.”
421: “Hence there is only one categorical imperative and it is this: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
421: “Accordingly, the universal imperative of duty may be expressed thus: Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature.”
429: “The practical imperative will therefore be the following: Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same
time as an end and never simply as a means.”
1 November 2022
(i-0)
The passage starts off with the question of why did God give us free will? It then goes on to say that free will makes it so we can sin, however it is my belief that without free no one will be inherently human. For to be human is to make mistakes and to be imperfect. The reading then goes on to say that humanity gave us sin and that God only gave us free will to make sin. Then the subjects make the point that God gives us free will but punishes us if we sin. Then goes on to say that God should not have given us freewill if he was going to punish us for it. Essentially saying that God made a mistake. To which it was responded that God makes no mistakes. This personally made me come to the conclusion that God hoped that we would use our free will to the benefit of others, and not for our own gains.
It is my personal belief that God gave us free will to live as humans, to make our own choices, and to allow us to have control over our lives. To go beyond the right thing and do moral thing. The difference between these two is seen in the situation that while it is wrong to kill, if that person is going to kill others it is the morally right thing to do. In the end of this section, it was decided that humans were given free will rightly.
. . . . . .
The book ends with the statement that sin clouds your truth and influences your true will, and God was neutral in the morality of free will.
In conclusion I believe that free will is neither good nor evil. For instance, a pregnant woman is walking with her toddler, suddenly the toddler dashes into the street right in front of a car. The right thing to do would be to save her child. But in doing so both she and the child she is carrying will die, and there will be no one left to care for the toddler. This is an impossible circumstance and shows how free will can both help and hinder your decisions.
(i-a) Something that I want to reflect on is in chapter 3 when Augustine questions Evodius about knowing if he has all of the 5 senses: sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch. He asks Evodius to give the proper functions of each sense. He then asks him to give a description of a body and reinforced that you can use both your touch and sight senses. Augustine stated that some senses have things in common with each other. Another example I can think of is a freshly baked pie. You can see what it looks like, hear the apples sizzling when you take it out of the oven, smell the aroma, taste it when its ready to eat and touch it to see what it feels like. All 5 senses work together to form a collaborative output of the brain. I think that senses can be somewhat interchangeable.
(i-b) “Therefore, a nature that only exists and neither lives nor understands, such as an inanimate physical object, is inferior to a nature that not only exists but also lives, but does not understand, such as the soul of animals. This nature is in turn inferior to one that at once exists and lives and understands, such as the rational mind in human beings”.
I have to disagree with Augustine for two reasons. The first reason is based on logic. If nature that only exists but also lives, but does not understand, then how do animals know what to eat and how to adapt to their environments when changes occur? If animals or humans know how to do something, it proves that there is a sense of understanding and a rational mind. For example, geese know that because of cold temperatures, they understand that in order to survive, they have to survive by migrating to warmer environments. However, there are animals, such as bears and squirrels, that hibernate in order to survive colder environments. So, if animals have an understanding of survival, then why does Augustine believe nature that only lives and exists does not understand? The second reason I disagree with Augustine is that there are animals who have superior minds compared to humans. For example, dolphins, the smartest creatures on the planet. This is where I get confused and disagree. If animals cansurvival and can even be superior to a rational human mind, then what is the point of Augustine’s argument?
(ii) Philosophy Journal 10/31/22 I found today’s reading of Book 2 of On the Free Choice of the Will to be incredibly detailed. Although I know a lot more about a theory as to what and who contributes to our use of free will, I am very confused as to how we know for sure that God exists and that he is the one who gave us the ability to use our free will, even if it is for evil. I understand that I exist and that I rely on 5 senses. I also know that I know about my senses with my internal sense and reasoning. According to Augustine, God gave us our ability to reason because he was able to think about him accurately and religiously. I am not religious, and I tend to rely a lot more on science. I would like to know more about the philosophical argument as to whether God exists or not, and if he is the one contributing to my ability to reason and have free choice of the will. // Overall, the idea of how we use our free will is something I found very fascinating. The main discussion in Book 2 is whether God exists or not and if he is the one who willingly gave us free choice of the will that can be used for good or evil. Toward the end of Book 2, Augustine says, “See how much good is missing in a body that does not have hands! Yet hands are used for evil when someone does cruel or disgraceful things with them” (2.18.48.183). The quote sums up the ideas of the book very well. God exists to give us the hands (free will) to do the right things, but with the risk that these hands can also be used for evil. Additionally, in the case of justice, those who choose to use the power of free will to do evil will be punished.
