Consequentialists

In my opinion, I believe that most humans, at least most Americans, in this day in age are consequentialists. This means that most people judge whether or not an action is moral based on what the consequences of the action end up being. I believe this is true because ever since we were little, our parents and other role models have always taught us to “think of the consequences” before acting in a certain circumstance. We are always asked, even if the reason behind the act appears to be good, “do you realize what your action could do if it goes wrong?” In addition, I believe that children are punished by parents and teachers based solely on the results of the action, no matter what the child was attempting to do. If, for example, a child is trying to help one of his or her classmates carry some paint, but then trips and spills the paint all over the floor and another child. The teacher might not see everything that had happened and the classmate that had the paint spilled on them might say that the kid did it on purpose and, therefore, the child would be punished. Even though, the child’s intention of helping his friend carry something was morally good, the result of the action is what the teacher based the punishment on. This may especially ring true with a wide variety of school suspensions are being handed out to young children for seemingly miniscule reasons. This may not be the best example of this, but it is all I can think of at the moment. I also believe this is true because throughout main stream media, we tend to focus on the consequences of actions, which, in turn, tends to sway the public opinion in a certain way. Because of this, we often only see the bad consequences, thus causing a tendency to think of the consequences of every action. All in all, I think that we, for the most part, focus on the consequences of an action and decide whether it is moral or not based on the results, no matter the intention.

Utilitarianism Vs. Christianity

     As an objection to Utilitarianism, some people say it is a god-less doctrine, because its moral foundation is the happiness if man, and not the will of God. Well, Mill begs to differ. He believes it's all about how you perceive God. Let's think: there are no "gods" that would want their people to be miserable. Because the meaning of utilitarianism is causing the greatest about of good for the greatest amount of people, he believes this doctrine is amongst the ones that are godly.

   Not only is the doctrine godly sound, it is Christ-like as well. Though not all Christian principles cause the greatest about of happiness for the greatest amount of people, it was not intended to cause harm either. Take fornication for example. Most people believe it is okay, however the bible clearly tells us it is wrong. Although this principle does not cause people happiness, is it meant for the good of the greatest amount of people. It not only intends good for the people, it is good for the people. This is true whether they agree with it or not. Does that still follow the rules of Utilitarianism? Do you agree that it is directly related to Christianity, or do you believe the objection?

Sorry Mill..

Despite Mill’s rebuttal, I would still agree with Kant’s idea that basically if you mean well then all is well.  I would disagree with Mill stating that it is not the consequences that determine if an act was wrong or not, but the thought process or meaning behind the act.  For example, many people would argue over whether or not it is morally wrong to lie.  Now I believe pretty much any one would agree that it is wrong to lie but however there are exceptions, such as Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.  We make children believe that these things are real to give them hope and to make them happy, which is the final purpose itself.  What I understood from Kant is that if the meaning behind any act whether in normal cases it may be wrong, is good then the act cannot be wrong.  For example, using self-defense would be an exception to rule of you shall not kill/harm anyone.  Your meaning or thought process is to defend not harm, which would be considered a good thing, regardless of the outcome.  According to Mill the act is given meaning based on the outcome.  For example, for a person’s act to be determined good or bad the consequences have to be good or bad.  I would disagree and say that “it’s the thought that counts!” I always lived by that motto regardless of the outcome. 

Is Happiness the Key of Life?

Mills once said that “We want to choose an action that creates the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people”. I personally, agree with his statement, because as human beings we like to be the reason a group of people is happy. In a way it makes us feel good with ourselves. Mills concept is a very important one, because it does not only teach us how to be better people, but to also pass on good morals to others.

Mills also mentioned Utilitarianism, an action that derives its moral worth from the consequences it produces. This statement, in my opinion, is true, because day to day we are making choices that either result in bad or good outcomes. Therefore, it is important to always have in mind the many consequences that can derive from a single choice. However, Mills is not saying that one should always stop and think of the millions of consequences that can occur, because there are situations where a decision has to be taken instantly. That is why Mills proposed the Rule of Utilitarianism, where a person can operate most of his/her life by general rules. Utilitarianism gives us the choice of taking the correct decision in short time. For example, in class we discussed the problem about been stock in a room with classmates and a teacher and everyone in that room had the choice of either pressing a red button that would automatically kill the people next door or not press it, but risk dying, because the other class had the same choice. Utilitarianism, would tell us to press the button in order to save as many people as possible, because the purpose of this concept is to create the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. Therefore, I believe that Utilitarianism is the best concept to follow when it comes to happiness.

