When Should a Person Sacrifice For The Greater Good?

Many famous people in history have sacrificed their happiness for the benefit of others. These sacrifices usually leads a person to change something in their life drastically or give something up completely. In philosophy we learned about John Stuart Mill who spoke on the subject of higher pleasures and lower pleasures. Lower pleasures are those that are most animalistic while high pleasures are those special to us as humans. Many times higher pleasures are renounced by those who practice the form of utilitarianism to better the life and pleasures of others. Utilitarianism maximizes the best consequences for the most happiness of those involved. For example, if there is a single parent home and they are raising multiple children, they might have to sacrifice their personal higher pleasures, such as time alone for reading and relaxing after a long day at work. They would make this sacrifice so they could have time for their children when they get home. This time away from work would be used solely for the purpose of supporting their children in all their endeavors in life and providing them with what they need on a daily basis. However, many people don't realize the sacrifices their parents make and how it truly affects their life. Just think about it, if your parent(s) didn't make the sacrifices for you that they did, then your life might not be what it is now. They did this to provide happiness for you. Even though it may seem to not benefit many, I believe it does. If you look at it in more depth, the way you were raised and the things your parents have done to provide you with your own higher pleasures and happiness have more than likely made you a better citizen, which benefits society as a whole.

Is Utilitarianism really Godless?

Some people would criticize Utilitarianism by saying it was a godless doctrine. The reason for this claim in the simple fact that people believe that Utilitarianism focuses on the mere happiness of humans, and not the will of God. Kant responded by saying Utilitarianism was probably the most godly doctrine, depending on one’s idea of God. Kant believes that if God wants his creation to be happy and not suffer, then Utilitarianism was made in line with God. Utilitarianism is aimed to promote the most happiness for the greatest amount of people possible. If you worship a god that wants you to act in such a way that produces happiness to other people, then you are actually doing God’s will by being a Utilitarian.

 In this instance, I strongly agree with Kant’s statement that disagrees with this certain objection with Utilitarianism. The Christian Bible portrays God as a wrathful and powerful being. Although he is seen to be intimidating, he also is made out to be a caring God that watches over the well being of his people. The Christian God wants his people to be happy, so I believe a Utilitarian lifestyle would fit someone that also claims to be a Christian. I also believe that this idea would apply to most religions. In other religions, their God or Goddess is usually portrayed as a being that cares about their people and wants them to thrive the best they can on their own. In my opinion, a lot of people would not want to worship a God that does not want their followers to be as happy as they could be. Overall, I think that Kant’s argument for the fact that Utilitarian is a godly doctrine is a very valid argument. After all, why would a God want their own creation to be miserable?

Our Human Duty

Immanuel Kant is one of the most influential philosophers of history. His primary focus of philosophical thought was the intrinsic good of an action. This is to say, the amount of good that is inherent in a person’s actions regardless of anything it may be compared with. More often than not, in Kant’s theory, he determined this intrinsic goodness of people’s actions with their duties. In any given situation, a person can choose one of two ways. The wrong or the right, the intrinsically good or the intrinsically bad, the dutiful or the undutiful. His theory in respect to a person’s duty was dubbed “deontology.” 

Another premise of the Kantian philosophic school of thought is the Categorical Imperative. This imperative operates under two main concepts. 1) Humanity must be treated as an end in and of itself and not merely as a means. 2) Actions must be made as to will them into universal law. This means that in every action, other humans should be treated with the respect of a being with its own ambitions, goals, and experiences. Basically, people shouldn’t be used. It also means that the action that a person commits should be such that it would be acceptable for it to be a law placed on the whole of humanity.

I agree with Kant’s theories because of what it means for the actions of humans. His theories do not place laws on humanity like philosophical theories. His ideas are based on what the individual duties of humans are. So where killing is wrong, self-defense is not. In this case, it is a humans duty to protect themselves, so as not to be treated as a means, therefore, defending themselves is an acceptable action, regardless of the outcomes. As long as actions are made based on the duty of humans and the good for all humanity, the action is morally acceptable.   

Consequentialism v. Non-Consequentialism

Consequentialism is the judgement of actions based on their possible outcome. This means that prior to making a decision, you review the possibilities to decide whether or not the act is moral or immoral. For instance, lying to protect someone or lying to make someone feel better. Even though the act itself may be immoral, is it right based upon the outcome one is hoping to achieve? I believe humans are innately consequentialists as we constantly will lie out of the need to please and protect others.

Kant believes that if you're lying for the betterment of others, than it can be considered morally right. I agree with this statement. Generally, it is morally wrong to lie and there is almost no way of telling what consequences can arise from different decisions, however if one believes they weigh their decisions and the different outcomes and believes that their lie will be for the greater good, then their decision to lie becomes morally right.

With this said, if the outcome of a decision is bad, but the intention was still good, is the act still morally right? This is a tough principal, but I believe that if one has every good intention with their actions but the outcome isn't what they expected and isn't for the greater good, the act is still moral. 

Consequentialists

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

Utilitarianism Vs. Christianity

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

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

Sorry Mill..

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

Is Happiness the Key of Life?

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

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

What Would YOU Do?

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

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

Non-Consequentialism

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

Is the will good?

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

Is it your fault?

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

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

A Priori and A Posteriori

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

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

Lies and Consequences

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

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

The Motive of Duty

        The Motive of Duty

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

 

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







Is Prostitution a Moral Line of Work?

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

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

Summary of the three pillars of a Reasonable Person

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

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

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

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

Aristotle vs. Plato who will I choose ?

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

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

Tori Keiran

Can You Be Poor And Happy?

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

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

Is Wisdom Something Common and Universally Available?

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

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

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

LaTericka Hudson