As the days pass by I feel like I forget more and more. Sometimes I think I do things, such as post, and log on and find that I haven't posted in a week. My brain seems to not be functioning. I guess I should check instead of relying on my thoughts of what I did and I did not do.
As for Monday:
Before class...
The only flaw that I see is the comprehension of Utilitarianism. I think people have preconceptions of what it is but do not fully understand what it is and how it works. To me, everyone needs to be on the same level or have the same thought of what Utilitarianism is that way when we choose a path to go on we will all be able to arrive at the same solution, though the path may differ.
After class...
Each person desires happiness therefore happiness is desirable for each individual.
Therefore happiness for all is desirable for all.
Utilitarianism is an act or policy which creates the most pleasure possible, or least pain, given all the options is moral, all others are immoral.
Flaws found within the class...
1] It disregards human nature. We don't value all humans equally.
2] Some disagree
3] It is hard to figure out what maximized utility.
4] It requires individuals who want to be moral to maximize utility even if they don't want to.
5] In practice it doesn't maximize utility
6] There is a lack of motivation
It seems to me that through reflecting upon these one can find that it seems as though the flaws are found more within the individual than within a group, or society.
W E D N E S D A Y !
So today we went over what we did on Monday but went more in depth. To me it seems like the idea of Utilitarianism is more of a life style than it is a theory. But I guess one could say that with all the theories. I just think that with this theory it is already stained in us and we simply do not realize it. Though we may think that we are more for the individual than as a whole, I think if we all searched deeper; we would find Utilitarianism engraved in our souls. We pick up trash and recycle because it is saving the planet, and in turn saving us who live within the planet. We do things that will help the environment because it will make us, people, happier with cleaner and fresher air to breathe. I guess what I am trying to say is that many people live by this utility and therefore I think it is more like a lifestyle than it is a theory.
So what I really got from today was the fact that utilitarianism is about determining what's moral and immoral not what motives out to be.
One thing that I could not stop thinking about was the example in class today by Lyn. If self-sacrificing, in order to save a group of people, was the thing to do, would it count as suicide? Since the person is thrusting themselves towards death in hopes of saving many more people it seems like a moral act, but at the same time it seems like suicide and I thought suicide was immoral? Or does it depend on the situation? I am guessing that it does.
Well, this blog is getting long so I'll cut it short. =]
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Prep for Mill
BEFORE CLASS
Since Mill is talking about pleasures and pains for the common good of all people, I think it would be merely impossible for all to feel pleasure. But I do believe that most of the people can feel pleasure. I'm guessing that when it comes down to pleasure and pain, it will be based on how many people it affects and how many people feel pleasure or pain and not really everyone as a whole. But just certain people...? Correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm excited to read what Mill has to say and what some of his answers are. It is also nice knowing that everyone whom we have read he has also read. So we have, some-what, the same knowledge of different perspectives.
AFTER CLASS
People enjoy pleasure.
People dislike pain.
Why?
Simple, pleasure brings happiness and pain brings sadness. So of course people are going to want to be happy unless there is something seriously wrong with them. One thing that I question is are all pleasures moral? What if a group of people kill people who are different from them because it produces pleasure? Is that still moral? Because that seems to be very immoral.
What is it about an act that makes it moral and immoral? I found the question so eye opening. I think an act that is wanting to produce what is good for the common world is what makes it moral and an act that is wanting to produce what we call a vice is immoral. Since we already know, from readings before, that a vice is something that we do not want to acquire or have, to me, it makes sense to say that it is immoral. This makes me think about what makes something a virtue and what makes it not because it is like asking what is moral and what is immoral.
In class today when I heard that this is merely a person making a choice or choosing a path for a group of people, it made me think about how hard it would be and how stressful it would be. It seems hard to be able to come to one conclusion, but I think that in the end, what matters most is being able to have the most pleasure as a conclusion.