(ii) One of the larger points in the reading was the concept of the five senses and how they related to understanding. Augustine and Evoidus had a lengthy conversation about this, and it started with the idea of existing, living and understanding, and how understanding was superior to the other two. They explained this by saying if you understand then you also exist and are living, but other animals and objects might be missing one or two if these ideas. This led into the conversation about senses and the difference between inner sense and the five physical senses. However inner sense is related to the physical senses because it is what allows us to process the information received from the physical senses and deduce things that can not be sensed by the physical senses, such as something being round or square.
I liked the discussion the two men had about the senses because it went in depth about something that I have some understanding of but have never thought very deeply about. I know our five senses and what they perceive in general, but I don’t think I have thought about what processes those senses in a way that is not scientific. From what I understood, the inner sense is what helps decipher the information from the sense and it helps with understanding. I also thought the concept of the inner sense sensing the fact that the five senses were sensing was interesting but also a little hard to wrap my head around, because of the complicated phrasing of that idea.
(iv)
25 October 2022
Throughout the read, I encountered several interesting topics, but one idea that was mentioned raised questions that I was left with. Socrates mentioned how “the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all and is seen only with an effort” (Plato). This idea has been derived from the prison-like cave and what it entailed. This part of the reading depicts the views people have on the simplest topics. I found this interesting since the idea of good is claimed to only be viewed when effort is put forward. Can the concept of good and truth only be seen through effort? As this question was raised, I began to think about morals and how these ideas were developed personally. Growing up, children were taught about good and bad, and how to overall depict the difference between the two. This concept correlates with the evidence presented in this read. For this concept to be understood, there needs to be an effort put forth by the children to learn and eventually practice this concept. Regarding the topic of learning and applying it to life in the present, a personal connection was made. It was also mentioned that “there are certain principles about justice and honour, which were taught us in childhood, and under their parental authority we have been brought up, obeying, and honouring them” (Plato). This idea relates to how my morals and values have developed over the years. Growing up, I was taught the basics of obedience and respect which has shaped my character to what it is today. The influence of the individuals around me has shaped the characteristics that I have to this day.
==================
One part of the reading that left me a bit confused was the metaphor or analogy of the man in the cave and the purpose of seeing the light of the sun. Although I sort of understand the idea of leaving the darkness and going toward the light, I don’t know how looking at the sun proves the point. If it is too bright to stare at then how is it possible to truly seek the light if it hurts? I’m not sure if I missed the explanation of this but I felt a bit confused.
One of my favorite parts of this reading is the description of the five mathematical studies. I like how Socrates describes the importance of each one and highlights the importance of fully grasping the concepts. He introduces the need for Rulers and Guardians to be able to understand all of these concepts and even provides a sort of timeline. I especially liked the description of Arithmetic and the continued importance of proper thought and teaching the mind hard work rather than just the body. This part of the reading was truly mind-opening and sort of an insight into how I should strive for knowledge continuously. This is important because I am still young and at the best point of my mind’s learning career.
====================
This is my second time reading the allegory of the cave, but I feel like I understood it much better this time than the time before. When Socrates is explaining the cave, he is explaining the levels of knowledge of reality. From this reading, however, I gained a greater understanding of people’s apprehension, and the pain we must encounter when we are faced with the truth. Socrates then elaborates on these levels of knowledge, and compares them to the Forms, with the Form of the Good being the final form, when the prisoner reaches a full understanding of the world around him. He states that education is what brings us out of the cave, and the best educated men, or philosopher-kings, will then return to the cave and help to educate others. Socrates goes on to explain his plan for creating this philosopher kings, which might be effective, but I find to be somewhat ridiculous. If his plan might actually work and create leaders that only want to rule for the good of others, then that would be great, but I feel that the likelihood of his plan actually being put into action and working effectively is so unlikely.
When considering the reading, I like that Socrates remarks the discomfort faced when one comes to realize the truth. Sometimes, the truth can hurt, and you want to go back to what you imagined before. However, when you are strong enough to face the truth, you can then grow and help others to learn the truth as well.
My question is: You asked us to look into who the people are carrying the statues, but I don’t really know. Are they the philosopher-kings, giving the prisoners an image that they will grasp more fully later, or are they the other men trying to trick the prisoners and confuse them?
