My Last Late Blog

While since class is over and my blog is late I’m going to write about my favorite ethics topic. I think of all the moral codes we talked about the one that seem to be the most fitting the idea of the soical contract theroy. It makes sense that man will only be content knowing that all men must abid the same laws. The other theroies seamed flawed like morally equals happiness the questions left answered like whos happiness, for how long, and how to calulate it. I really didn’t hate this class.


Add a comment December 16, 2008

Worthless Murder

Aristotle says that only virtue can decide the morality of an action so murder has no value because it is not a virtue. The virtue that would lead to murder is violent. Aristotle says a person to be moral should be in the middle so if a person has no violent tendencies at all this person would be a coward never standing up for themselves and a person who has too much violent tendencies he would be a murderous person where as if you are in the middle then you would assertive¬† able to stand up for your self. I think Aristotle is right we all know murder is bad and we don’t like cowards either in most situation this example will work.

1 comment December 9, 2008

Social Contract Exemption

I think that only a select group is exempt from the social contract. This includes children under the age of 12 because I think that before this age you aren’t able to understand. It also includes mentally disabled people because they are in the same situation as the children they just can’t understand it. I think the contract should void if you move away but if move somewhere with another social contract then you are bond to that one. Like in America with gay marriage if you live in one state it is recognized but if move to a state that doesn’t recognized it then that’s the law. A person must follow abide by the contract of the place where their are located. As far as what we were talking about in class i think that the government should¬† completely be held up to the same standards as a person, if possible even higher standards. The government cannot be exempt from moral judgement because they should be the model of morality. If the government is immoral how can you expect for the people to behave morally.

1 comment November 23, 2008

Morality and Government

A social contract is an agreement between the people of a society that states they will not act in certain ways that lead to chaos. The rule seems to be the fist thing you learn on the first day kindergarten “The Golden Rule”. Treat others how you want to be treated. For example if I don’t want someone to still me food then I won’t steal theirs. Everyone following this rule will lead to morality. I think the role the government plays in this is to uphold morality. A person may not want his apples stolen but that doesn’t mean that he isn’t going to steal mine. Maybe he thinks that I could never get to his apples so it is okay to steal mine because I could never get his in return. This is were the government comes in. The government must make this man think twice about stealing my apples because if i can’t punish him for stealing my apples then government will. The government is there to keep everyone acting moral and obeying the contract.

Add a comment November 23, 2008

State of Nature

I do think that the state of nature would really be as bad as Hobbs claims it is. I mean just imagine a world where no one as to take responsibilities for their actions. The is no wrong or right and no one has trust in anyone else. Hoobs describes this place where no one could rest and there would be constant war between people. A man couldn’t safe or secure, he would always be on look out. But I don’t think that this kind of nature could last long because eventually people would get tired of fighting. They build societies and form governments. Hobbs claims that he is being extreme and nature was never like this but I think it was. I mean if nature wasn’t ever like this then how would government come to be? I think all he doing is using the past to explain the present.

1 comment November 18, 2008

Self Love & Rationality

I disagree with Kant. I think the only rational thing a person can do is to act out of self love or self interest. I doesn’t make since for a person to put other people ahead of themselves even though we all do. We do it so much that we often forget about ourselves causing ourselves stress and pain. I think this is people be irrational. People should act out of self preservation. For example a bodyguard is hired to to protect someone like the President. This mean that at any moment he could have to take a bullet and possibly die. We accept this behavior because it is his job but in our minds the rational things to do when someone shooting at you is to runaway from the bullets not towards them. This act of selflessness just doesn’t make any since. The only way a person cannot act of self love and still be rational is once they find someone they love more than themselves. For example a mother and her child. Many parents would willingly give up their lives if it meant their child could live because they value the life of that child more then they value their own. They are acting out of a love greater than self love.

Add a comment November 18, 2008

Mill vs Kant

If I had to chose a side I would pick Mill because in his theory it is easier for a person to be moral. In Kant’s theory the only way an action can be moral is if it is done out of good will. If s person gives to charity because they love helping other people then their action isn’t moral because it was done out of desire but if a person who hates giving to charity does it because they feel completed to then this action is moral. This doesn’t sit right with me. According to Kant a person who enjoys doing good things can never really be moral and that doesn’t seem fair. According to Mill both these people because they are rising overall happiness. It could also be said that according to Mill the person who really enjoys doing good things is more moral then the other person because the person who enjoys doing good things are increasing overall happiness more frequently.

1 comment November 17, 2008

Universal Law

Kant says that you should only do an action if it can be turned into universal law. For example looking both ways before crossing the street is a good because it can be made into a universal law without throwing the world into chaos. If everyone looked both ways before crossing the street then a lot less people would be hit by cars and the world would be a better place. This also applies to a bad such as cheating. Cheating is wrong according to this theory because if everyone were to cheat then nobody could trust anybody. If cheating were to become a universal law then man kind would be thrown into turmoil. The would be no respect or trust.

Add a comment November 17, 2008

Happiness = Goodness

Does happiness have intrinsic value? I don’t think happiness has intrinsic value the goodness does because something must cause happiness. A person isn’t just happy for no reason although some people claim to be there is always something behind happiness. I’m because I got a puppy or a car or because I’m in love. In class the example was given that a baby has intrinsic value because if the world were to crumble around it, it would still be valuable. But if I am filled with happiness and the world were to crumble around me my happiness would disappeared therefore it can not have intrinisc value.

1 comment October 30, 2008

A Conversation With Mill

If I was going to ask Mill a question it would be: According to you virtue and intentions don’t count when deciding morality but the American Court system for the most part usually takes these things into account, do you think this make our court system wrong? I want Mill to admit that he is wrong and admit that these things should be taken into consideration but I don’t think Mill will say this. I’m pretty sure Mill will point out the occasions when the American court system fails by putting innocent people in jail and letting guilty people off. Then he will say that this happens because we do consider and by doing we make the issue morality to difficult. He would give a long winded example of two people who commit the same crime yet one goes to prison and one gets probation Mill will then say that in utilitarianism both men would get the same punishment. Long story short Mill would make a convincing agrument but I still think these thing are important to look at.

Add a comment October 28, 2008






November 2017
« Dec    

Most Recent Posts