Don’t judge!

“Today we condemn ethnocentrism, the uncritical belief in the inherent superiority of one’s own culture, as a variety Of prejudice tantamount to racism and sexism. What is right in one culture may be wrong in another, what is good east of the river may be bad west of the same river, what is a virtue in one nation may be seen as a vice in another, so it behooves us not to judge others but to be tolerant of diversity.”

Pojman, Louis. “Who’s to Judge?” 11.24.13

In today’s society, we find ethnocentrism, the idea that our individual culture, to be comparable to racism and sexism. Practices or beliefs that one culture has may be condemned in another. We must not judge others because of difference and diversity, but accept it.

This paragraph was really short but it encompasses one of my biggest beliefs; that people should mind their own business and not be bothered by the cultural differences among society. No one should be able to tell you that the way you live your life is wrong simply because it is YOUR own life. It shouldn’t be up to others to decide your own beliefs for you.

As a universal value, members of one culture have no right to evaluate the moral values of another culture.‘ Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not.

I think that they have the right to evaluate it all they want, but keep it to themselves. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but that doesn’t mean it has to be heard. No one religion, lifestyle, etc. should be imposed on another unwillingly. Like I said above, everyone should be able to choose their own cultural beliefs without people shoving information down their throats.

 Is the argument against subjectivism convincing to you?

I think it is a very convincing argument. The part that really hit home for me was when Pojman said that “Adolf Hitler is as moral as Gandhi so long as each believes he is living by his chosen principles” because clearly Hitler was a horrible person who committed many heinous acts while Gandhi was a very peaceful person. Although someone may THINK they are acting morally, that doesn’t always mean that they are. Maybe Hitler did think the moral thing to do was wipe the population clean of Jews, gays, African Americans and the disabled but anyone in the right mind knows that his actions were morally incorrect. The question is how much power do we have in deciding the morality of an act? Helping an old lady across the street is a clear morally righteous act…on the other hand taking a family member off life support is debatable. Where is the line drawn that differentiates the moral and immoral?

Is the argument against conventional relativism strong and convincing?

I think this argument was convincing as well. He said that it is difficult to define the cultures of different societies. The members of the society can have different views than the entire society in general. This is evident is any society with gay rights, abortion rights, etc.

Who are ‘we’ to make moral judgments?  Is it even possible? Under what circumstances?  Explain your thinking and refer to the reading.

Like I said before, everyone has the right to an opinion and to make moral judgements because what is moral according to one belief may be immoral to another. However this doesn’t mean that the individual in disagreement can impose their own beliefs on another. It is 100% possible to make a moral judgement but, in my opinion, the imposition of ones belief on another in immoral in itself. Unless the belief directly affects your life, it is not of your concern You are free to have the belief that gay marriage shouldn’t be legal but you have ABSOLUTELY no right to tell someone they cannot marry a member of the opposite sex.

 

Relationships

This is a picture of me and my boyfriend. Michael is without a doubt my best friend. He is loving, caring and compassionate towards me, even when its hard to do.

“When our primary relationships lack reciprocity of valuing, we risk losing self-esteem. Valuing others independently of their utility is at the core of both respect and love, and being so valued is important to self-esteem. In respect we appreciate others as like ourselves in certain fundamental ways; in love we also cherish their particularities. Identifying and valuing ourselves in terms of relationships to others who likewise identify and value themselves in relation to us can leave us with enriched self-esteem.”

Card, Claudia. Feminist Ethics. Lawrence, Kan.: University of Kansas, 1991. Print.

When two people do not reciprocate the value of each other in a relationship, they could lose self-esteem. To respect and love someone, you must find worth in one apart from their basic function. To respect, recognize others value as we do ourselves and in love we value their differences. By allowing others to realize their value in a relationship, just as they do yours, we can gain self esteem.

I selected this paragraph because it makes complete sense. If two people in any sort of relationship, whether it be a boyfriend and girlfriend, brother and sister, or a mother a daughter, realize their value and contribution towards it, in turn their self-value will increase.

