The self real or created?

In his explanation on how morals were created, Nietzsche makes a distinction about when the “bad” in good vs bad dichotomy became “evil”. After the Slaves inverted the Noble Mode of Valuation during the Slave Revolt those previously seen as “bad” (e.g weak, ugly, sick) were now the moral ones, and the strong who expressed their strength against the weak were no longer seen as good. The belief in the self is a crucial concept the Slaves had to use to perpetuate their ideas. In separating the person from the action you can then hold them morally accountable for their actions because they would have the choice to act otherwise. To put that into more simple terms--the doer is not the deed. 

Nietzsche did not believe in the concept of self or a subject. He believed that a subject of the action did not exist and that we only experience the actions, being and doing of a person. But does that mean that I am not really seeing them? During class it was very difficult for me to try to understand this point of view when Dr. Johnson was describing it. I still would not say I agree with Nietzsche, but after giving it some thought I understand his idea better now. I started to think about how we are we an expression of our actions. Any time I see one of my friends they literally must be doing something, even if that is simply being/existing, and that makes up a character or a personality that I know them to have.  In that sense I could see how the acting, being, and doing makes you who you are. The ideas I have of my friends comes from how they express themselves to me. But I also think that the self also dictates the acting, being and doing. 

Basically I am as confused as I sound...this has been my thought process in trying to wrap my head around this topic.

THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE STRONG AND THE WEAK

After learning some of  Nietzsche's ideas, I came to the conclusion that the weak people benefits the most from moral values. Strong people are seen as evil because the weak people or the miserables claim that God loves them. Before there were moral values, there were just bad and good, but the weak people weren't happy. They reverse everything. The idea that if people was good (powerful, beautiful, and happy) were beloved for God change totally. The weakest said that God loves misery, so he loves them which makes them powerful, beautiful and happy (good). Moral values are like a fence that protects the weak people over the strong people.

Now I want to talk about enemies. The strong is always seen as the evil or the villain. On the other side, the weak is seem as the hero. This means that the enemie of the weak is the strong; however, the weak can't be the enemy of the strong. Since the strong is powerful, he/she needs to confront someone like him/her. It would be unfair if the strong fights against the weak. The point her is that weak people are always seen as good people. For example, when someone is weak like the lambs in the stroy of Nietzsche, people usually say "don't be weak; be strong." However, they would never say to a strong force like the bird of preys "don't be strong; be weak." There is always a difference between strong and weak.

I personally think that the weak looks for protection in moral values because they can't fight against the strong. Since they can not fight the strong, they claim that the strong is evil, but they do not have a solid argument. I considered myself weak, but I do not think that God loves me because I am weak; he loves me because he is good.

David and Goliath

Out of all of the concepts for which we have studied so far, Nietzsche's concepts and ideology for the Genealogy of Morals is the hardest for me to grasp. It is very difficult for me to take a step back and wonder where the concepts of right and wrong derived from. The way I have always thought about good and bad is that it just is and came from no where, but it is extremely important, in my opinion, to ask how it all came to be. I believe his theory has some warrant though. How can people look at something and deem it positive or negative other than the fact that they were not "excelling" in the social spheres and are "the weak." And I believe calling the weak slaves is a very smart way of putting it. The more and more the weak build up the more and more they will be likely to "revolt." Their revolt hinders the strong to show their strength, though. Nietzsche deems this "absurd," but I do not know if I completely agree with it being called "absurd." Why would any human want anyone to be able to take advantage, regardless of the title's of good or bad. I feel as though being a slave takes away their autonomy, and that is sad enough. Now when thinking about the creation of a monotheist God to explain for the "genealogy of morals" can be argued in a very convincing light as to whether or not it is merely to protect the weak or if it is completely true. It celebrates weakness for sure; though, I cannot help to not think about David and Goliath for David was supposed to be weak. David's tricks are the one that saved him where as Goliath was the obvious choice for a winner. I wonder if Nietzsche would be able to argue back to that. 

I Would Investigate Nihilism...if Anything Mattered.