What Would YOU Do?

As discussed in class, some consider some lies to be morally right, or "okay," based on the consequence of the lie. In other words, if the lie being told was told only with the intent to mean and do good, can one consider lying okay as long as it is for a morally good reason?

Consider this scenario:
A child is adopted at a very young age, specifically at an age when not much in life is yet understood. An optimistic couple is willing to raise this child as if it were their own, but is contemplating whether or not they should tell the child right away that he has been adopted. The issue at hand is that the parents aren't sure they should tell him yet, regarding his age. They do not want to risk confusing the child at such an early age, yet they do not want to wait "too long" to inform him. Consider the fact that the reactions of adopted children after learning about their biological parents often vary, and can sometimes end up spiraling downhill. Is waiting to inform the child considered lying? And does the lie fit the "noble" description? Which decision would you make?

Non-Consequentialism

Kant's position is based on the idea of deontology. Deontology is derived from the Greek word "deontos" meaning duty and is commonly known to be defined as an ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action. Based on the definition, alone, I concur with Kant because of the conflict in consequences when a particular action is done. In class, the example was brought up about if an axe murderer was chasing after your friend and you hid your friend in your closet. Would you lie when the axe murderer came to the door and point him in the direction that your friend went? Many of us answered with "yes", of course and said that it would be a noble lie because your friend's life would be saved. However, if you told the axe murderer the direction that your friend went and unknowingly, your friend had actually gone in that direction and ended up dead, then we said the lie would still be a "noble" one. Therefore, I agree with Kant in the matter that the extent of the lie cannot be judged by if the consequences are good or bad. I feel that we can decide if a lie is "noble" or not based on the intentions of the action rather than the consequence. Nevertheless, Kant's Motive of Duty states that, "A human action is good not because it is done out of inclination or self-interest but because of the sake of duty alone." This means that there really couldn't be a such thing as Plato's famous "noble lie" because a lie is bad in itself due to its lack of truth and morality, no matter the circumstances.

Is the will good?

In Matthew 7:12, the golden rule was introduced which was “do to others what you would have them do to you…” As kids we were always told to follow this rule. By doing good to others, resulted in good to us. I feel as though this rule is what motivates “The Good Will”. The Good Will is what motivates our daily actions, is unconditionally good in all ways, and does not derive from the consequences. It is the human reason to produce the good will according to Immanuel Kant. An example we used would be a person willingly buying donuts to give to a homeless shelter. You buy the food because you feel you ought to out of good will and kindness. However, the homeless shelter you gave the donuts to where all diabetics and later that day they all died. Even though the consequence was negative and resulted in death, the act you did is still considered a “good will” because of the original intention. This act upon which a person did was something they felt like they “ought to do”. This refers to deontology, or “deontos”, which is Greek for the word duty. In definition, duty means something a person ought to do. The main word is “ought” in that definition. The act should be something a person does for the sake of duty and not for self-interest, which is also referred to as the “Motive of Duty”. If a person helps an old lady across the street because they feel it is part of their duty it is morally good. On the other hand, if a person sees an old lady needing help to cross the street and knows she always gives money to whoever helps her, then the act is done upon self-interest and not duty.

Is it your fault?

Kant believes that the only thing that is universally good is the good will. It is also the reason, reason exist. He also believes for an action to be moral it must follow the "Categorical Imperative". This simply states If one is going to do a moral action it must be able to act as an universal law, not use people merely as a means, and follow suit with a completely moral world. Do you agree that all moral actions follow that pattern? Let's say every year during Christmas time you took several bags of clothes, canned food, blankets, and other goods to a group of homeless people. This has just become apart of your holiday tradition. Is it still morally right?

     Kant believes an action is morally good because it was your duty, not for self interest, or because you felt you were inclined to do so. Is it still a moral action? Now, let's say the homeless people took all of the thing you gave them and sold them for drug and alcohol money. Was your action still moral? Kant believes moral actions are not based upon the consequences, but upon the intentions of your action. Keeping all of that in mind, what is the Verdict? Was the original action moral or immoral?

A Priori and A Posteriori

       Immanuel Kant argued that moral requirements are based on a standard of rationality he named the categorical imperative. Immorality thus involves a violation of the categorical imperative and is thereby irrational.