 Justice involves treating one fairly and equally through reasoning while care involves the health, safety and happiness of the individual. These two ethics work together in that to ensure justice, one must realize what the best interests of the individual are in order to treat them fairly. If more people believed and acted upon these ethics, there would be many more successful relationships and moral decisions based off of how others feel.

Each friendship is unique and separate from one another, so it’s difficult to list specific qualities. Trust is a very big factor in friendship, as well as love, compassion and understanding of one another. Depending on the friendship, as long as both justice and care are taken into consideration, a solid and reliable friendship will follow.

Empathy, in my own opinion, is being understanding and compassionate towards another despite the circumstances. For example, one of my close friends is suffering from depression and addiction problems. Before these issues arose, she had a free ride at a prestigious college and there were so many opportunities available to her. Although I cannot relate completely, I still offer understanding and compassion towards her despite the poor choices she has made. It also makes me appreciate my own situation, that I am mentally healthy and have the opportunity to attend Worcester State and obtain a degree, something my friend threw away.

The more personal caring, the better! If we have a greater understanding of ones interests and their own well-being, in turn, we can treat them even more equally. Caring about one another is what keeps a relationship strong and successful. Caring for another allows us to emotionally connect which makes us more apt to concerned with larger ethical issues. For example, my senior year of high school, a fire destroyed one of my classmates home. The entire town got together and helped them with any costs that weren’t covered by insurance. Even those who weren’t close with the family or didn’t know them at all helped out. It illustrates personal caring from an entire town towards a single family who was struck with tragedy.

I chose “Stand By Me” by Ben E. King. This illustrates friendship in that no matter what happens, real friends should be there for each other no matter what. As long as you have a friend that stands by you and supports you in everything you do, you can accomplish almost anything!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbg7YoXiKn0

Animal Rights

Above is a picture of an African Elephant. I chose this picture because we, as a species, are responsible for their endangerment. These elephants are killed solely for their tusks, which are very valuable. Their tusks aren’t essential for our survival therefore killing them for their tusks alone is not justified.

There are other differences between humans and animals that cause other complications. Normal adult human beings have mental capacities which will, in certain circumstances, lead them to suffer more than animals would in the same circumstances. If, for instance, we decided to perform extremely painful or lethal scientific experiments on normal adult humans, kidnapped at random from public parks for this purpose, every adult who entered a park would become fearful that he or she would be kidnapped. The resultant terror would be a form of suffering additional to the pain of the experiment. The same experiments performed on nonhuman animals would cause less suffering since the animals would not have the anticipatory dread of being kidnapped and experimented upon. This does not mean, of course, that it would be right to perform the experiment on animals, but only that there is a reason, which is not speciesist, for preferring to use animals rather than normal adult humans, if the experiment is to be done at all. It should be noted, however that this same argument gives us a reason for preferring to use human infants – orphans perhaps – or retarded human beings for experiments, rather than adults, since infants and retarded human beings would also have no idea of what was going to happen to them.

Humans have the capacity to suffer more than animals would, although animals do suffer. Humans have the ability to anticipate an unwelcome situation. We are aware of what is going to happen to us or at least worry that something dangerous or life threatening may occur. This anticipation is suffering in itself and therefore, humans would experience more suffering if a lethal experiment were to be performed. Animals cannot anticipate and therefore, are unable to suffer like humans would. This only justifies why animals are used in experiments and not humans, but does not justify the morality of it. This argument could also be applied to the use of the mentally retarded or babies for testing. Like animals, they are unable to anticipate their fate and technically speaking, would qualify to be used for experiments.

I chose this paragraph because it brought up a good point. If we use animals for their lack of awareness and ability to anticipate, then why can‘t we use “less-abled” human beings with the mental capacity comparable to animals? It just puts the whole idea into perspective  and made me think about how we should treat nonhuman beings. Although they aren’t of our species, why should they be treated any differently,

Speciesism is the conception that humans are more worthy than animals. I‘m so torn on this idea because on one hand, I do feel we are a higher form of life than animals, We have higher mental capacities such as reasoning, higher intelligence, awareness, general interests, etc. In almost any situation, one would choose the life of a human over an animal. But on the other hand, humans and animals are so much alike. Humans even have close relation with animals, so how can we say we are superior when we share many general traits with them? It has been proven that many animals encompass intelligence and other human-like capacities, its just that they cannot convey them in the ways we do. Ultimately, I would say that I agree with the idea of speciesism and that humans are superior to animals. However, I don‘t think that this superiority should allow humans to get away with the torture of animals.