Since Mill is talking about pleasures and pains for the common good of all people, I think it would be merely impossible for all to feel pleasure. But I do believe that most of the people can feel pleasure. I'm guessing that when it comes down to pleasure and pain, it will be based on how many people it affects and how many people feel pleasure or pain and not really everyone as a whole. But just certain people...? Correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm excited to read what Mill has to say and what some of his answers are. It is also nice knowing that everyone whom we have read he has also read. So we have, some-what, the same knowledge of different perspectives.
AFTER CLASS
People enjoy pleasure.
People dislike pain.
Why?
Simple, pleasure brings happiness and pain brings sadness. So of course people are going to want to be happy unless there is something seriously wrong with them. One thing that I question is are all pleasures moral? What if a group of people kill people who are different from them because it produces pleasure? Is that still moral? Because that seems to be very immoral.
What is it about an act that makes it moral and immoral? I found the question so eye opening. I think an act that is wanting to produce what is good for the common world is what makes it moral and an act that is wanting to produce what we call a vice is immoral. Since we already know, from readings before, that a vice is something that we do not want to acquire or have, to me, it makes sense to say that it is immoral. This makes me think about what makes something a virtue and what makes it not because it is like asking what is moral and what is immoral.
In class today when I heard that this is merely a person making a choice or choosing a path for a group of people, it made me think about how hard it would be and how stressful it would be. It seems hard to be able to come to one conclusion, but I think that in the end, what matters most is being able to have the most pleasure as a conclusion.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Random Acts of Kindness
Okay, so I found this one a little harder than the rest. Not only harder but it was a little out of my comfort zone.
There's this girl who is in all of my science classes and she is extremely annoying. She always has to say something smart and sometimes she just always has to say something even when it has nothing to do with what we're doing. She also likes to look down on other people. Anyways, now that you know a little bit of her character, I remember she came and sat at my table while I was studying because her friend, who is also my friend, was sitting with me. She was talking about how she failed the chem exam and that she had no idea what was going on and the notes made no sense to her. So I told her that if she needed help, that I could and would try to help her. So I gathered all of my old notes from Advanced Chemistry and gave them to her since they were over what we were doing in class. I gave her a few tips in writing out problems and finding out if things are soluable or not. But I guess, it felt nice being the bigger person. Not the better person, but it was nice being able to sit aside differences and just help her.
So today, I went to ISU to go see some of my friends. That was a lot of fun. But it was around dinner time and I was getting ready to by something to eat and the guy infront of me didn't bring enough cash, so he called his friend to come by and loan him some many. I felt bad, so I pain in the extra $5 and bought my stuff quickly and left. So I never got a chance to see the expression on his face. But I'm sure it was a good one. To me, money isn't an issue. If I have cash on me I'm willing to help out if it's for something like this or if it's something that is for a good cause. Usually though, I'm broke but when I do have money I don't mind helping out a brotha or a sistah in need.
There's this girl who is in all of my science classes and she is extremely annoying. She always has to say something smart and sometimes she just always has to say something even when it has nothing to do with what we're doing. She also likes to look down on other people. Anyways, now that you know a little bit of her character, I remember she came and sat at my table while I was studying because her friend, who is also my friend, was sitting with me. She was talking about how she failed the chem exam and that she had no idea what was going on and the notes made no sense to her. So I told her that if she needed help, that I could and would try to help her. So I gathered all of my old notes from Advanced Chemistry and gave them to her since they were over what we were doing in class. I gave her a few tips in writing out problems and finding out if things are soluable or not. But I guess, it felt nice being the bigger person. Not the better person, but it was nice being able to sit aside differences and just help her.
So today, I went to ISU to go see some of my friends. That was a lot of fun. But it was around dinner time and I was getting ready to by something to eat and the guy infront of me didn't bring enough cash, so he called his friend to come by and loan him some many. I felt bad, so I pain in the extra $5 and bought my stuff quickly and left. So I never got a chance to see the expression on his face. But I'm sure it was a good one. To me, money isn't an issue. If I have cash on me I'm willing to help out if it's for something like this or if it's something that is for a good cause. Usually though, I'm broke but when I do have money I don't mind helping out a brotha or a sistah in need.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Kant II
Sorry for not being able to post about Kant for day 1 and for the prep. But I do believe that contradiction comes along with a lot of arguments and a lot of frustration.