Image Source: x

A philosophical concept often associated with Nietzsche that we have not yet discussed in class is the idea of nihilism. Nihilism is the idea that  values are pointless and nothing really can be known or taught. The concept, though it predates Nietzche, is most often associated with him due to his outlook that  our insistence on applying order and separation where order and separation do not naturally occur will bring about a destruction or evolution of our species - an extension of his concept that we do not exist separately from our actions. Nihilism applies this concept to everything, especially fixating on the ideas of epistemological failure (knowledge is invalid), value destruction (our values will inevitably be destroyed or at least radically changed), and cosmic purposelessness (nothing matters). Nihilists could perhaps be compared to Eeyore or the stereotypical goth kid.  This may seem extreme, but it all is based on the concept that nothing has meaning besides what we give it. This idea seems to be legitimate. If you were to see a random stick somewhere, it would be nothing but a stick to you. However, if you were a dog it might be the most awesome thing ever, or if you're Eeyore it might make a nice new house (although you will inevitably droop your head and sigh about it not mattering anyway because it'll just fall eventually). To this extent, I can see where nihilism is coming from. However, my understanding of it is that, if we don't stop giving meaning to things, we will ultimately destroy ourselves. I personally find this claim to be unsettling and do not see the reasoning behind it, but to each their own. To me, anyway, it seems that it's in our nature to give purpose or meaning to something, lest we be sad pessimists despairing at the vastness of the universe and insignificance of ourselves. 

Source: X

*makes up for a downer ending with a funny T-Rex comic*

Reading Assignment for next week: Karl Marx on "Alienated Labor"

Here is a link to your reading assignment for next week.

Diary Entry from a Slave...

Dear Diary,

Do you know how it feels like you "are not"? Where there are those nobles who are considered to be the "are". They are people, they are human, while we feel like we are not people or humans. This feeling causes life as a slave gets worse and worse everyday. I feel like the nobles become more and more controlling and seemingly more powerful as time goes on. The idea of these nobles thinking that they are good is nauseating. They are not good, powerful, beautiful, or happy; however, I cannot speak about how God feels about them. And back to beautiful...those are some of the ugliest nobles I have EVER seen in my life. I actually think that the nobles are stupid in comparison to the other slaves and me. We are smart, we recognize our self importance and God's love for us without having to convince ourselves that we are "good". As a slave, I do not think the nobles understand what it is like to live fully in fear. We are subjected to those who never ever live in fear while we live every waking moment wondering when we will be constrained by being considered "bad".

However, a change is coming...we are hungry for a change. We are slaves full of ressentiment and desiring to be considered "good" in society. But, we recognize that we are beloved by God, so if we have those qualities, then therefore we should also possess the qualities like the nobels. A revolt is looming, I can feel it. We talk about how the weak will rise up against the strong and prove our morality and how we are also beloved by God. I always feel like a lamb against the preying bird, but in our situation we are not going to bow down and continue to be weak...we will rise up and prove our goodness and morality. I will keep you posted on our progress, my trusty diary.

Nietzsche: We are weak.

Nietzsche created a lot of controversy in his time and even into the present day. His idea that we as a species have become weak makes us cringe when trying to articulate our thoughts about Nietzsche. One of the most fascinating parts about him revolves around the bird of prey parable. The absurd notions that we blame the strong for using their full potential is something that is incorporated in our moral value system. Nietzsche recognizes that we, the lambs, have blames the birds of prey for following their instincts. This idea that we can blame the “subject” for its actions is just a way for the weak to survive. It is an interesting concept to consider questioning our very existence. When I first read him, Nietzsche spouts out notions that I never would have considered because I am blinded by the beliefs of my own moral values that most just blindly accept. The realization that maybe we have created a “self” to blame brings to question whether or not we are limiting the potential to create a stronger person. Today in class, Dr. J said that the slavish mode of valuation that we currently use would eventually evolve into the Ubermensch, who would be a creator of values. It would mean that we would be the lesser species, or the lambs. This idea that maybe we are at fault with our moral code to the point where we are weakening ourselves is what is truly mind blowing about Nietzsche’s theory. In contradiction, do we want to change our moral system? We have implemented these concepts of not using all of your strength because we ourselves are weak. So far, we have not seen the Ubermensch, and from what we learned, we have to ask if these Ubermenschen just become another part of our flawed moral system.

