Genocide Is Morally Correct

 According to the route definition of the “Greatest Happiness Principle” that we received in class, it states that “acts are morally good in as much as they produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.”

 This definition of morally good that John Stuart Mills is working with conceptually makes sense, but has inherent flaws. His entire concept works with producing the greatest amount of happiness for the most people. This can be used against minorities. For the two million Armenians in Turkey during World War I, clearly being deported and massacred would not be filed under “good”. However, if a large majority of the Ottoman Empire's 21 million people felt strongly that they would be happier by removing the Armenians. It would be good. If only three million felt this way and the rest were indifferent it would still be producing the greatest amount of good.

Genocide is not morally right. Much like lying isn't morally right. However, this principle operates under creating the most happiness, and what's more determining what is morally right based on that. Minorities are not protected by that. If we enslave this group, we'll be happy says the majority. If we persecute this group and marginalize the roles they can play in society we'll be happy says the majority. This religion scares us says the majority. Let's have them killed.

 All of these actions would be considered morally good under this principle. That is clearly a faulty principle on which to determine what is morally good. As a way to work through the world it makes coherent sense, but it leaves out what happens to the people who aren't made happy by these choices. What's more it dehumanizes them and says that there experiences and pains are inconsequential, because everyone else is happy.  

The thoughts that come to mind when I read The Shield of Achilles

Marcellus by Kleomeles

    The first time I read "The Shield of Achilles" by W.H. Auden I immediately thought of Diana and Marcellus from "The Robe" by Lloyd C. Douglas. As I continued to read I said well it doesn't really relate to book. However the more I read, the more I see the importance of the "swerve" of the universe. Marcellus' free will lead him to believe in the man of whom he collaborated the death. If he hadn't, I could definitely see that this poem could have been an alternative of his life.

   Now I am not saying one has to believe in Jesus to have a happy life as I don't know what one should believe. Though, it is important, to put your conscience and free will or "swerve" as a priority.

   After today's class period, one could argue that Marcellus was only doing his duty. On the other side, when Marcellus was preparing for his First Crucifixion he had a sickening feeling as he was convinced this was an innocent man. Although he went through with his dutiful action, his conscience nagged at him.

  To relate back to class, was his will good? One might answer, yes, he was following his superior so he was following his duty.

However, one will say his actions caused unpleasant consequences; a man lost his life. This still doesn't undermine Marcellus' dutiful actions.

   In short, with the scenario given, Marcellus was a dutiful person, he had a "good will" as he was being dutiful with his decisions. You could probably even say he was being rational in the circumstances given.

Why Immanuel Kant couldn’t have been a Business Major

 In the world of business, only one thing matters, results. If you can produce profit enhancing results then you’re golden. However, if you can’t; you’re likely to get fired faster than Usain Bolt’s 100. Results is to business as rationality is to philosophy. In the same way that all of the philosophers that we have studied see rationality as a necessary step towards reaching the goal of human existence(whether that goal is happiness, pleasure, etc.), quantifiable, positive results is the means by which companies achieve their goal i.e. profit. Profit is the intrinsic good of business. All the other functions of business, whether marketing, accounting, finance, or human resources, are all preformed directly or indirectly to create profit.

Immanuel Kant was a brilliant enlightenment philosopher, but he would have made a terrible present day CEO. Kant postulates that what is important is “the good will” in other words the good behind people’s actions is the actions in themselves. He argues that the goodness of actions are not measured by their consequences. If a board of directors heard this, they would not only fire Kant on spot they would make sure whoever hired him in the first place was terminated. In class, Dr. Johnson gave us the following example to help us understand “the good will” philosophy. One morning you wake up and decide that you want to benefit your community by feeding the poor. So you go to a doughnut shop and order a few dozen doughnuts and take them to the shelter, but after feeding all of the homeless, you find out that the guy who sold you the doughnuts was a psychopath who poisoned them. Now you have accidentally participated in manslaughter. Kant would forgive you because it isn’t about the consequence of the action but the goodness of will.  Your business manager would fire you on the spot for not going though proper protocol, preparing a SWOT analysis, assessing the possible risks of using the doughnut provider, having the various homeless people sign liability release waivers, etc…. Business is a cruel cruel world.

Don't be such a Hypocrite

   

     While reading through Kant's Grounding for the metaphysics of morals, I found the categorical imperative very interesting. Basically there are three different formulations for the categorical imperative. He says that we are only truly free if we follow the categorical imperative. These command unconditionally as well. Kant says that an imperative is something that a person has to do do, and an imperative is categorical, because it is true at all times, and in all situations.

The three formulations summarized:

1. We should act with the same principles that we would want others to act with. We should act on laws that we ourselves would want as universal laws. 
2. When you act on principles that you would not want as a universal law, you are behaving in a way that you would not want others to copy. This violates the principle of reason.
3. Never treat other people as a way to get you your own ends. Ration beings are ends in themselves, and not respecting this would be following principles we would want as universal laws. 

     Kant could also agree that an ideal community or society, all citizens in the community or society are at once the creators and followers of all laws. In this idea community, the only possible laws are the laws that could apply to all rational beings. 

     So basically for this part of Kant's theory, he is saying don't be a hypocrite. If what you are doing doesn't meet the standards for what you say others should do, you are in bad shape. I agree with this. I think  if you say others can act a certain way or do certain things because it is wrong, you should do them either. If you are telling someone what is right or what is wrong, you know yourself, what is right or wrong. That means when you do something that you won't allow others to do, you are doing something wrong.

Cat-callers and street harassers justify their actions with deontology.

I have listened to many stories women have told about cat calling. They follow a common pattern that goes as such.