Every human being has their own opinions, ideas, interests, wants and wishes. All of these things are independent of ones race, ethnicity, religion, skin color or gender. No matter ones size, shape or color, each human should have at least a chance to fulfill these. Of course, not all humans are equal but they should have the right to be equal. Just like animals, there is always a “top dog” which means that others must be lesser than them. Singer says that it is moral for humans to be equal and I would have to agree with this idea. For the most part, every human feels pain, happiness, sadness, etc. in the same way, giving us all one common attribute. Because of this, every human should have the right to equality.

Animals are a lesser species than humans and need help in protecting themselves. I think as the superior species, having awareness and the ability to prevent the harm of an animal, it is our duty to do so. On the other hand, animals are a main source of food for animals and humans rely on they for survival. Animals rely on other animals for food just as we rely on them. They aren’t aware of their fate so as long as the animals that are being raised to be slaughtered are in decent living conditions, I don’t see a problem with it. Unfortunately, so many animals who are to be slaughtered are in very poor living conditions which ultimately causes them stress and suffering. In regards to the issues of poverty, if limitations were put on production of produce, the problem would become much larger. So many people rely on animals as a main source of food and if the output of meat was lessened, many would suffer.

Pleasures According to Mill

Despite the hard facts and visual pictures of the hazardous and fatal effects of smoking, cigarette companies continue to produce their product and people continue to smoke. Companies are more concerned with their profits rather than the pleasure of their clientele. Although smoking may bring one momentary pleasure, it will bring about lung cancer long term, which is most definitely not pleasurable. 

What means are there of determining which is the acutest of two pains, or the intensest of two pleasurable sensations, except the general suffrage of those who are familiar with both? Neither pains nor pleasures are homogeneous, and pain is always heterogeneous with pleasure. What is there to decide whether a particular pleasure is worth purchasing at the cost of a particular pain, except the feelings and judgment of the experienced? When, therefore, those feelings and judgment declare the pleasures derived from the higher faculties to be preferable in kind, apart from the question of intensity, to those of which the animal nature, disjoined from the higher faculties, is susceptible, they are entitled on this subject to the same regard.

In this excerpt, Mill is trying to explain how no two people will find commonality in certain pleasures and pains. Pain and pleasures are never equal, and pain is always contrary to pleasure. Pain and pleasure are completely dependent on the person. It is irrational to decide for another person which pain will be the most severe or which pleasure will be the most gratifying. Only reasoning and emotion based off of their experiences can determine their interpretation of pain or pleasure and the extent to which it affects them,

I chose this excerpt because it explains happiness from pleasure and unhappiness from pain in the terms that I personally define it. I agree with Mill in that past experiences determine ones classification of pain and pleasure and defining the two is a personal choice.

A higher quality pleasure is a pleasure that one would chose even if it came with some sort of pain and/or if there were other choices that offered more pleasure. Basically, it is sacrificing a more tempting form a pleasure for a more beneficial one. I agree with Mill that a higher pleasure has more value because, from what I understand, one is sacrificing their chance for a more pleasurable experience for one that is more useful either for themselves or for others. Pleasure, something we all wish to attain, is not a constant or permanent feeling. Like Mill said it only lasts for moments and in certain cases, for hours or even days but always ends at some point. A higher pleasure is chosen if a long term benefit is recognized even if that means sacrificing a bit of personal pleasure. When I purchase new clothes, it is a momentary pleasure and will not bring me pleasure long term. When I study, it will give me as much pleasure and may even be a bit painful. Despite lack of pleasure in the moment, when I am handed my diploma at graduation and am able to find a job, it will bring me long term pleasure. Mill’s idea of morality is that if you perform a moral action and it has selfish reasoning, it is not considered any less moral. This idea may exclude or discriminate against those who believe that selfish reasoning is immoral and that others must be put before oneself.