Nietzsche? More like NietzscHEY I have no idea what he's talking about

According to Nietzsche, the fact that we are still in the moral period makes us sick. For those of you who do not know, the moral period began after the Slave Revolt in Morality which inverted the Noble Mode of Valuation. The NMV is a “pre-moral” time where “good” and “bad” are not moral categories because they do not describe an ought. During this time it was the belief that Good=Powerful=Beautiful=Happy=Beloved by God. The people who were “bad” at this time were the slaves so they decided invert the NMV stating that “We are beloved by God, therefore we are happy, therefore we are beautiful, therefore we are powerful, and therefore we are good. However, this was not the “good” in the sense of the previous period, this good became a moral good. Instead of being the difference between good and bad it becomes the moral war between good and evil. The slaves ultimately turned weakness into strength which ultimately means that morality benefits the weak. Nietzsche believes that the fact that we are still in this moral period today makes us sick because he recognizes that it is absurd to demand that weakness express itself as strength so it is also absurd to expect strength to express itself as weakness. 

I’m not sure if I believe with Nietzsche or not. I think that he brings up valid points such as his example of the lamb and the birds of prey and his ideas that morality benefits the weak. I cannot, however, wrap my head around Nietzsche’s disbelief in the self. I understand the idea that there is no doer, just what is done when it comes to example of the lightning flashing is simply just a flashing but I do not understand removing the subject when it comes to human beings.  

Nietzsche: The Man Behind The Writing

 Dr. Johnson mentioned how peculiar Nietzche's life was, so I did some research on the man behind all the philosophy. And, I have to agree. He's so much fun. Did you know that he was named after the King of Prussia, Frederick William IV. He did later drop the name and he went to an all boys school, which I think explains a lot.

He was also a military man. Not surprised he didn't believe in god after that. A lot of bad things happened to him. He tore some muscles trying to get on top of a horse. He got diptheria and dysentery. Possibly syphillis. His life was just not going that great. The military was not him. The non-god was telling him to go back to philosophy.

Nietzche also did not like to be criticized and there were very few people he accepted criticism from. Which, I think it such an aesthetic. One of them was Peter Gast and from what I gathered he's kind of important? But, not as important as Nietzche.

  Nietzche also wrote a book called The Gay Science, which combines one of my favorite things with one of my least favorite things, so that's exciting.

In true Nietzche fashion he took opium. Like the great mind of Sherlock Holmes it is necessary to function. He died after having a mental collapse at the age of 55. I think he killed it. If there was a book of Nietzche fun facts I would buy it, because I love all of this mess.  

Post-Fall Break Reading Assignment: Nietzsche

Here is a link to Nietzsche's essay from The Genealogy of Morals, which you should have read before returning to class on Monday, October 26.

Stuck in the middle

     While pretending to be Kant and Mill in the symposium, I realized my perspective on the moral rightness of actions changed. At first, I leaned more towards Kant, because The idea of the universal law and it applying to everyone was something I thought was right. However I I found that I believed that the moral rightness and wrongness does come from the consequences of an action. This being said, I am still stuck in the middle because even if someone did do something wrong but the consequences turned out to be good, I still believe that it was not a morally good deed. I also agree with Kant because of the categorical imperative. I believe if you say something is wrong, it should be applied to every situation like that as well. However if you do something that toy wouldn't consider right in general, but right in that moment, than that is not okay. The rules cannot be changed just for your situation. Then you would be a hypocrite. Kant also thinks that you should always treat everyone as an end in themselves, and that all citizens are at once both the authors and subjects of all  laws. We as humans, according to Kant, are only fee if we follow the categorical imperative as well. I also think that the solution to any problem should create the greatest amount of good for the greatest mount of people. This is Mill's idea about the moral rightness and wrongness of an action is derived from this. I know it is sort of against the rules to be in the middle of Kant and Mill, but for me it is hard to just be on one side. I found that while participating in the symposium, I often wanted to argue the other side on both days, even though I couldn't. So as of right now I'm still undecided on which side I am on concerning Kant and Mill.

Jeremy Bentham; Interesting Dude for Sure.