A woman is walking down the street, minding her own business, when a man calls out to her and makes some comment about her body or her clothes. The woman is disgusted, and either ignores them, or lets them know their comment was unwanted and not to cat-call. They respond by saying, "I was just giving you a compliment! Can't you take a compliment?" They usually say something like this instead of apologizing first, which shows just how little they care about the harm they've caused this woman, but that's not what this analysis is about. They emphasize their action, a "compliment," instead of the consequences of it (in fact, they ignore the consequences completely). This is deontologist, since it focuses on the action supposedly being just. By their logic, giving out compliments is a just action, and they have made a habit of ignoring women who have told them otherwise. This twisted logic, combined with an apathy for the consequences of their actions and an apathy for women, has resulted in great harm to millions of women. It is clearly wrong, and women have tried to tell men this, but by sticking to deontology, they continue to catcall and harass.


I'm fairly certain everyone in this class agrees that catcalling is wrong, since nobody spoke up to call us all "evil SJWs" when the conversation shifted to feminism in class, but in case you don't think it's wrong, I'm not going to be the one to explain to you why it is. Instead, you need to go to Youtube, look up testimonials from women who are routinely catcalled, and listen to what they have to say about it. If you find yourself thinking they're exaggerating, or lying, remember that they are the ones who live through it and you are not, and that it's highly unlikely that millions of women are all just overreacting. Put yourself in their shoes, and think about how you might feel, especially if it were to happen to you not just once, but hundreds of times.


I don't agree with deontolololololology.

What is a Maxim? More About Maxims Then You Ever Wanted to Know!

What is a maxim? Well in class we defined it as "doing ones duty no matter what that duty is". But it is more than that. By the wonderful definition of Wikipedia a maxim is a thought that can motivate someone so a maxim is basically something that motivates people to do something.

Now, how does a maxim relate to a universal law? Well a maxim is the basic building block of a universal law. A maxim is an ought to statement. An example would be I should go get to class on time because I might miss something. A universal law is when you apply a maxim to the entire rational population. Using the previous example, a universal law would be every rational person should get to class on time.


Source

Kant says that every time we need to make an ethical decision we should do these steps: 1) make a personal maxim 2) universalize the law 3) look at the universalized law and see if it is something that every rational person should do. If the answer is yes, then that is an ethical decision.

However, Kant's ethical policy does not, in fact, account for the final product of ones actions. If the good will in the action is there then someone acted ethically regardless of what the results are. This does not seem like a problem necessarily. But I would like to put it in terms of the trolley dilemma that we spoke of in the first week of class. You can be concerned with either the action of the consequences of the action. The action is the item that Kant is concerned about. As long as the action comes from good will then the action is ethical. But when I answered the trolley dilemma I was concerned with the consequences of the action not the action itself. I would pull the lever because killing one person is better than killing five. But Kant would be concerned with the action of pulling the lever. I would have a problem with Kantian ethics for this reason.

uhhh...imma let you finish Epiteitus

The more and more we learn about these different philosophers and their beliefs, I am trying to figure out which one I agree with the most, but I have definitely figured out which one troubles me the most: stoicism and Epiteitus' ideals. I cannot imagine a world in which I was not able to be overcome with immense passion. Stoics define passion as the vice or an error. I honestly feel like having passions is part of humanity; I want to know if the stoics successfully achieved their beliefs or if it was all in theory. Think of a world in which we had no one with passions. We would have no Miley vs. Nicki, Kanye vs. Taylor. I mean those examples might not be the best ones...Without passion we would have no Mother Teresa or Martin Luther King Jr. 

I personally value passion over most things. Passion drives some of the best things in people: charity, love, and friendship. The things that passion brings make the world good and entertaining. Although it can be deemed "irrational" that does not mean it should be off-written as an error or vice. What would we do without Kanye's in the world?

Seeking All Epicurists

EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT!

Do you want to increase your net pleasure? Do you believe that pleasure is the only intrinsic good? 

Well then Epicureanism is the philosophy for you! 

Not only do you get to experience freedom from fear AND freedom from pain, you also get to learn what these terms would be in Greek (Ataraxia and Aponia respectively). OOOOO how cool is that? You also get to define yourself as a atomist and if you were alive about 300 years BC you would be waaay ahead of your time, which I think is pretty awesome. What is an atomist you might ask? It is simply a person who believes that the world is made up of atoms that act in an orderly, rational state and that everything happens as a consequence of those atoms flying around this state and colliding. But don't worry. It doesn't mean that you're a determinist. In fact we don't want you falling into a determinist view. Don't be afraid of losing free will because we have clinamen to account for that. Can I get a swerve? Who told you we don't believe in the gods? That is absolutely not true! We just believe that they do not play any role in our lives, they don't punish or reward us. Lets be real though. Do we really want Zeus coming in and screwing everything up? Pun absolutely intended. 

We're just a few hedonistic guys who are looking for tranquility; freedom from the fear of superstition, religion, ignorance, and death; and most importantly pleasure!

So join because:

**BONUS**

Join now and receive this epitaph upon your death! 

Non fui

Fui

Non sum

Non caru

Translation: I was not. I was. I am not. I don't care. 

Disclaimer: 

If you don't join this one lifetime opportunity, you are forcing us to believe that you are so in love with you suffering that you can't see the pleasure that is to be had. In which case we probably don't want you anyway. 

Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n' Roll (Emphasis on the Rock 'n' Roll)

It occurred to me while I was searching my GIF folder for a GIF to use for my post that, while I do think some elements of Stoicism are good, we'd face a horrible reality if everyone  devoutly followed it: a reality without music. Stoicism requires that we have no passions, lest we become out of line with the natural way of things. Music of any form, on the other hand, requires some sort of passion to come to life. Whether it be Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 6, written to express his increasing depression and suicidal tendencies towards the end of his life, or any of Rage Against the Machine's various songs of social protest, music as we know it would not exist without passion.