Doctrine of Right
Chapter 1: How to Have Something External as One's Own
The thought of property and ownership came to my mind. Only because property or things around us, are external to us. Which was what I linked with the title of chapter 1. After reading it seems like Kant has put a lot of labels on things such as the different kinds of possessions and the things around us that we can say is our own. It seems to me that Kant was explaining things that belong to us and things that belong to others. I understood this first part of his explanation with the example of the apple and the land but then as I read forward, I could not make a connection with the subtitles and the content.
Chapter 2: How to Acquire Something External
This makes me think of taking hold of things around us. Like how to get that ball over there or grasp onto what is around me. That second sentence to the first paragraph of the chapter confuses me. My question is, what act establishes a right to something? To me as I read, I feel like he is saying nothing is originally ours, but we must go and acquire whatever it is that we want. That makes sense. To have experience of somethings gives an acquire taste of it whereas if we never exposed to such a thing we would not want it making it not originally ours but something to acquire. When he speaks about obligations, "On Property Right", I can only think of people or things that have a mind can feel obligation. So when he says that 'it is already under obligation for him', is he referring to the object having obligation to its owner or is he saying that others who want to own it feel obligation to not take it because it already has a rightful owner? For section II of chapter 2, I am amazingly confused. I do not know if it is because I am trying to hard to understand or if I am not trying hard enough to understand. I understand when he says in one sentence the way contract right works, but when he further goes on about contract right I get lost with the labels.
Chapter 3: On Acquisition That Is Dependent Subjectively upon the Decision of a Public Court of Justice
The only thing that comes to my mind would be legal things, legal documents...etc. Is Kant saying that a court is always moral even when a person who 'administers justice' is immoral? Just a thought, a question, that came to mind. To my understand he just goes on to speak of the different contracts, how to acquire and the transition.
Part two: Public Right
I feel like he is now going on to explain things that occur in a society or in big groups, like a nation. He further explains the different rights but I cannot say that I fully have a grasp of each concept. Hopefully by tomorrow, while being in class, that will change.
There was a lot that troubled me but the ones that I have written out here, are probably the most troubling. I find it interesting though that, to me, he is very neat. I say this only because he has labels for the different ways things are. So being able to have those labels for reference with an explanation with what they are and how they are used is a lot of help in understanding the concept. I think without his explanation I would be more lost.
Doctrine of Right
Chapter 1: How to Have Something External as One's Own
The thought of property and ownership came to my mind. Only because property or things around us, are external to us. Which was what I linked with the title of chapter 1. After reading it seems like Kant has put a lot of labels on things such as the different kinds of possessions and the things around us that we can say is our own. It seems to me that Kant was explaining things that belong to us and things that belong to others. I understood this first part of his explanation with the example of the apple and the land but then as I read forward, I could not make a connection with the subtitles and the content.
Chapter 2: How to Acquire Something External
This makes me think of taking hold of things around us. Like how to get that ball over there or grasp onto what is around me. That second sentence to the first paragraph of the chapter confuses me. My question is, what act establishes a right to something? To me as I read, I feel like he is saying nothing is originally ours, but we must go and acquire whatever it is that we want. That makes sense. To have experience of somethings gives an acquire taste of it whereas if we never exposed to such a thing we would not want it making it not originally ours but something to acquire. When he speaks about obligations, "On Property Right", I can only think of people or things that have a mind can feel obligation. So when he says that 'it is already under obligation for him', is he referring to the object having obligation to its owner or is he saying that others who want to own it feel obligation to not take it because it already has a rightful owner? For section II of chapter 2, I am amazingly confused. I do not know if it is because I am trying to hard to understand or if I am not trying hard enough to understand. I understand when he says in one sentence the way contract right works, but when he further goes on about contract right I get lost with the labels.