We are going to have a quick history lesson on this dude.

 
 Source

Why? Because frankly I am a little curious about the mastermind behind utilitarianism. From what we heard in class, he seemed a little too intense for my liking. Raising a friends child as a test subject for your theories seems a little bit too much if you ask me. So I did some digging.

Bentham was born in 1748 in London. According to anecdotes that I hope are true with all my heart, as a toddler he was found reading a multi-tome history of England and by age three he has started studying Latin. What else is three year old supposed to do to fill up all their free time? BUT WAIT it gets better; by twelve (12 PEOPLE) he was sent to Oxford to study law. He was in college at Oxford in 1760. I am starting to understand that he was something special.

However his father was bound to be let down; Bentham decided that he did not like law and instead spent the rest of his life writing about law and how it could be better.

Although we know him for utilitarianism, that was just his starting point. He critiqued EVERYTHING in society to determine their actual usefulness. He was a critic of both natural law (a group of unchanging moral principles regarding human conduct) and contractarianism (the theory in Political Philosophy on the legitimacy of political authority, and the ethical theory concerning the origin, or legitimate content, of moral norms).

Not only did he find faults with this theory, he was the first person able to find a utilitarian justification for democracy. However my personal favorite is that he advocated for the decriminalization of homosexuality which was not actually decriminalized in England until 1967 however this was only between two men who act in private. To say he was ahead of his time is a little bit of an understatement.

All things considered, he was a pretty interesting guy.

Source for Content Not Previously Linked

A utilitarian fledgling

So classmates, as a consequentialist, it is assumed I have thought out the consequences of my action of posting this post or not. In addition, as a science major I'm intrigued by results.
I'm wondering what will happen to your thoughts upon reading this:
Dear daddy (a reflection)

Looking in the mirror
I see you
I hesitate to say
I see you in me
But to admit
A great many of your traits
Is not to be overlooked

I talk with my hands
I walk with bare feet in grass
It's only safe after May
Or at least that's what I remember

I like the smell of cut grass
Hard work is never underestimated
I have compassion for the underdog
I take the road less traveled
I aspire to be someone great

Yet, like you I have my doubts,
My failures, my inadequacies
My faults, the ones whom I have wronged
I talk too much and do not allow the other person a say
I have my opinions about you and your vixen
Sometimes I overeat and under sleep
Worrying about the next day
I get caught up in the little things and miss the big picture

But like you
I'm graced with an interest in the other man
The other person has so much to offer
As you said every person is a library
An audiobook to be heard
I have my plans of action
My strategy or routine, if you will, which works well for me

As I take another look in the mirror
I see you more clearly
The man you were, the man you left and the man I will be
Your legend will live on in me
Daddy, trust me, I will be someone great
And I will trust that you will provide wings when I need them
I will rely on your ethereal presence to help me get by

One last look in the ever imposing mirror
Daddy, you prove to be a powerful driving force
I hope you don't go disappointed
I love you, and I'll be waiting for you

So I'm testing out this new mindset. I wonder if the anticipated results correspond with actual results.

Mother Teresa?  You Got it Half Right!

Today we were discussing people who renounce their own happiness for the "Greater Happiness." When the class was asked to name a person who does that, Mother Teresa was the first name brought up.  Gandhi was another. Not one student mentioned anyone who was NOT well-known throughout the world.  Can you name one that has never been on the short list for the Nobel Peace Prize?  Can you name one that you, personally, have met and interacted with on a regular basis? Is this sort of self-sacrifice something that ordinary people can never hope to attain?

No, it is not.  We all know people in our lives with whom we are intimately familiar who do this everyday.  Even if we don't have one that completely belongs to us, we still know some of them.  And all of us call them by some version of the same name: Mom.  Okay, there are a few of them out there who don't deserve to be called a mother.  But by and large, from the moment a mother learns she is going to be one, her happiness is secondary.  What she eats, what she does, medical treatments, even childbirth; all choices are made for the greater happiness. And yes, these things do come with joy, but this joy is reflected on a mother from her child.