To elaborate, generally composing music of any genre follows a similar pattern of being inspired, putting your idea into music and/or lyrics, and then performing the piece. This is, of course, a very basic and general description if the process, but for my purpose it's clear enough. As someone who both performs, listens to, and dabbles in composing music, I can attest that at least some modicum of  passion is necessary to compose and perform a piece that is actually enjoyable. Even the best orchestra or {insert favorite genre here} artist cannot make you truly feel a song that has been composed and written without passion, and even the best piece can be ruined by a performer that doesn't put passion into their performance. Additionally, many popular songs have been the result of the writer/composer's passions anyway. Many punk songs, for example, are inspired by a social cause that the band or artist feels passionately about. This passion is almost tangible in the atmosphere of punk shows, especially when you add in hundreds of fans that are also passionate about the issue. Without passion, performances seem bland at best. Also, many recent music genres have developed because of some sort of strong feelings. The blues, for example, were born of African American slave spirituals that expressed their anguish with being enslaved and hopes to eventually be free. The blues then lead to R&B and rock and roll, which lead to the many genres we have today. I'm including a helpful flow chart (also from School of Rock) below. 

Thus, I claim that music as we know it would not exist if we lived as Stoics. As Beethoven is often attributed to having said (though I admittedly can't find a reputable source to confirm that he did really say it), "To play a wrong note is insignificant, to play without passion is inexcusable."

What is the point?

Are we so masochistic as a species that we crave to live with irrational and passionate feelings over a life free of pain and fear? The idea that we could live in serenity, maintaining a connection to nature and to live with ataraxia, the freedom from fear, and aponia, the freedom from pain. Lucretius stressed detaching from the basic drives that makes us no more than animals and to live in “equilibrium.” In class, this argument struck me, forcing me to question why we choose to live with the extreme emotions that cause havoc in our lives in an effort to be “happy.”

Easy. We would lose meaning. To search only for pleasure, or the absence of pain, we would not have a function as a species. As humans, we are naturally looking for stimulation, testing boundaries and thinking rationally. We want to provide a purpose for our lives, not just standby as we avoid pain.

Although in Epicureanism, they highlight that they have clinamen, or free will; however, they put pleasure above all other aspects in life. We would reject a world revolving solely on pleasure without any stimulation to experience extreme emotion. Although that means we can experience pain which we would undoubtedly face, we would never be able to reach our full potential. I enjoyed the reference Sam made during class as he talked about the Matrix. The idea that humans will revolt against a perfect world accurately describes why living based fully on pleasure would not sit well for us.

Focused on reason, Epicureans believe that emotions will only cause pain in the future. To not blindly commit yourself, you can remain rational and level-headed. They see love as a trap that only entangles you in “bondage.” They agree that death does not need to be feared because we would not exist to care. Like the stoics, they try and remain almost apathetic to situations that produce a large amount of fear for people. While I do not support the philosophy of Epicureanism, I can understand the temptation to be free of all suffering that is inevitable in life.

AN EMPTY LIFE

Have you think about living  without passions? Epictetus believed that a life without passions was a better life. We discussed this topic in class last wednesday, but I didn't fully give my opinion about this idea. First of all, I would like to divide the advantages and disadvantages of STOICISM. 

Stoicism can be good because it makes people strong. If people is stoic then they don't suffer. In some way, stoicism helps people to accept the events of life. They accept reality and nature will easily. The example about the died son proves that stoic people accept death as something normal, so they live better because they don't worry about the future or what is coming next. Also stoic peole have better opportunities to be virtue. This means that they can be totally happy for the rest of their lives. 

However, stoicism is not always that good. According to some of my classmates (you guys), it would be boring to live without passions and/or feelings. This means that stoic people would be living a life without actually enjoying it.

In  my opinion, an stoic life sounds really good. I would like to never be afraid of death, storms, ghosts, lightnings, etc. Also I would like to never feel pain when sad things happen in my life. However, I like life just as it is. I agree with Epictetus in the fact that passions make us ignorant persons, but it is not that bad to be ignorant because it gives us the opportunity to make mistakes and to learn from those mistakes. Suffering is just something normal in our lives, and we can handle it. Life is not just bad things; life is beautiful and there are some many great things out there to enjoy. Emotions are part of us, and we can't avoid them. Even though sometimes emotions and passions don't allow us to think in a rational way, they fill our lives. Being stoic, honestly, is having an empty life.

Thoughts Under a Faulty Light

Just moments ago my sister said something that reminded me of Epictetus in such a simple way that it made me laugh a bit. We were sitting at the kitchen table having lunch, when I noticed that the light bulb in the fixture above was flickering for some reason. I said, “That is going to annoy the hell out of me if it keeps on.” and she simply replied “You don’t have to let it.”

Now I am not on the side of Stoicism as a total way of living for many reasons. I believe that we as human beings are made to have passions: many of them benefit the world when we use them correctly for the greater good. And I know I personally could not quickly get over grief if I had a child that passed away by remembering that “that’s how the world works, people die”. In class most all of us agreed that with little things (like breaking your favorite CBU mug) choosing Stoicism can be the right way to go. Don't sweat the small stuff, right? But what about bigger more important situations? Epictetus would say treat everything like the CBU mug.

In section 42 Epictetus writes about how to react to someone who is doing wrong to you. He says to see that the person is acting in accord to “how it seemed to him”. And to attribute the person's vice to an error in reason, then simply correct the irrationality. Imagine if all Police officers thought this way. They would see the criminal in a way that allowed them to stay calm though the whole encounter. Thus for the cases (given that the criminal was in fact being nonviolent or no longer posing a threat) where excessive force has been used the outcomes would have been different. The error might have been corrected without passion clouding the view of what was necessary.