I don’t think that Utilitarianism requires much of someone at all. It only requires them to perform actions that will bring the highest form of happiness. The only difficult part is deciding which actions will bring momentary happiness and which will bring lasting happiness.

The Kantian Way of Life

 

This is a common saying that most have probably heard but even more don’t follow. There are often easier ways to solve a problem or decisions that may require less effort but that doesn’t mean they are the “right” ones.

 

“The second proposition is: That an action done from duty derives its moral worth, not from the purpose which is to be attained by it, but from the maxim by which it is determined, and therefore does not depend on the realization of the object of the action, but merely on the principle of volition by which the action has taken place, without regard to any object of desire. It is clear from what precedes that the purposes which we may have in view in our actions, or their effects regarded as ends and springs of the will, cannot give to actions any unconditional or moral worth. In what, then, can their worth lie, if it is not to consist in the will and in reference to its expected effect? It cannot lie anywhere but in the principle of the will without regard to the ends which can be attained by the action. For the will stands between its a priori principle, which is formal, and its a posteriori spring, which is material, as between two roads, and as it must be determined by something, it that it must be determined by the formal principle of volition when an action is done from duty, in which case every material principle has been withdrawn from it.”

In this excerpt of Kant’s Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, he is basically stating that actions are judged not by the result but rather by the maxim that caused that action. From what I understand, a maxim is the basis from which an action, whatever it may be, originated from. The individual performing the action has no desire for the object or outcome that may be presented and acts only because it is considered their “duty”.

I chose this excerpt because it didn’t understand it fully but I honestly could have picked any paragraph for that reason. Kant was a bit difficult to fully comprehend and it took a few times for me to realize what he was saying. I chose this paragraph specifically because I was confused how someone could act without striving for the end result. Isn’t that the basis for any action that we make? A student studies for the sake of getting a good grade on their test. A doctor performs open heart surgery on a patient in hopes that it will save their life. A professor teaches with the goal that their students will ultimately be more knowledgeable than before. I think every action is motivated towards the desire of something, even if it isn’t in the individuals best interest.

A hypothetical imperative is a principle that tells one what they must do to achieve a certain goal. For example, if one wishes to be a nurse, then they should go to nursing school. This rule only applies in certain circumstances. A categorical imperative applies to all circumstances. It says that ones actions should not be based off of their wants or wishes in the end but rather off of moral reasoning. From what I understand, this imperative means that one should disregard their own desires and rather act for the sake of the action it self. This imperative reminds me of the “golden rule” that one should treat others how they would wish to be treated. The distinguishing factor between the two is that a categorical imperative is a universal principle that is more broad in that it is how everyone would wish for everyone else to treat others, if that makes any sense! I think the categorical imperative is almost always at least taken into consideration when making any decision. For example, down the road from my house, there is a stop light at an intersection that takes forever to change, even when there are no cars coming the other way. If I wanted to, I could run the red light because it wouldn’t affect anyone else but the moral issue is that if I think I can run a red light, then everyone else might, and probably do, have the same idea. Then we would have many drivers on the road making it acceptable in their own minds to run a red light. Although that is a very simple example, it shows how important it is for the categorical imperative to be applied when making any decision, no matter how insignificant it might seem. It allows us to see how our actions would have an affect, not immediately or directly but rather on a larger scale.

According to Kant, autonomy is a the idea that all humans have the ability to make their own, rational decisions. Dignity means that one would not agree with an principle that they themselves would not execute. To be intrinsic is to act without any prior wishes or wants and consider the categorical imperative. Kant’s understandings of these words are basically the same as my own in that one has the right to make their own rational decisions based on the circumstances. However, we must be dignified when making these decisions and they must be decisions that take into account the moral aspect of the situation. Intrinsically, we must decide which decision is both morally right as well as a rational choice as well.

Criticism of the fact that Kant disregards emotion is completely justified because emotions play such a big role in decision making. We must take into account how we feel and how a decision will ultimately affect others and how they will feel. To get a better understanding of this, I read a blog regarding Kantian Ethics and Rationalization. The blog gave an example of how Kant solely looked at any situation with a rational attitude; Kant firmly disagreed with homosexuality as well as intercourse between two individuals of the same gender. His reasoning as to why it was immoral was that two individuals of the same sex cannot procreate and therefore cannot “fulfill their full potential” as humans. He clearly did not take into account the love that two men or women may share for each other. He also didn’t consider the fact that “other humans may have other potentials” such as adopting a child without parents.