We discussed how difficult it is to consider the greater happiness with every decision.  It's not so tough. From the little things, like eating the burnt toast (personally, I like mine rather light), to the big ones, like putting off finishing school, moms are generally willing to put their family's happiness first. Do you really think your Mom found happiness in washing your clothes or cleaning up your crap (often literally)?

Moms aren't perfect. Sometimes we put our happiness first and hide the chocolate candy.  But we are just as likely to take that last piece we were saving for after you went to bed and give it to you when you've had a rough day at school. Now go give your mom a hug.

J.S. Mill Drops Mic on Aristotle

One of the misconceptions J. S. Mill says that critics have about Utilitarianism is that it is base and demeaning to humans to reduce the purpose of humanity to pleasure. Does that sound familiar? I believe Aristotle would agree with that critique. I remember that in our discussion of Aristotle he states that the only intrinsic good should capture what is distinctive about human beings, and thus cannot be pleasure because we share that with animals. After a list of other instrumental things it could not be, he comes to the conclusion that our telos is happiness because it is pursued for its own sake.

Utilitarianism also has something to say about happiness, J.S Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle states that “acts are morally good in as much as they produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people”. Now, Utilitarianism is a form of Hedonism and to Hedonists much of happiness is focused net pleasure, so you could see why the aforementioned critique is valid. But if you are a Utilitarian don’t worry Mill has an answer to the naysayers! He says that there are two kinds of pleasures: higher pleasures, which are distinctly human, and lower pleasures which are shared with the animals. What a revelation!

He goes on to say that we as humans would always take more of a higher pleasure even if it came with some discomfort as opposed to a lower pleasure. For example, having a meaningful conversation during your lunch break with a friend in need that prevents you from going to get a decent meal. Mill would say that we value the higher pleasure of communication more than the lower pleasure of satisfying hunger.  Engaging in higher pleasures such as music, communication and education feeds our happiness in a way that animals do not experience. This distinction of pleasures allows Mill to shut down the misconception of pleasure as demeaning/animalistic in a way that other Philosophers we have studied so far could not...*cough* Lucretius *cough*..

From the Journals of Joe.

This is the story of how I die. 

          Ominous introduction out of the way I am going to share with you the story of friendship, that is my friendship with Immanuel Kant, and how said friendship is going to get me killed. I should have realized that the last possible place I should have gone while fleeing from a deranged Ax Murderer is Kant’s house but it would seem he has taught me to not focus on the consequences of my actions but rather the actions themselves. 

          What was I thinking anyway? That my life was more important that his Moral Good? There’s a laugh. He once told a stranger that he was hideous because the man asked if his shirt looked good on him and Kant said he couldn’t lie to him. So obviously he would give me away without a seconds hesitation. After all, he is all gung-ho about the objective principle where he says the principle upon which any rational agent, acting rationally would necessarily act. So basically the only rational thing for im to do is tell the truth because a lie, even in order to save his friend, would be morally wrong when you take away the consequences.  

          I guess it all comes down to deontology. You know, the non-consequentialist theory? It comes from the Greek word “deontos" meaning duty. Based on the 3rd Proposition of Duty: duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law. So basically if a person is obligated to do something they ought to do it. Apparently Kant has no duty to me because he cannot garante that the Ax Murderer will actually kill me so his only duty is to telling the truth. 

In my last moments I can only say: why hadn’t I befriended John Stuart Mill? 

CONSEQUENCES MATTER

I wanted to write my post on Wednesday; however, I didn't know on what side I was, Kant or Mill. Today, Dr. Jhonson cleared my mind, so I am on Mill's side. Dr. Jhonson gave us the next example: "A person that is the best human being. He/she always does the right things, is respectful, honest, kind, etc. One day this person decides to take a gun and shoot students in a school." Utilitarianism considered the consequences of actions, so in this case it doesn't matter if the person was the best human because what he/she did makes him/her a bad person automatically. The consequences caused pain instead of happiness.

In the other hand, Kant is the total opposite of Mill. I don't agree with Kant simply because his ideas basically state  that a person can be a good person even if he/she causes pain instead of happiness. In the same way, we can infer that a person that is bad but decides to do good things can't be good simply because even though he/she caused happiness, consequences doesn't matter.