The answer “you don't have to let it”, puts it perfectly. Technically, we don’t have to let things bother us or get enraged or passionate about everything every time. Even though it is often acceptable in our culture and is a human tendency, we do have a choice.

With all that being said....I have chosen to sit here under the flickering light to type this post. In all honestly it is still annoying me just as much.

Moral Responsibility and Moral Significance

The idea of free will has been swirling around in my mind since class on Monday; although, the idea of whether humans possess the ability to decide is something that has been plaguing the minds of those who care to entertain the thought for centuries. What makes me cringe is the conception that maybe every single choice, every conscious decision I have made (or at least thought I made) was done by the hand of someone else. All of my mistakes, my errors, my wrongdoings, all of the times that I hurt another soul, could have been choices made by someone other than myself. In contrast, all of the times I made someone smile, made someone laugh, did a good deed, etc. could have been at the hands of a greater power. 

Free will is something that everyone would like to think that they acquire– at least I know that is the case for me. In order for me to further understand this concept, I did some research:

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that Free Will is “a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives.” 

I am going to be completely honest: when I read this, I had no earthly idea what this was trying to say. An article that better explains the topic can be found here. After looking further into things, free will basically comes down to the idea of “moral responsibility.” If you act with free will, you are being responsible for your actions. Also, it plays a hug part in your moral significance. As humans, we desire to do good (or do bad) and that desire pushes us to want to be recognized for the works we have done. If we exhibit free will, the acknowledgements we receive are for us; we earned them. Otherwise, another being deserves the credit. If free will is real, which I believe it is, it is up to us to decide right from wrong. It is also up to us to choose if we think free will is true and valid.

 I am choosing to say yes. 

"Swerve"

All throughout class on Monday, I could only think about the Fresh Prince of Bel Air because the word “swerve” was used. I find it so interesting that the meaning of the word has changed since the time of the philosopher, Lucretius. 

The Oxford Dictionary defines “swerve” as the change or cause to change direction abruptly. We have all heard this terminology before when talking about everyday events such a driving. However, the word “swerve” has turned into more of a slang word in the English language. The slag for “swerve” can from the song “Mercy” by Kayne West. It implies dodging (or avoiding) someone. Urban dictionary gives an example of the slag use of the word “swerve”: 

*first day of school*

Girl: “OMG I missed you!”

Boy: “Bitch SWERVE, you aint HMU all summer” 

Lucretius has a different definition of the word “swerve” meaning clinamen, or the accounts for free will. As a practicer of Epicureanism, Lucretius did not believe that the gods had any role in our life. Simply, we measure good and bad by pleasure and pain. This usage of the word “swerve” is far different than our modern interpretation. The different definitions caused me to question the motives behind both uses of the word “swerve.” 

In the modern day, I can think of a few motives for using the word “swerve.” The first, very obvious reason is to describe the movement of something (a car, a person, a bike). The second reason is to avoid someone that you do not want to talk to. The modern motives differ from what I think Lucretius thought of the word “swerve.” I believe that Lucretius used clinamen or “swerve” in order to push away the role of gods in his life. This coincides with another Epicureanist idea: determinism. In my opinion, however, the word “swerve” seems to be the easy way out because they can seek pleasure (in whatever way they want) without having to worry about the gods role in their life. This idea differs from our modern idea of the word “swerve.” However, in the slag term of “swerve” a similarity can be seen. By dodging someone, that can be seen as taking the easy way out and that is similar to what the Lucretius followers were doing. 

"Did Your Child Die? It Was Given Back"

 There was an interesting passage in our reading of Epictetus. It read:

“Never say about anything, “I have lost it,” but instead, “I have given it back.” Did your child die? It was given back. Did your wife die? She was given back (…) As long as he gives it, take care of it as something that is not your own, just as travelers treat an inn.”

My reading of Epictetus was conflicted. There were parts I agreed with him and parts I couldn't fathom his reasoning behind. This passage in particular struck me in it's lack of regard for human emotion. We're not supposed to concern ourselves over our own death and conversely we're not supposed to concern ourselves with the death of other people.

The relationships Epictetus cites are fundamental relationships anchored in importance. According to his proposition we're not supposed to care. We're not supposed to invest ourselves in people. There's a certain level of detachment that he wants us to practice.

The way Epictetus wants us to live our lives is in this dead pan emotion and I just can't agree with that. His concept makes sense. By not caring or really digging ourselves into the people we're supposed to care about, there is less pain. With less pain there is more pleasure. It just doesn't work for me. To not experience and care about something seems to deny what is innately human. This detachment is useful for not being hurt, but not in living. To never be effected by something and to just embrace everything as it comes is an idyllic concept that has no hope in being fulfilled.

Depending on what you want to optimize and minimize in your life, Epictetus's advice makes coherent sense. It does however seem impossible to living your life as a wayward wind that never settles down. The pace Epictetus wants us to lead our life is that of a Sade track. 

BREAKING NEWS: CBU Professor takes on people-eating bear

     While reading over my notes about Aristotle, and going through his Nichomachean Ethics, I found his views on the highest good. I agree with him that every thing we do is aiming to some good, or end. The highest ends are in themselves, meaning the highest end is not done for the sake of another. Aristotle calls this supreme in the hierarchy of goods. This goal, or supreme end is happiness. I have to admit I zoned out in class for a good minute or so trying to figure why we try to achieve happiness. There is no answer, because it is the end solution. Everything we do is to ultimately be happy.