       The terms "a priori" and "a posteriori" are used primarily to denote the foundations upon which a proposition is known. A given proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known independent of any experience other than the experience of learning the language in which the proposition is expressed, whereas a proposition that is knowable a posteriori is known on the basis of experience. For example, the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori, and the proposition that it is raining outside now is a posteriori. The a priori /a posteriori distinction, as is shown below, should not be confused with the similar dichotomy of the necessary and the contingent or the dichotomy of the analytic and the synthetic. Nonetheless, the a priori /a posteriori distinction is itself not without controversy. The major sticking-points historically have been how to define the concept of the "experience" on which the distinction is grounded, and whether or in what sense knowledge can indeed exist independently of all experience. The latter issue raises important questions regarding the positive, that is, actual, basis of a priori knowledge -- questions which a wide range of philosophers have attempted to answer. Kant, for instance, advocated a "transcendental" form of justification involving "rational insight" that is connected to, but does not immediately arise from, empirical experience.

Lies and Consequences

Is it ever morally right to lie? Or to make things more complicated, when is it moral to lie? Noble lies were discussed by plato, and, in his opinion, often times noble lies are for the greater good. Such as, Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. However, what about in the case of the murderer as discussed by Immanuel Kant? He makes a point that telling a lie in any situation could have multiple outcomes. For instance, telling the murderer who is after your friend that he is not home and went another direction. In scenario 1, the murderer goes that way and Joe stays safe, and in scenario 2, Joe did in fact go that way without your knowledge and Joe dies. Does the outcome change the nobleness of the lie? I don't think so. I think that it is impossible to know the outcome or consequences of out actions and if we're telling the lie thinking we're saving a life, the lie is noble no matter the outcome.

The example of the murderer may seem far fetched, but morally, it is better to protect a friend from death than give up his location by lying, even if lying itself is morally wrong. Therefore, the "noble lie" must be defined. Does it then become noble to lie to protect someone's feelings? Or in the case of the wedding day example discussed in class, is it noble to lie to protect a marriage if you know that what you did would end it immediately? In these cases I do not believe it is noble to lie. I think that it is a fine line and once we tell ourselves that one lie is noble, it is easy to justify many of them and we can fall into a bad habit of telling these "noble lies".

The Motive of Duty

        The Motive of Duty

  The Motive of Duty says that a human action is morally good, not because it is done out  of inclination or self-interest, but because it is done for the sake of duty. Earlier in class we discussed an example where an old lady was crossing the street alone and a man decided to help her, because he believed it was his duty to help an elder person, who can verily walk, cross the street. Then, in another city, an elder lady was also crossing the street, but this time the man helping her did it for money, because he knew that in the past the lady had given money to the person that had walked her. Therefore, he helped the lady and obtained $100 cash. Last, in a bigger city another lady was crossing the street, but the person that helped her did it because he loved old people. This man loved caring for the elders in his free time. Therefore, his reward for helping the lady was the fact that she was an old person and he was able to help.

 

In the situation explained above, of the three people that helped the different old ladies cross the street, I believe that the first one is the perfect demonstration of  what motive of duty looks like. The first person that helped the lady did it for the sake of doing something right. He saw no ambition or other reward in helping a person. In addition, I feel that if people would follow the motive of duty and help others for the sample reason of doing the right thing, the world would be very different and we would not have ambitious people pretending to be good just to obtain something of value out of others. Therefore is important to always have real empathy for others and offer the same treatment that we want to receive. 







Is Prostitution a Moral Line of Work?

I want to start off by saying that the following is not my actual view of prostitution, but rather it is a view on whether or not it is considered a moral/immoral act through the categorical imperative, especially part two, which is put forth by Kant.

There is a tough line to cross to decide whether it is moral or immoral due to a variety of factors, but, in my opinion, based on what Kant states, it seems to be a moral choice of action. There is a sometimes hefty price that goes along with hiring a prostitute so the prostitute will almost always get some sort of reimbursement for using their bodies for the sake of someone else just as an athlete gives his or her body for the sake of others’ entertainment. Both are giving their respective bodies for the sake of other peoples’ entertainment and getting paid for it; therefore, prostitutes are not treated merely as a means for entertainment. Similarly, prostitutes can be compared to waiters/waitresses and delivery men in that they work as a middle man to get food in a similar way that a prostitute is the middleman for obtaining sexual pleasure. There seems to be no difference between the two except the end product of their work and we usually think that both waiters and delivery men have a respectable line of work that many people have a job in at some point in their lives. Would their work also be considered immoral if prostitution is immoral? According to Kant’s categorical imperative, neither would be immoral and both would be immoral in that neither treat humanity as merely a means, but in fact do have an end in themselves. That is my view of it based on Kant’s statement, but not my actual depiction of that life of work.  