In addition to all of this, Mill have more support to his ideas. He have the exact and perfect answer to any single comment against utilitarianism. For example, Mill says to the people that claim that utilitarianism goes against God's ideas that they basically think that God doesn't want human happiness, etc.

Finally, I want to talk about Kant's idea about "lies." He says that lies are morally wrong even if they cause good things. Seriously, lying to make people happy is not bad at all. I would lie to bring happiness to people's life. It is weird because I hate lies, but sometimes it is necessary to do so. Lies can produce good things. For example, leaving behind Joe and the ax murderer, telling one's brother/sister that the gift he/she gave you on your birthday is awesome even though it wasn't just because they put a lot of effort in it. Telling this little lie will make one's siblings happy. As you all can see I agree in so many thing with Mill and disagree with Kant. For me, consequences always matter.

Felicific Calculus 101 (Leibniz Beware)

As someone who is very mathematically oriented, the utilitarian concept of felicific calculus greatly intrigued me. As Webster defines, and we already established in class, felicific calculus is "a method of determining the rightness of an action by balancing the probable pleasures and pains that it would produce."  Jeremy Bentham is credited with the original creation of felicific calculus, and Mill is credited with several modifications to the theory. Bentham and Mill define several variables for the calculation of an actions rightness. These variables are as follows:

Intensity, I, is a measure of how intense the pleasure or pain you will receive is.
Duration, D, is how long the pain/pleasure will continue.
Certainty, C, is the probability of pain/pleasure occurring.
Propinquity, N, is the time it will take for the pain/pleasure to happen.
Fecundity, F, is the probability of the pleasure causing more pleasure in the future.
Purity, P, is the probability of the pain causing more pain in the future.
Extent, E, is the number of people that you will affect.

In these calculations, D is in units of seconds while all other variables seem to be unitless values. To set up the equation, some assumptions must be made. There are three rules given for these assumptions:

1. Whether you like something or not is a personal decision.
2. Preference has a transitive property (ie, if you like lasagna more than ravioli and ravioli more than spaghetti, then you must also like lasagna more than spaghetti), similar to the transitive properties found in mathematics.
3. One will generally prefer more pleasure to less pleasure, but less pain to more pain.

With these variables and guidelines, one can set up a summation similar to the one above (and presumably integrate the function). While this isn't exactly the sort of calculus Newton or Leibniz would find enjoyable, I think it is an interesting mathematical take on making moral decisions.

Sources:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/felicific%20calculus
http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/calculus.html

"Cause I'm Happy"

Scrolling through my twitter feed, happiness presents itself in different forms:

high school drama (ew)

celebrities, 

song lyrics, 

and finally poorly used quotes as captions. 

Teenage girls everywhere caption their "Insta" pictures with similar quotes: "Today I choose to be happy" or something like, "Happiness never goes out of style,"or even the cringe-worthy George Strait quote: "There is only one happiness in this life, to love and be loved."

It is not that those quotes or tweets are wrong; to me, it is the cliché staple our society has pinned to the idea of being happy. Happiness has a major influence on our culture and lives today– just as it always has. There is a certain fake-ness that has been attached to the word “happiness.” 

Thinking back to John Stewart Mill’s Utilitarianism view of happiness: 

The Greatest Happiness Principle: acts are morally good in as much as they produce the greatest amount of people.

Is it that today’s culture does not use the Utilitarian (Felicific) Calculus to determine what the greatest happiness may be? Or is it that pop-culture has demeaned the meaning of true happiness so much that the word can be used for basically anything? 

Altogether it seems that the utility of the younger generation has decreased over time. It is not to sat that all young people are useless– just that they do not fully understand the ideals of Mill’s. If they did, the value of the word happiness would hold a greater power and would mean much more than an Instagram caption or a silly song lyric. 

Netflix and Chill?