      I think virtues lead to happiness. If someone does virtuous things, It pushes them to the Happiness end. But I think it is important to understand the Golden Mean to understand what is virtuous and what is not. If Dr. Johnson does take on the bear all by her self, she isn't virtuous. (Sorry Dr. Johnson) She will make it on the news and the headline will be blaring the words courageous and brave, but virtuous wouldn't be one of those words. At first I had trouble understanding this, because if I was stuck in a room and a people killing bear came into the room, someone taking the bear on to let the rest of the room live, seemed like a virtuous person. However, I think it is crucial to understand vices and what exactly makes up a virtue. Aristotle says that we are not born with virtues, that we have to experience them and have them become habits. I agree with this. You cannot be some one who does a certain thing unless you have in fact done that certain thing. So you cannot be a virtuous person unless you understand what virtues is and have experienced the situations before.I also agree that the determination of something being a virtue depends on whats relative to you and the situation you are put in.

Aristotle, Youth Group, and Job

I agree with much of Aristotle’s philosophy. However, one of his ideas did not sit right with me when it was first presented in class. Aristotle claims that the telos, or the aim, of human existence ultimately is to find happiness which, if you think about it, makes complete sense.  Everything thing one can imagine that is done in the course of human existence can arguably fit into this parameter. Even taking self-depraving religious vows ultimately leads to happiness. Happiness, that is, defined as a closer relationship with God.  Which brings me to the problem I had with Aristotle’s philosophy, I was positive that his definition of happiness sucked.  In his defense, it wasn’t his definition per say but his cultures. In ancient Greece, happiness was not seen as a state of mind; instead, the Greeks viewed it as a lifestyle “living well and doing well.”  This seems harmless enough, but I could not wrap my head around the idea that the poor could not be happy within this definition. All I could think about were my youth group days and how we would touch base after mission trips. One thing that would inevitably come up is how as a group we felt we got more out of the trip then the people we were helping and how it is beautiful to see happiness in people who have so little.

When I was  doing my reading, I revisited the idea of the suckyness of Greek definition of happiness.  When I read Aristotle’s arguement for virtue not being the end of the political life (The political life being the highest science, making the end of the political life the aim of mankind), I thought of the biblical character of Job. Aristotle claims that virtue cannot be the end of the political life because someone could be completely virtuous and have a terrible life and no one would consider her happy. Immediately,  I thought I had Aristotle beat.  Job is a biblical character who did well in the sight of the Lord. Satan gambled with God that the only reason that Job served faithfully is because God had blessed him with riches, a beautiful family, respect, etc. To prove that Satan was wrong about Job, God took everything from him including his family. Despite all of this, Job remained a happy servant of the Lord, or at least that how I remembered the story. After rereading it, I found out that I was miserably (although not as miserable as Job) wrong.  Job was anything but happy, but he maintained his relationship with God. What I eventually realized is that the Greeks definition of happiness actually not far from the truth. Living well and doing well is not dependent on the amount of stuff that you have. That is what I should have learned from all of those mission trips. Poverty can take many forms and so can a happy life. 

"Happiness as the Highest Good" cannot be proven.

Early in the Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle says happiness (eudaimonia) is the highest good, because all chains of reasoning for why people choose to do certain actions seem to point back to it. For example, one might ask why people attend college. One answer might be to have a good career, and they want a good career either because it makes them happy, or because it pays well, which allows them to survive and be happy. Another person might attend college simply to become smarter or wiser, and they desire wisdom because it brings happiness. All such chains of asking why people do things that have been asked so far eventually lead to happiness, so Aristotle concludes that every such chain will end in happiness. This, ultimately, is an assumption, since it cannot be conclusively proven. In mathematics, one can begin with a statement that is known to be true, and transform it using definite mathematical laws to prove another mathematical statement to be true (and even some of the most basic axioms of mathematics are assumptions). This is not the case with Aristotle's claim - all he can show is that every known chain of decisions seems to end with happiness. This is very strong evidence, but it is not proof. At best, it is simply a theory which explains every known case. One day, someone may ask why someone did some action, and the answer may be something completely different than happiness. "Happiness as the Highest Good" is certainly the best theory we have to explain these cases, but it is ultimately an assumption.

What's good Miley?

 

 Source

I am sure that almost everyone (who is at least somewhat concerned with celebrities) knows about the Nicki Minaj and Miley Cyrus feud. Who wouldn't be? The media has been all over the fight, with little mention of the actual values that are being fought over. For a little background you can read this. If not, here are the basics: Nicki Minaj tweeted about her issue with all of the nominees for the VMAs for best video, once again, being all thin attractive white people. Not one person of color was nominated for best video. Miley had an interview with The New York Times were she decided to talk about the tweet in a not so subtle and downright rude way. She ignored the context of the tweet and the very real issue that was being addressed and made Nicki Minaj out to be angry over nothing and disrespectful. At the VMA's Nicki Minaj called Miley out for what she said.

Now back tract a few (maybe more) hundred years and we have Plato vs. Aristotle. Now I am not saying that they ever had a feud (it is very unlikely if not impossible) but I am pointing out a difference in their philosophies. To Plato, once you understand a concept you know it. Once justice is understood then you know what justice is. But Aristotle thinks very differently; you do not truly know what something is until you do it. Action is knowing.

Both concepts have their values.

How does this relate to the Nicki and Miley feud do you ask? Simple. Nicki Minaj plays Aristotle and Miley Cyrus plays Plato. Nicki Minaj is concerned with the action of what Miley did. Miley can say that she was misquoted or that Nicki was just angry over nothing but Nicki does not care. Miley's actions speak for her. Miley knows what she said and the context in which she said it. But she intellectually understands what it means to be respectful and the issues that the not-white community has in the music industry.  So by Plato's standards, she understand. She knows.

Miley's actions also speak for her; at the VMAs she wore dreadlocks because she knew that there would not be any backlash. When Zendaya wore dreadlocks one media persona said that it looks like she smells like pot. Which I find hilarious being Miley is the one that actively announces she smokes and Zendaya does not.  There have been no reports of her ever smoking pot.