Summary of the three pillars of a Reasonable Person

The three pillars of Immanuel Kant can be summarized this way.  

Logic is the first pillar of Immanuel’s reasonable human theory. This logic has a common sense factor, i.e. a dog cannot be a cat because 1=/=0. 1 can only equal 1 and no other number because these terms have been defined but reasonable people, ideally. This style of logic may seem trivial at first glance but can become more abstract with more difficult situations, i.e. is it logical to kill one person for the safety of many other humans, yes but morally is a different story, we will get to that later.

Physics is the second pillar towards a reasonable state of mind. This physics is not conventional physics as we know it today but rather the laws of the natural world that deal with abstract concepts including but not limited to: time, space, one’s self, knowing, or knowledge. This is an empirical form of rationality, experienced not taught.

Ethics is the third and last pillar of the structure of reasonability. Ethics deals with morals and what a reasonable person would think is right, throwing all emotion and bias opinions out the window.  Morality and duty are intertwined in Kant’s theory/ argument. There is one duty type that can describe if a duty is morally right but can be written three different ways: The Motive of Duty, the Formal Principle of Duty, and To Act Morally whenever it may be to act morally. Back to the example in the first pillar, logic states that one death is better than more than one death but morally do each of these lives not independently matter? The man that dies for the others, was he good or evil? Would it be the duty of the single person to save the others. 

Aristotle vs. Plato who will I choose ?

I think that Aristotle and Plato both have very good points. Therefore my beliefs fall under combining the two. For example lets talk about practical and theological wisdom. During the symposium we had to argue against one or the other. This was a totally different and new experience for me. Having to defend something I didn't necessarily agree with isn't the easiest thing in the world. I feel like we need both practical and theological wisdom in our lives. They kind of go hand in hand. With one it can help or push the other to take action or take place.
I do have a question about something that got brought up in class. The topic of can the poor be happy. To an extent yes I do believe they can, but do you think that they lie to themselves so they can be happy. Like when you tell yourself everything is okay when it's not ? Can you tell a noble lie to yourself and eventually just accept it as the truth ? Would it even be considered a noble lie ? Yes those who have less tend to be more grateful towards things and they find happiness in the smallest things. I do think they can be happy. But in all honesty I feel like true and complete happiness can never be obtained. It is something that we can aim towards our whole life but never fully reach. As humans we will never be satisfied with what we are given. It is just in our nature to always want more. So I think happiness, complete full happiness, is an impossible goal.

It is kind of hard to choose who I would most agree with. Doing the symposium really did help me learn and understand how the thought a lot better than I ever thought I could. Putting myself in their shoes enlightened me. I look forward fo the next one we will have as a class

Tori Keiran

Can You Be Poor And Happy?

       Every day a poor person person is robbed off dignity.How can you be happy knowing that there are people you will never meet, places you will never go and dreams you will never accomplish because the world does not know you exist? We live in an excessively materialistic world where the value of human life is determined by what you have to offer. The homeless are tied in a cyclical life of despair. You can't be happy when everyday is a question mark and full of  hunger and despair. How can you be happy if you have nothing to offer? You may feel content with your life but this doesn't mean you have reached happiness. Being happy means you are healthy and well. Poor people are always in need of food ,water and sometimes even medication so they are always worried about how they will get their next meal. Sometimes even the people who are more fortunate than the poor ,but still have financial problems, go into depression when they can't afford the things that they want not need. So saying a truly poor or homeless person is happy is unacceptable. We sometimes whine about things we want and don't have, homeless people have nothing at all so imagine how they feel? True happiness comes from knowing your purpose. Homeless people don't know their purpose in life because everyday they have to deal with the feeling of wonder and they are always desperate for help. No one wants to have to always be in need 24/7. One day I read an article and it stated a quote that really spoke to me ,"Saying that the poor are happy is an easier narrative to swallow than that the poor are desperate and will flash a smile, a good attitude, and gratitude when the rich westerner has come around to offer something of short-term benefit." - RACHEL PIEH JONES 

     This quote helps me remember to not make excuses when I see a homeless person begging on the street. It shows us how America reasons with itself until it is convinced that a person would want to be poor or homeless on purpose. So, please before you say "the poor are happy ask yourself how you would feel if you suddenly lost everything, including your purpose for life.