Chapter 3: On Acquisition That Is Dependent Subjectively upon the Decision of a Public Court of Justice
The only thing that comes to my mind would be legal things, legal documents...etc. Is Kant saying that a court is always moral even when a person who 'administers justice' is immoral? Just a thought, a question, that came to mind. To my understand he just goes on to speak of the different contracts, how to acquire and the transition.
Part two: Public Right
I feel like he is now going on to explain things that occur in a society or in big groups, like a nation. He further explains the different rights but I cannot say that I fully have a grasp of each concept. Hopefully by tomorrow, while being in class, that will change.
There was a lot that troubled me but the ones that I have written out here, are probably the most troubling. I find it interesting though that, to me, he is very neat. I say this only because he has labels for the different ways things are. So being able to have those labels for reference with an explanation with what they are and how they are used is a lot of help in understanding the concept. I think without his explanation I would be more lost.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
What Makes A Virtue A Natural Virtue?
Some questions that I had in mind before class were:
Why is the lack of hatred or anger moral weakness? [3.3.3.7]
What is the difference between natural abilities and natural virtues?
What is the difference between natural and artificial virtues?
If having less is bad, than why is it bad to have too much? [section 2]
Thoughts after class:
So today was different, but a good different. We should have days where we all come in as someone else. Just a thought nothing more. It would be interesting.
Okay, so after being able to ask Hume, himself, questions it made a lot of my questions before class somewhat understandable. So a natural ability is something we naturally do, like sing or eat, so that would mean that a natural virtue is something that just comes to us without having to think about it or without having to cultivate it, right? If that is what a natural virtue is, does that mean that an artificial virtue is produced within a society more so than an individual? The way I am seeing natural virtue is based more on the individual because it would be difficult to find a group of people who have this ‘natural virtue’ without thinking about what is a virtue and what is a vice. For instance, one cannot achieve justice without having a society, even if that means the society has only two people. How can a person have such artificial virtues if it is only with him/herself? So I guess my other question is, are artificial virtues produced for the public good and only the public good? Writing this blog just aroused that question.
If natural virtues are things that do not need to be thought about, what makes them desirable if one has to think of such things? If one desires it, are they not thinking of it? And if they are thinking then it is no longer a natural virtue…? Or is it the fact that when one ‘does’ what is a natural virtue, it does not have to be thought about? So pondering and wanting what is a natural virtue is not actually committing the natural virtue because doing the virtue is not being done. Okay, that probably made no sense because I just got done rereading it and it just sounded like I went in circles. Sorry.
Hm, I sound a lot like Socrates. Always asking nonstop questions.
Okay, I am going to stop here because my brain feels like it can no longer function.
Why is the lack of hatred or anger moral weakness? [3.3.3.7]
What is the difference between natural abilities and natural virtues?
What is the difference between natural and artificial virtues?
If having less is bad, than why is it bad to have too much? [section 2]
Thoughts after class:
So today was different, but a good different. We should have days where we all come in as someone else. Just a thought nothing more. It would be interesting.
Okay, so after being able to ask Hume, himself, questions it made a lot of my questions before class somewhat understandable. So a natural ability is something we naturally do, like sing or eat, so that would mean that a natural virtue is something that just comes to us without having to think about it or without having to cultivate it, right? If that is what a natural virtue is, does that mean that an artificial virtue is produced within a society more so than an individual? The way I am seeing natural virtue is based more on the individual because it would be difficult to find a group of people who have this ‘natural virtue’ without thinking about what is a virtue and what is a vice. For instance, one cannot achieve justice without having a society, even if that means the society has only two people. How can a person have such artificial virtues if it is only with him/herself? So I guess my other question is, are artificial virtues produced for the public good and only the public good? Writing this blog just aroused that question.