Source

I am not a fan of Miley Cyrus to begin with.  But on this issue I agree with Aristotle's understanding of what knowing is. The action is always more important and telling then the idea is. Having an idea and knowing what being virtuous is is not the same as actually being virtuous.

To read a fantastic article that concisely states what the feud is all about, including nuances, click here. If you click on no other link, I suggest you click on that one to understand the political statement that Nicki was making.

Chemist Goldilocks ponders whether to eat or not to eat

Chemist Goldilocks ponders whether to eat or not to eat

Yes, my title is strange. However it helps me tie many of the concepts and ideas raised by Aristotle. One needs to first know that Aristotle was a student of Plato and the son of a court physician. In addition to teaching Alexander the Great, he founded Lyceum, a school in Athens, and he wrote many writings; no complete manuscripts remain of his to this era. What we know of him is comparable to how we know about Socrates’ thoughts. Neither of them are able to tell us what they thought in their own words, it is only through what others stitch together. In this instance, the Nichomachean Ethics are edited by students, possibly including Aristotle’s son.

            To understand the Nichomachean Ethics, to the best of my ability, according to the reading and class notes; I can present a scenario common to any school of science major taking a chemistry course. For those of you who don’t have the pleasure of enjoying a semester in chemistry, I will outline the process for one lab in the lab section of the course.

Here are the steps:

1. Complete reading the appropriate material
2. Complete the graded ASA (Advance Study Assignment)
3. Arrive to class on time hopefully with a vague idea of what you are about to do
4. Find the instruments you will need
5. Follow the process presented in the reading material

Depending on the specific course, there might be variations, however it boils down to reading and doing the experiment. Aristotle might argue that to read it is enough, but Plato might say reading is beneficial, but not necessary. But what would Goldilocks say? Well, I met with her the other day and saw her deliberate on what cereal she would have for breakfast. She was deciding between steel-cut oats with bananas and quinoa with raisins and milk. She told me she had read about the quinoa, but had never tried it and had grown up with oatmeal porridge, but had no knowledge of how it was grown or if it was healthy. Her question was “Should I eat something that I have previously experienced the taste or something on which I can teach a course?” That’s a tough question; similarly this is the issue at hand in a chemistry lab if you had to ask what is more important: reading or actually doing the lab? From my experience, the happiness or satisfaction results after I have completed both the ASA and the actual lab. And like the traditional Goldilocks story, I would say it is “Just right.”

To get back to answering Goldilocks’ question, I think I would tell her to reason through the decision with Intellectual and Practical virtue. She has read about quinoa and has a seasoned taste for oatmeal. Going upon this, maybe there is an option to integrate the procedure she used to learn about quinoa for oatmeal. In this way, she would learn about oatmeal and it would help her decision. On the other hand, she could apply the same technique that helped her experience oatmeal with her encounter with quinoa. So how would she make a decision? Aristotle might provide the next statement, “Deliberation can be good or bad; too much would cause anxiety and too little might cause hastiness.” So I would propose to Goldilocks that after she has given it a fair amount of time, just decide on one and by doing so it would increase her level of understanding for the world around her.

What would you tell her? Maybe she is also thinking should she eat or not eat. What would you tell her in that instance? How do we arrive to the “Just right” phenomenon or the Greek word “eudaimonia”?

Friends, Enemies...or Neither?

I was looking over my notes after class on Wednesday and my attention was drawn to the definitions of justice that were given by each of the “players” we covered in The Republic. I came to realize the one which raises the most questions for me is Polemarchus’ definition. Polemarchus basically states that justice is doing good to your friends and harm to your enemies. What I find so wrong about this is that “friends” and “enemies” come across as very ambiguous terms when you put deeper thought into the matter.

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines an enemy as “one that is antagonistic to another; especially: one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent”.

One could say that it makes sense to retaliate with harm to someone who is trying to cause harm to you, after all it is only human nature to try to survive. Though when you try to apply this concept to to broader aspects of justice there is a lot of gray area. Take the example of someone robbing a bank, is the bank teller an enemy of the robber? No. Or plantation owners in the south before the Civil War and the African slaves they “owned” against their will?  Surely we would not describe the slaves as the enemies in that situation, and yet they were the receivers of harm. Polemarchus’ definition does not account for instances like these, which we would consider today as being legally and/or morally wrong, where the person that is the receiver of the injustice is not an enemy and was not “asking for” the unjust action. Also, there's the matter of people that you think are your friends who turn out to be backstabbers and were actually enemies all along. I honestly don't know what he would have to say on the matter of those people who fall in-between his two firm categories.

Furthermore, on the topic of “friends” for everything to work properly in a society, who you consider friends would have to be every citizen that was also attempting to be "good" and law abiding. To me Polemarchus' definition seemed very inward turning and exclusive to only the friends and enemies in one's personal circle. If this was the only concept of justice we had in our society I think it would end badly. To be truly just everyone would have to have some degree of common, human concern for those outside our circles, or else we could end up with small pockets of people creating their own rules based on who they like and dislike. Friends and enemies, just as likes and dislikes, are matters of opinion and thus cannot provide a good foundation for true justice.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enemy

Justice is malleable.

In Plato’s work, we see several different views from various characters attempting to define justice. My personal favorite is from Thrasymachus as he describes justice as the “advantage of the strongest.” This cynical view he presents may leave us with a bad taste in our mouths, but we can not disregard the fact that his argument holds weight to the debate and how we perceive justice. Societies use this power to to set guidelines for the people to determine what consequences result from certain actions. Whether that is truly “just” is another topic.

During this summer, a Memphis police officer, Sean Bolton, was shot during a traffic stop. Unfortunately, the shooter, Tremaine Wilbourn, happened to be African American, which only sparked more controversy revolving around the “black lives matter” movement. Personally, I was unaware of what happened until I arrived in the states and saw the massive funeral procession dedicated to this officer while on the highway.