Harvey, David. “Re: David Harvey Philosophy: Kantian Ethics & Rationalisation.” Web log comment. David Harvey Philosophy: Kantian Ethics & Rationalisation. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2013.

Personal Happiness

” It is natural, then, that we call neither ox nor horse nor any other of the animals happy; for none of them is capable of sharing in such activity. For this reason also a boy is not happy; for he is not yet capable of such acts, owing to his age; and boys who are called happy are being congratulated by reason of the hopes we have for them. For there is required, as we said, not only complete virtue but also a complete life, since many changes occur in life, and all manner of chances, and the most prosperous may fall into great misfortunes in old age, as is told of Priam in the Trojan Cycle; and one who has experienced such chances and has ended wretchedly no one calls happy.”

• Animals are not capable of happiness because they cannot think morally or reasonably like humans can. Similarly, young children cannot express true happiness because they are not morally or reasonably mature enough. Those who call children happy merely have hopes they will truly be happy in the future. A full life is necessary where virtuous activity  can be excersized and through that, happiness can be attained.

I chose this part of Aristotle’s work because I found it interesting that he feels that animals and children cannot be happy. I partially agree in that animals are not able to attain happiness because they don’t encompass the same moral and reasoning skills that we have as humans. Children, on the other hand, are still human. I think they can attain happiness, just not at the same level an adult is able to. Yes, they haven’t lived long enough to be as mature but they still have their own form of happiness that they strive for.

VIEWS ON HAPPINESS:

I agree with Aristotle in that all people strive for happiness because all goals that people create for themselves will cause happiness if and when attained. To use my own personal goal as an example, I am working towards a degree in nursing. I chose nursing because I want to help others in need; I want to feel like I’m making a difference.  I also love learning about the human body and it fascinates me to learn how we work. Of course, I want to be financially successful and nursing will always be a field where jobs are available. All these factors that drive me in becoming a nurse will ultimately make me happy in the end.

Notions of happiness definitely vary according to gender, class, race or culture. While a female may consider happiness as being married, owning a house and having children, a male may see happiness as providing enough money for his family to put food on the table and pay all the bills. Of course, that’s a bit stereotypical and usually isn’t how it pans out among every relationship but I think men and women each have a generic idea of how their life should. Class plays a big role in what happiness is considered because while a more wealthy person may see happiness as a large home (or homes), fancy cars and luxurious apparel, a lower-class individual may view happiness more simply as having paying job, clean clothes to wear, food on the table and a roof over their head. Individuals of certain races or cultures may see happiness very different than others, especially if they are coming from foreign countries. To live in a developed country such as the U.S. that provides for those who have low-paying jobs or are unable to work allow them to live well with food, clothing, housing and education that may not have been readily available in their own country.

Maya Angelo couldn’t have put it better when she said “if you don’t like something, change it. If you can’t change it, change your attitude. Don’t complain.” To me, happiness means being content with the life that you’re living. I strongly believe in the notion that if you’re not happy with how your life is going, you can and are the only one who has the power to change it. If you wake up every morning dreading the day, find the problem and make a change!  Attitude plays a big part in your happiness. If you make yourself aware of the negativity that surrounds you, it will only make you focus more heavily on negative aspects of your life. To be happy, you must approach each situation with a positive attitude.

My concept of happiness is a bit more broad than Aristotle’s, if that’s even possible. I agree with his idea that concrete rules cannot be created to become happy but his idea of happiness is still a bit too structured and limited. Happiness is whatever you want it to be.

Aristotle’s idea of happiness focuses too much on the structure of what it is and who can fully attain it although his works get the reader thinking about how they define their own happiness. Reading the Nicomachean Ethics allows the read to consider their own morals and reasoning and how it influences their happiness.

Citations:

 Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Book 1 & 2. Print.

“Tumblr.” Happiness Quotes. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Sept. 2013. <http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/happiness-quotes&gt;.