11 October
“for all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice”
“There is another side to Glaucon’s argument about the praise and censure of justice and injustice, which is equally required in order to bring out what I believe to be his meaning. Parents and tutors are always telling their sons and their wards that they are to be just; but why? not for the sake of justice, but for the sake of character and reputation”
I found Glaucon’s argument to be confusing at first, for how is justice not good in itself? However, the story of the ring of Gyges helped me to understand what he was getting at and illuminated this point to me. I now see that even though people would like to think that they would be just no matter what, I believe that there are extremely few, if any, people in the world who truly enjoy justice for itself.
What is considered the right thing to do for your good might be regulated by the constructs of society, so some people might not do the things that are good for them out of fear for the consequences of their actions.
I feel like these ethics and how far they go depend on society and the people around you, which is touched on in the Republic. What is considered the right thing to do for your good might be regulated by the constructs of society, so some people might not do the things that are good for them out of fear for the consequences of their actions.
If God asks you to do what is right, would you agree to do it only because God will give you an afterlife with lots of goodies? Or would you do what is right because it is right?
Is there such a think as genuine altruism? Do the ideas of egoism undermine the meaning of love or of respect?
15 Sept
(A) One particular aspect of the Euthyphro story is the stigma around Euthyphro coming out to accuse his dad of murder. I find it interesting how even though the events of the story took place roughly 2400 years ago, the idea of solidarity in the family has persisted until extremely recently, maybe a few decades ago. I hear and see from family members and other adults that I have talked to who grew up and lived in the 20th century and the almost consensus opinion is that the importance of a strong family has faded dramatically in recent years. In the story and as we discussed in class, the idea of coming out against your father was completely blasphemous, as everything you are is owed to them. However, I feel now that the public opinion on this matter, at least in the youth, has shifted towards “you don’t owe your parents anything, raising you was the bare minimum”. Now, which is better? Is it better to remain silent about your parents’ objectively illegal activities in order to preserve a stable household or would it serve the common good better if you report illegal activity, regardless of relation to the perpetrator? My view is something like “1) thank God the world isn’t that black and white and 2) those are both extremes and the overwhelming majority of cases lie somewhere in the middle”. While this matter is only tangentially related to the larger message of the story, I found it particularly interesting and visible in the world around me.
(B)
Throughout the course of Socrates’s argument with Euthyphro, we are faced with the
question of what piety truly is. Even though we don’t understand Socrates’s ultimate goal, we
can understand his motive to obtain one clear definition of piety, as he was accused of acting
impiously after corrupting the youth and speaking in disagreement with the popular religious
beliefs. Despite this clear motive, Socrates was also known to have concern regarding right
action in general. If “right” and “wrong” were determined in accordance with the religious beliefs
of the time, then understanding the one true meaning of pious action, or acting religiously or
reverently must then have extreme significance.
However, time and again, when asking Euthyphro about the definition of piety, a clear,
absolute definition was never found. Euthyphro provides Socrates with examples of piety, and
explains it in relation to what is dear to the gods, but he is then met with a question in relation to
divine command theory: is something pious because the gods love it, or do the gods love
something because it is pious? The latter option was decided to be true, but the question
remained regarding the absolute definition of piety. As the argument continued, several more
definitions were given and rejected, and eventually, it circled back to the beginning, with no
single definition found.
Socrates’s question then remains, and still holds value in current times. What constitutes
right action? With no true definition for right and wrong, who do we trust to make distinctions?
Someone on earth, like politicians or religious leaders? Or is there some higher power?
(C)
In reflecting upon the dialogue between Euthyphro and Socrates, I started thinking about the former’s justification for prosecuting his own father – who, as we discussed in class, has given him everything. Euthyphro insists that his course of action is the pious one; yet, by his rule (where wrongdoers are held accountable for their actions, for this is what the Gods desire), his father was correct to exact punishment upon the murderous laborer in his employ. A life for a life: in the most clinically fair option, all emotion and nuance extracted, the death of the laborer was justified.
And yet, Euthyphro claims that his way is the fairest, the most favored by Gods who should be unbiased in all human matters, should they not? In the most ideal world (or Olympus), perhaps this is the case. However, Euthyphro himself admits to Socrates that the Gods are not objective observers. They disagree among themselves as much as humans.