The Director of the Memphis Police, Toney Armstrong, spoke out in response saying “all lives matter” not only black lives, giving a common response echoed by many people before him, concerning the “black lives matter” movement. However, the problem with this argument remains that while all lives matter, blacks lives have repeatedly found injustice in society, and many are outraged by the current conditions they face. Again and again, we see in the media reflect any criminal acts from the African American population towards the entire race. The “black lives matter” movement hopes for a radical change in not only the media but also in politics and in their everyday lives. In reality, this hope will not happen as fast as they want it to, and the slow working change will only spark more occurrences of injustice. 

Socrates was known as “the wisest man” in Greece because he constantly looked for answers, knowing there was always more to learn. Although the debate over justice will always remain, the constant search to develop a more concrete image of justice is the reason we ask such questions. As we try to create a definition for justice, it ends up being not a matter of what is necessarily “just” but what definition will be the most beneficial for a community.

 http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/02/us/memphis-officer-killed-traffic-stop/

I Choose to Learn

Over the past few weeks, my mind has been spinning over the topics we have discussed in this class. I guess I never really have had the ideals of justice, injustice, and truth planted into my head the way that this class has achieved thus far. What I have had the most trouble grasping is the idea of what is good and was is not; what is just and what is unjust. 

I grew up in a quiet town, small, everybody knew everybody. My parents taught me what is right and what is wrong– what I assumed was just and what was unjust. The more I think about it though, maybe right and wrong do not directly correlate to just and unjust. We first must think what doing right and wrong actually means.  Are they a skill? Are doing the right thing and purposefully acting wrongfully actions? If this is true, then Polemarchus’s thoughts on justice do correlate– although justice as a skill looks useless or dangerous at times. I suppose that doing the right/wrong thing would appear that way as well if following this ideal. 

Doing good things and being morally correct are both positive things in most any situation. So we can assume that being good means just that: being good. I know that is a horrible definition, but that is how our brain work. We relate what we are learning to what we already know. There is no accurate answer to the question of if justice and injustice do directly correlate to that of the right and the wrong; but, in “Madison Philosophy” (as mentioned in class before) they do. What is good and what is bad; what is fair and what is fallacious; what is just and what is unjust– all are direct responses of each other. 

I chose to address this subject because I feel that our society as a whole ignores what we do not know. I am making the conscious decision to NOT ignore what I do not know, but to address the topic philosophically. The human mind has a hunger for learning and growing and expanding; philosophy can feed that desire. 

Justice should be blind, not ignorant.

Justice should be blind, not ignorant.

There are so many aspects of our discussions on the nature of Justice buzzing around in my head that I had trouble deciding which buzz would become a blogpost. One of the things that stuck out in my mind and really rubbed me the wrong way was Cephalus’ idea that justice meant paying one’s debts.  That gives me the idea that Cephalus had made some money or gleaned some support from being a merchant or by being involved in trade of some sort.  It seemed so narrow minded, even from the perspective of his time.  Surely, he had to be aware that there were lenders who overcharged interest, and merchants who cheated customers.  Wouldn’t it be unjust to pay one’s debt to an unscrupulous business owner? Justice is still viewed as payment of a debt, however, particularly in our judicial system. We often speak of released convicts having “paid their debt to society.” But can you buy justice? And if it is bought, does it remain just?

The comment attributed to Cephalus sounded so much like something that might have been said by a southern plantation owner in the antebellum south, biased and ignorant. If it works from his point of view, why should he bother with anyone else’s? Unfortunately, groups of ignorant people often band together to come to their own conclusions about justice. Justice seems so intertwined in the idea of consensus.  But a consensus does not justice make. Ask the two sisters in India who are in hiding because a village tribunal decided that they should be raped because their brother ran off with the wrong woman. Of course the rest of the world has reached a different consensus about that tribunal’s idea of justice.

I like to hope that justice is something beyond the point of view or opinion of any of us, but that we all have a seed of it planted within us.  A cosmic ideal that we can nurture or neglect, and when nurtured, gives us a little tug when it recognizes the seeds of justice in the actions of others. We have this image of Justice the Goddess, greater than any of us, with her scales to weigh consequences, and her blindfold to help her judge all equally.  But perhaps her blindfold is a reminder that we can’t see justice if we only seek it from our own narrow point of view. 

Philosophy as Abstraction

Throughout the two weeks that we have spent discussing the meaning of "justice" and Plato's writings I have struggled with grasping how we could ever really come to an answer that everyone could agree on, especially after hearing Thrasymachus' response to it. In reality and in our country, justice really is what the strongest say it is, and obeying that meaning of justice would require the "instrumental" value of it. People only act "just"without "Gyges' ring." I think when trying to define a word that can be viewed as a virtue or a value there will always be different views that you can take. In Thrasymachus' and Gyges' point of view they define it in a way that focuses on society versus personal gain.

Plato attempts to point out that you cannot only examine words that are as layered as "justice" is as only allowing set of standards or rules, but instead to view it from a philosophical point of view one must accept abstraction. Abstract, as defined in the dictionary, is "existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence." I feel as though Thrasymachus almost attempted to make his definition concrete in the way that he could point out the concrete documents and law makers who created their own "justice." While there is merit and truth within his definition, it is not necessarily the philosophical definition. As the "love of wisdom" to think philosophically would require taking abstract ideas and peeling back each layer until one can thoroughly explain how something is intrinsically good as opposed to fleeing from the value once we can invent Gyges' ring.

Every Action Has a Reason.

Everyone in the world loves rewards as much as they hate punishments. People can't act without a reason. Reasons are everywhere. I do my homework because I want good grades. I eat because I am hungry. I watch movies because I am bored. No one can act without having a reason to do so. In today's society, people act according to rules and beliefs. People don't always do what they want to do, but they do what is right for them to do.