Is Wisdom Something Common and Universally Available?

It's been said that a person's wisdom increases over time; the older you are the more wisdom you possess. However, do we really know what kind of wisdom we supposedly attain. For those who know the answer to this I have another thought to put in your head. If people truly gain wisdom as they age, then is wisdom just a term for intelligence or is it something common and universally available?

If you are familiar with Aristotle he speaks of two virtues that relate to the idea of wisdom. The first being wisdom, itself, and the second one being phronesis. Even though these two terms may seem to be the same, you could distinguish the two simply by looking at your own life and finding examples. A person's wisdom may be increased within their lifetime by experiences that they have knowledge of, such as, their knowledge on a certain subject. A botanist may have wisdom on the subject of plant life, as long as they have the knowledge and they comprehend it. The botanist may increase their wisdom by continuing to read and educate themselves about plants. When it comes to the virtue of phronesis, the focus is more concentrated on social interactions and the experiences that come along with it. In the case of the botanist, phronesis would be best observed between how they interact with those they work along side and how rational they can be during these interactions.

Now that we have a better insight on wisdom we can sort out if wisdom is solely intelligence, or is it more common and available than most people would probably acknowledge. If we base our conclusion on the theories of Aristotle then we might all agree that it involves knowledge, or intelligence, and it can be achieved universally by a person's experiences: theoretically and practically.

LaTericka Hudson

Symposiums

     I found the symposiums that we had this week very informing. It was fun debating as a philosopher and having to explain their writings. It was even better because there was groups of people making it easier to prove your point because when one person starts to mess up, their fellow philosopher could help them.

     The arguments that we had in class were creative and made people have to think about what the person would say from their point of view. The whole discussion about cake really brought out a lot of debate. I personally like to debate with people because it forces you to learn the material needed to win. The car discussion was also a good debate topic. Plato and Aristotle both have great points about their personal views on life, virtues, justice, and wisdom. 
     
     The best part about arguing as both of them would probably have to be seeing that one day you represented one point of view, and the next class you had to defend the side that you were just going against. Both philosophers have strong beliefs that are very persuasive and accurate. No matter which philosopher you were, it gave you a chance to step in their shows and think like they did for a little while.

Know Before You Do?

During Wednesday's symposium I was Plato. As Plato, my belief is that a person should know what to do before doing something. Someone brought up the example of learning how to drive. Common knowledge of learning how to drive ultimately involves a written/comprehensive test and then the skills test. Plato would say that all a person would need is theoretical knowledge, while Aristotle would say that a person would need practical knowledge to learn how to drive.

My question would be, hypothetically speaking, would a person be better off in a car without theoretical knowledge of what the signs of the road mean, or with a little bit of theoretical knowledge? Of course we would say the latter, however, if Plato were still alive, he would probably argue that theoretical knowledge could possibly save the person’s life.  Why?, well that is simple, what if the person did not know what a rail road sign means and the person is standing on a set of railroad tracks with a train headed his or her way. Obviously the person is not going to wait on the train to hit the car in order to know that the railroad tracks are something to be aware of. It would be logical for the person to know beforehand what the sign means, and that goes for other signs mean as well.

Over all I think that we all need a balance of both theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge because we might know what some things are or what they mean but in other cases we, as humans are not perfect, and need to learn how to do something by observing someone else do the thing that we are trying to learn. That goes back to Plato’s philosophy of having a balanced soul, which included fulfilling our reason, spirit, and appetites in order to be happy, for today’s society anyways, so in my opinion all humans need a balance between practical and theoretical knowledge.

you ARE important!

Telos means “final end or purpose,” meaning that everything has its own purpose. The world we grow up in tries to make us think that we are not important, because we do not have the “perfect” body or face. I personally think everybody is important. God put us on this earth for a reason, sometimes its hard to figure out that reason, but we need to know that we are important. I feel as in some people don't realize just how important they really are. With all the magazines, TV shows and movies out there, it is hard to have confidence in yourself when everything is telling you that you aren’t pretty unless you have this or that. They also give the impression that if you do not have a big house or a nice car then you are not worth anything. We need to understand that we are perfect just the way we are! 