If natural virtues are things that do not need to be thought about, what makes them desirable if one has to think of such things? If one desires it, are they not thinking of it? And if they are thinking then it is no longer a natural virtue…? Or is it the fact that when one ‘does’ what is a natural virtue, it does not have to be thought about? So pondering and wanting what is a natural virtue is not actually committing the natural virtue because doing the virtue is not being done. Okay, that probably made no sense because I just got done rereading it and it just sounded like I went in circles. Sorry.
Hm, I sound a lot like Socrates. Always asking nonstop questions.
Okay, I am going to stop here because my brain feels like it can no longer function.
Random Acts of Kindness
Not anonymous
My best friend, P, goes to the U of I. He called me the other day asking for performers for this party and I could tell by the tone of his voice that he was extremely stressed because he was dealing with all these other problems. So he just pretty much blabbered for hours about how he needed to find performers quick because the party was coming up in October. I remember he kept telling me not to help him because I was busy with Drake and personal issues, so I told him that I would not do anything. But when I got off the phone with him, I quickly called and emailed some people that I knew who were performers, whether they were dancers, singers, etc because I consider myself a performer so one can kind of say that I somewhat have connections. I was planning on being one of the performers to surprise him, but I just had too much stuff going on so that was why I tried to find groups for him. They eventually contacted him and before he knew it he had a handful of performers. He later found out through one of the groups performing that they got the message from me. So he eventually found out. But it felt nice to be able to help him even though he is two hours away. He has always been the one who helped me so it felt good to be able to help him with something that I was familiar with.
Anonymously done
So I honestly do not know who this affects, that is why it is towards a stranger. So usually after I use the pop or snack machines I leave a dollar or spare change in the machine for the next person. I got the idea from when I was at the mall. It was during the summer and I went to go get some Lipton Ice Tea and I was getting ready to whip out my money and I noticed that there was a dollar in the machine already. So like a kid, I was totally happy and telling everyone about it. It just made my day because it was a beautiful surprise. So whenever I use the machines at Drake I always try to leave something behind and hopefully the person who uses it after me does the same. Then everyone can be a kid again, even if the means only for a second, and if not a kid at least have a smile. So it is kind of like the movie Pay It Forward. Do something nice for someone else, then that person does something nice to someone else, then that person does something nice to someone else, and yeah, it just goes on and on. A beautiful cycle of kindness is what I call it.
My best friend, P, goes to the U of I. He called me the other day asking for performers for this party and I could tell by the tone of his voice that he was extremely stressed because he was dealing with all these other problems. So he just pretty much blabbered for hours about how he needed to find performers quick because the party was coming up in October. I remember he kept telling me not to help him because I was busy with Drake and personal issues, so I told him that I would not do anything. But when I got off the phone with him, I quickly called and emailed some people that I knew who were performers, whether they were dancers, singers, etc because I consider myself a performer so one can kind of say that I somewhat have connections. I was planning on being one of the performers to surprise him, but I just had too much stuff going on so that was why I tried to find groups for him. They eventually contacted him and before he knew it he had a handful of performers. He later found out through one of the groups performing that they got the message from me. So he eventually found out. But it felt nice to be able to help him even though he is two hours away. He has always been the one who helped me so it felt good to be able to help him with something that I was familiar with.
Anonymously done
So I honestly do not know who this affects, that is why it is towards a stranger. So usually after I use the pop or snack machines I leave a dollar or spare change in the machine for the next person. I got the idea from when I was at the mall. It was during the summer and I went to go get some Lipton Ice Tea and I was getting ready to whip out my money and I noticed that there was a dollar in the machine already. So like a kid, I was totally happy and telling everyone about it. It just made my day because it was a beautiful surprise. So whenever I use the machines at Drake I always try to leave something behind and hopefully the person who uses it after me does the same. Then everyone can be a kid again, even if the means only for a second, and if not a kid at least have a smile. So it is kind of like the movie Pay It Forward. Do something nice for someone else, then that person does something nice to someone else, then that person does something nice to someone else, and yeah, it just goes on and on. A beautiful cycle of kindness is what I call it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