John Stuart Mill states in his essay that one of the main misunderstandings of Utilitarianism is that people often confuse happiness with contentment. This statement immediately struck me in class because I feel like I always hear those words interchangeably, and I feel as though that is a common mistake. When I was younger my understanding that these two words were, in fact, synonyms. The way in which these words differ is hard to articulate through words. Mill states that humans would never choose contentment, and would always want to "engage in meaningful projects." Its easy to see how that can be true. To me, this differentiates happiness from contentment in the ways of comfort. Contentment is absolute comfort; while happiness is absolute joy and pleasure. I am content when I know that nothing will disturb the ebb and flow of my existence, but happiness would be a heightened point in that contentment. They can be compared like this: contentment to me is like "chilling" watching Netflix for hours on end, but happiness is like finally cracking a puzzle that you have been working on or finally understanding the main idea of a book you are reading (nerdy examples but personally true). The act of "Netflix and chilling" only creates contentment; while something more groundbreaking is happiness. The mere theory and possibility of utilitarianism as an obtainable reality, it sounds pretty good to me. If we all aimed to produce the most happiness for the most people, I feel as though the world would be pretty fun to live in. As Dr. J has stated, the way in which the world works now is probably almost entirely utilitarian, but if it was possible to convince everyone to do so it truly would be amazing. I'd definitely sign up to Netflix, chill, and then some.

What would Kant do?

Would Kant pull the lever? Last class, we discussed how Kant would respond to the trolley problem. With five people on one track and only one on the other, this problem will remain a moral dilemma. While we can only debate about how Kant would react, based on his philosophy, I believe it is more likely that Kant would not pull the lever.

Kant establishes that the categorical imperative is the supreme law that one should follow for its own sake. He wants people to act in an intrinsically good way. The first rule of the categorical imperative states that we should only act where we could “will the maxim of the action as an universal law.” By pulling the lever, we have broken this rule. To kill another human could not become a maxim because the nature of humanity would cease to exist if everyone killed someone. Therefore, the act of pulling the lever would result in the death of another would be morally wrong and irrational. Even placed in the position of saving five people over one, the goodness of an action is not determined by the results of the action but again on an action of intrinsic good. This does not mean Kant would not pull the lever. Besides the fact that trolleys had not been created in his lifetime, we do not know how he would react. What we do know is that deontology classifies an action as morally right for its own sake not for the consequences afterwards. To pull the lever would be immoral in the eyes of Kant.  

Another variation of the trolley dilemma is the Fat Man Trolley Problem. It involves saving five people on a train track by pushing a fat man onto the tracks. This idea of using another person as a mean contradicts Kant’s second rule of the categorical imperative. People should always be an end in themselves. Humans should be treated as free and rational beings, and sacrificing one person’s life for others is immoral in Kant’s eyes.

In both cases, we can argue that Kant would be focused on the morality of the choice instead of the consequences.

Happiness is attainable, but so is pain...

"Today I choose life. Every morning when I wake up I can choose joy, happiness, negativity, pain... To feel the freedom that comes from being able to continue to make mistakes and choices - today I choose to feel life, not to deny my humanity but embrace it."

Kevyn Aucoin

One of the misconceptions about utilitarianism is that “you can’t make happiness the aim of human life because it is unattainable.” I disagree with this statement, but I am not sure that I agree with Mill’s and his response. I agree that Mill’s is right when he says that people that believe this are exaggerating and putting the world into conditions. However, I questioned what I conditions I believed were prevalent when considering happiness. To feel happiness is one of the most innately human emotions, but interestingly so is pain. I think that feeling happiness continuously is not human, rather that is unattainable. However, to feel the greatest happiness is human when accompanied with pain. Human’s do not feel continuous pain like we do not experience continuous happiness. To have one of these extremes, in my opinion, would be to not experiencing what it is like to be truly “human.”

We live in a world of conditions. There are conditions of emotions, in this instance happiness and pain, but I feel like to say that you can’t make happiness the aim is being very unrealistic and ignoring something that is naturally human. However, you cannot only experience happiness, you must also experience pain (and other human emotions). This is all a part of being human, and to ignore it, is to not embrace who you are as a human. There are 2 main causes of unhappiness: selfish and lack of mental cultivation. This is not to say when you are feeling pain you are selfish or stupid; however, there could be something missing that is causing the pain. In contrary to Mill’s, if you are unhappy, I believe that this is human and natural to feel all emotions. If we are going to live in a world of conditions, we must embrace who we are as humans and not discount our emotions whenever we are experiencing optimal pain or happiness.