Telos fits into Aristotle’s idea of life because to have a “happy life”, we need both moral and intellect goodness. To have both, means you need to have knowledge, which is the highest human ability. The good life then, is a life of happiness. Aristotle says that a happy life can be achieved by excellence in two areas of viture, intellectual and moral. Moral virtue is learned by experience, it can not be taught. It is learning from mistakes and the mistakes of others, and striving toward the good life everyday. Intellectual virtue is the ability to reason. Aristotle says it is our nature to reason. To reasons with someone is to try and understand their point of view (where they are coming from). Also, it would let them know that you are open to understanding how they feel so that you can come to an agreement or understanding. 

Eudomania

                Aristotle defines Eudomania  as true happiness by living well, being well, and flourishing. It is the ultimate goal, or telos, for a human being to find their purpose in life. We are guided by reason and habits to act in ways that will enable us to prosper and complete acts that are good in themselves. By completing acts that enable us to become more virtuous we are working towards reaching our goal of happiness and fulfillment. However, as imperfect human beings we encounter situations and live in a society where the definition of true happiness can be debatable.  

                Some people may argue that true happiness can be found in honor or pleasures. Aristotle states that true happiness can not be achieved in these ways. Honor is based on approval of others and therefore is not good in itself. Pleasures do not always bring about virtuous acts because they can be considered selfish and may cause a person to behave in ways they normally would not.  When we continue to satisfy our appetites we  develop bad habits. In order to be virtuous we must apply the mean between excess and deficiency that applies to our particular situation.

                True happiness can be confused depending on certain life styles. For example, many think wealth is the main contributing factor towards happiness. A wealthy person appreciates their lifestyle and lives in a rewarding fashion always looking to achieve more and satisfy their appetites. However,  a person living in poverty may look to wealth as a means to satisfy their true needs and achieve a position in which they can act in virtuous ways. They are at a disadvantage in their efforts to achieve true happiness because they  lack the means by which they can be in a stable state. Therefore, is it fair to expect virtuous habits from everyone?

Live to Live

In the first chapter of The Enchiridion, Epictetus gives a guideline for the way one should live their life in order to avoid being disappointed or wretched or sad. To do this, Epictetus explains that there are two sets of circumstantial ideas. The things we can control are things that can be categorized as our own actions. The things we cannot control are things categorized as anything that is not our own action. He claims that the things in our control are essentially free and those not in our control are weak and essentially belong to others. 

It is this weakness that Epictetus says we must avoid. If by being very fond of a single cup causes you to be distressed when it breaks, Epictetus says to “remind yourself that it is only ceramic cups in general of which you are fond,” so when the cup does break it doesn’t mean anything. Simply put, he says that the way to overcome weakness and avoid sadness or grief is to remain detached from things that are not subject to your own action. So, if you love a child and the child dies, you will not grieve if you merely tell yourself that you love things that are human.

I think the absurdity of my last statement highlights the problems with Epictetus’s theory. It is certain that some things in life cause us unnecessary pain and suffering. It is also certain that a good way to deal with the minor grievances (like your favorite cup breaking) is how Epictetus describes. But to allow that theory to blanket the full spectrum of human suffering is asinine (like someone you love dying). It is also unwise to apply this thinking to life in general. If life is lived always being detached from people you love, or things that you desire is it really a life? 

It is said, “I would have rather loved and lost than to never have loved at all,” I think that Epictetus would disagree with this. However, no matter what way you choose to see things, whether you feel pain from a painful experience or you detach yourself from it, life is not lived if there is not some amount of suffering. It is inevitable. And personally, I would rather get teary over my favorite cup breaking than having 10 cups that have no meaning to replace it when it did. 

Ho Ho Ho!

One of my fondest memories as a child was waking up on Christmas morning to the thought that Santa had come. Running downstairs with my brothers and sisters yelling “Santa Came, Santa Came”, never ceased to fill me with absolute joy. Every year as Christmas time rolled around I can recall growing more and more excited every minute. I knew that Santa Clause was coming to my house to deliver presents to my family. We had a tradition (that still stands) of lining up on the stairs very early Christmas morning before all running into the den downstairs to see what old Saint Nick had brought us. I always felt very close to my family around this time. I’m definitely the odd one out in my family, but something about this wonderful time always made me feel closer.