Furthermore, Euthyphro’s action does not seem at all unbiased. As previously stated, the most emotionless observer would probably think the death of the laborer justified. Prosecuting one’s own father for the murder of an unknown party (one of the first things Socrates asks Euthyphro is whether one of his loved ones has been hurt) speaks more of a personal bias or agenda than it does moral objectivity. Personally, I think he brings this case to court to assuage his own guilt and horror at the death of a man in the ditch outside his own home. To avoid facing the feelings that arise within him in response to such an event, he casts around for a scapegoat, one with whom the ugly memory will disappear. Perhaps he even disagreed with his father over what to do with the laborer once he was apprehended. In any case, Euthyphro’s decision was far from impersonal, objective, or fair.
(D)
Euthyphro is the first that I have read of Plato. I think it is the first philosophical piece I have read in general. If I am interpreting it correctly, I think it is mostly about the concept of piety and an analysis of why the concept exists.
This is very different from anything I have read before. Honestly, it bothers me a little that there is not a conclusive ending. I think it is inherently human to want to find an answer to everything.
I think it is interesting that Euthyphro is prosecuting his father. I do not know if I could do the same.
Reading this feels like I am inside of Euthyphro’s brain. There is a sort of tension or discomfort that I feel when he is trying to explain his thinking to Socrates. The explanations that Euthyphro gives are along the lines of what I have thought, like when he suggests that anything the gods approve of is pious. I have never taken the time to think about whether something is holy because of the gods or whether the gods condone it because it is inherently holy.
13 Sept
(A) In Chapters 7-8 Weston talks about the final stages leading up to the writing of your argumentative essay. One of the first points Weston makes urges the reader to take time when choosing the position, they want to take in an argument. As someone who is at times indecisive, I tend to quickly come up with a decision, which at times I tend to regret later. This point reminds me to be more deliberate with my decisions and research before coming up with my final position. He also takes about creating an outline with your arguments and even providing more statements through the premises you make. Despite having written a few argumentative essays, I have not thought about making each reason its own argument. I tend to let the premises serve as supporting details versus as a pathway to further an argument which in turn does support the main arguments. Another main observation is that Weston encourages readers to meddle with objections, something which terrifies me as a writer. I tend to back away from bringing a “con” into my writing for fear that my argument is not strong enough to combat the opposing side. However, Weston even argues further in Chapter 8 to include the opposing side and use it to bring the reader back to the writer’s original argument. Although I am hesitant about using that strategy in an essay, I feel that it would make me a stronger writer as well as provide a more definitive statement that would be hard to argue against. One of the last points that seemed important to me was the rule Weston makes about not claiming more than what you’ve shown. I tend to prefer leaving a question for the reader to think of when in reality it would be best to have a concise definitive conclusion that is already something for the reader to think about. Overall, Weston continues to include rules about the best methods to produce a well-written argumentative essay.
(B)
Extended Arguments and Argumentative Essays
I’m slightly confused about the ideal structure (is there such a thing?) of an argumentative essay. For example, the opening: I’ve always assumed a more general introduction sets up a piece of writing well, and gives the reader a chance to adjust before jumping straight into the material. Weston advises us to jump right in, but is that meant quite literally? To immediately state our stance on the argument at hand? What if the argument itself isn’t clear to the reader – is this meant to be taken care of by a title?
The other thing I’ve taken away from today’s reading is the value of feedback, both on actual content and the style in which it is written. I find it very difficult to give feedback honestly, so Weston’s suggestion (asking for specific critiques) is very helpful. To that end, I suppose that I haven’t taken peer feedback seriously in the past, but now that I’m in college, I recognize it as a valuable resource.
(C)
Chapters 7 and 8 focused more on writing an actual essay or extended argument. A lot of it seemed to be reiterations of what was previously said. I thought it was a good reminder when Weston wrote that you shouldn’t already have a side set in stone when you begin to explore an issue. It is important, in all aspects of life, to keep an open mind.
I have always been told to write an outline before I begin an essay. There was a time in which I thought that an outline was extra work. I know now that an outline actually saves time. When you are done with an outline, the essay is pretty much already done.
The chapters highlighted that the process of building an argument is very dynamic. You work and rework your argument many times before you find the strongest draft. You should be constantly considering all sides of the argument, as well as alternative supports for the side you have chosen.
I always struggle with putting too much fluff in my writing. I was always afraid of it being too simple. This book tells me that simple is preferred. Simplicity makes your arguments stronger.
The reading also told me to seek and accept feedback. One of my favorite things in school was peer review days. Weston wrote that we should take advantage of our university’s writing center. That was also made clear in this class. I will definitely make use of it this year.