Good actions are symbol of generosity and kindness. People do good things because they want to be rewarded. I am not talking about money. I am talking about recognition and a good status in front of others. There are some factors in today's society, such as the law, that impide people to do what they want to do. In the other hand, people don't do bad things because they don't want to be punished. Almost everyone would love to go to the mall and take stuff without paying them, but no one dares because it is not well seen for the society. We talked about the ring of Gyges in class last wednesday. This ring can give people the power of invisibility.What do we would do with it? The class agreed that most of the things we would do are bad things because no one would be watching us. Cheating, stealing, pranking on people, being lazy, etc. (thank godness no one said "killing.") are some actions that we would do if no one is aware of it. Others' opinions is the main reason of people's actions. People want to have a good position in front of others. Thieves don't want people to know that they are thieves. They don't want to go to jail. People that study want to have good grades. They don't want to be considered losers in front of their classmates and teachers. Every action has its reason.

Finally, I want to tell you what I would do with the ring. I don't like to be a hypocrite, so I'll tell the truth. With the ring I would get into private life of people. I would dedicate my life to investigate people's secrets and use those secrets to my advantage. I would be like the human that knows everything about the people around. I also would know what people think about me. Moreover, I would get everything for free. I would go to stores, and get everything I want without paying for it. I would eat in fancy restaurants for free because I love food. But the most important thing I would do is traveling. For example, I would make my dream come true; I would go to Spain for free. Please don't judge me; I am not a bad person. Oh my God, I really want to be invisible.  

Justice as an actor, an action, and a consequence

One of my favorite class discussions so far this semester was about the actor, the action, and the consequence. Most decisions have the ability to have an actor, an action, and a consequence. The more I learn and explore about justice, specifically related to Plato, I discover that justice can the actor, the action, and the consequence.


Justice can be an actor. Justice plays a part and takes part in some affairs. The situations that justice takes part in would make it the actor. Justice, as an actor, can be a driving factor in moral situations. The majority of the time, justice is a vital role in situations. "The act of being just" is the standard way of thinking about the word justice. A person makes a conscience decision to either act justly or unjustly. The action of being just takes effort and a moral conscience. Considering that you must make a decision about being just, it is an action. Finally, justice also serves as a consequence. Most of the time, justice is a consequence for an action. This action does not always have to be negative, but in certain situations justice can be a consequence for an immoral or illegal action. For example, if a person robs a bank they will be committing both an immoral and an illegal action. In some cases, their punishment, or consequence, will be justice. The criminal could receive jail time, which to society means that "justice was served."


Plato thinks about justice in a concrete manner: through definitions and other people's opinions. When one thinks of justice as an actor, an action, and a consequence it allows us to think about the concept in an abstract way. I think Plato could have benefitting in his understanding of justice by thinking about it in this way.

Answer Injustice with Justice

The term "justice" is a hard concept to grasp in our society. It is one of those words that we define using the word. What is justice? It's justice. No need to elaborate. The Oxford Dictionary defines justice as "just behavior or treatment." It defines the word "just" as "based on or behaving according to what is morally right or fair." I think most people would believe that they act in a way that is morally right, so why do we have so much injustice in our world. Why are people's basic rights as a member of the human race taken away or ignored? And what can we do about it? In the popular TV show Game of Thrones, justice is a major theme. When told that " Sometimes it is best to answer injustice with mercy" the character Daenerys Targaryan replied, "I will answer injustice with justice."

Daenerys is not around to save those who have been treated unjustly with her dragons. However, we have a few great men and women who have spoken out against injustices around the world, such as Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, and Mother Theresa. We hold these people in such high regard with the upmost respect, but we still turn a blind eye away from the lack of justice in the world around us. In Elizabeth Stewart Phelps' The Silent Partner, injustice in the factories is a major problem during the late 19th century. One character describes the reason that the upper class does nothing to help is because "They don't none of 'em know . . . It ain't because they don't care, it's because they don't know; nor do they care enough to know." The first step in fighting the injustice that runs rampant around the world is to see it and realize that we all play a part in brining about justice.

Glaucon and the Internet

During class today, I was struck with the thought that Glaucon would love the Internet. Let me clarify: As much as I want to believe that humans are naturally capable of being "good" and just, Glaucon would love the Internet because it serves as a perfect example of how badly some humans behave when they feel that they face no consequences. On any given day, you can log into Tumblr, Reddit, or any other site with some form of anonymity and likely see some variety of hatred. Websites such as Tumblr that have anonymous messaging systems are often a source of cyberbullying and general harassment. Additionally, on anonymous forum-type websites such as Reddit and 4chan, supposed anonymity often leads to people making racist, sexist, or homophobic remarks that they wouldn’t dare make to anyone’s face. That isn’t to say that the Internet is a completely terrible place. The Internet has many good uses and, in my opinion, has brought the world a little closer together. However, like Glaucon’s example of Gyges’ ring, the sense of safety from consequences that the Internet provides causes people to lose any qualms they might have about being rude or demeaning to others.

Unlike Gyges’ ring, however, there is at least some way of finding out the identities of those who use the Internet to behave badly. “Anonymous” cyberbullies and the hurtfully offensive can be traced by IP if someone is willing to put the effort into doing so. Also, people are beginning to recognize the psychological effects of cyberbullying and are starting to take it more seriously, with many states adding cyberbullying to existing bullying laws. Thus, people have become more serious about actually locating the source of anonymous attacks. Further, there have been increasing instances of people hacking websites and exposing those they deem immoral, as with the recent Ashley Madison incident (such incidents have negative implications for the current state of cybersecurity, but that is a tangent for another day). Soon, anonymous and consequence-free Internet hatred might become a thing of the past.