The act of telling children that a magical man in a big red suit comes down the chimney on Christmas Eve to deliver presents to good boys and girls is most definitely a noble lie. One reason is simply because it brings the family closer together. This common thing to look forward to always puts a smile on everyone’s face. I can remember the pure excitement of seeing what Santa had brought my brothers and sister. Any other time I might be jealous of them receiving a certain gift. However, on Christmas day I was simply happy to share in the excitement with them.

Hope is another thing brought around by Santa Claus. Hope is something that no child should ever have to go without. I always had Christmas time and the thought of Santa to look forward to. I can remember some friends that I had who did not believe in Santa. They seemed sad around Christmas, and a lot less excited. I am grateful to my parents for letting me partake in the wonderful joy that is Santa Claus.    

A Noble Lie

A Noble Lie

 

A noble lie is a lie that helps to keep in order the state, such as maintaining social harmony and making people happier. There is a phrase that says: "If at the end of the day the lie does less harm than the truth, the lie is better". I completely agree with this argument and there are many examples that validate that I'm in the right track.

In my opinion, everything that makes a person feel better without harming another one should be done. This is the case of the Noble Lie. The purpose of the Noble Lie is to try to don't make any bad to an individual. It can be hiding something or inventing something. For example, that’s the case of the existence of Santa Claus. When parents lie about Santa, they are not only creating illusion on the kids, but also encouraging them to be good. This type of lie creates something good on kids and doesn't harm them, being completely positive. Another case of a noble lie is when Plato presented it in a fictional tale, wherein Socrates provides the origin of the three social classes who composed the republic. Socrates speaks of a socially stratified society, wherein the populace is told “a sort of Phoenician tale”. Socrates proposes and claims that if the people believed this myth it would have a good effect, making them more inclined to care for the state and one another.

In conclusion, the results of a Noble Lie are positive. The only purpose of a Noble Lie is to make good in people creating a better society. If the lie doesn’t harm anybody else, I would totally agree with it.

Rational Decision between Intellectual and Practical Virtues

In class, we discussed practical and intellectual virtue and which each philosopher though would be better. While practical virtue is based on actions and experiences, intellectual knowledge is based on knowledge gained through research or an observation one would make without actually experiencing whatever the subject is. Plate suggested that it is better to actually have wisdom before doing something, than figuring that experience after the time has come and a person has had a negative experience. Aristotle believes that one must have experience to be a professional.

You could argue the accuracy of both statements. For example, if you were going to be scuba diving deep into the ocean, you must first learn about scuba diving. You need to know all about the necessary gear needed to go into the water, the water pressure and how much is too much before you go where the pressure is too high. You need to know about the risks and how to prevent anything bad that could happen that could potentially result in death.

 

Another example would be knowing how to ride a bike. You cannot really read about how to ride a bike; you just get on the bike and attempt to balance as you pedal. Since Aristotle says virtues are not innate and one must learn them, someone who is trying to ride a bike have the experience of trial and error to learn how to successfully ride their bike.

 

If you mix both of their ideas, you have a harmony between ration and virtue. Virtue is the state that decides decisions. If you make rational virtues, you are deciding within the mean of gaining knowledge and experience. If you want to conduct an experiment, you should research the topic and from that, you should be able to make an experiment based off what you have learned. This is making the rational decision to learn what someone else has

The Mean Relative to Us

    The mean being relative to us was really an interesting topic discussed in class today. I found this subject matter to be intriguing, because though it is true, the human race does not seem to comprehend it. If people would just do what they are capable of, and were called to do, the universe would run much smoother.

     So many times we as humans want to compete with others, instead of just doing what we are supposed to do. Let's take, for instance, the example that was given in class. Some people get drunk from two beers, while for others that is just enough. It's not too little, and it's not too much. That goes to say if people would just figure out whom they are and what is right for them there would be less chaos.



     Think about this: if it was possible, and meant for, everyone to obtain a 4-year college degree and find work in corporate America, there would be no one to do the jobs that just required one to obtain a certification from trade school, such as plumbers, cosmetologist, etc. There would also be no one to hold the positions that require more education, such as, doctors, lawyers, etc. America needs all of these people to run properly.



     I guess someone would say, "What does all of that have to do with the mean as it relate to us?". Well, I said all of that to say this, most people want to be people of virtue, and one can only achieve that if they know their mean. The mean is the appropriate way of acting given our individual nature and situation. So what is defined a virtuous to me may not be the same for others. If we, America, as a whole would stop trying to be something we are not and work within our mean we would advance a lot more.