My ethical beliefs are based on my belief in God and a universal truth. I believe that humans do have a sense of right and wrong, and that sense is the same for all humans. I also believe that each individual has equal value and worth, regardless of their age, gender, religion, or anything else about them. Being raised in a protestant Christian tradition and having just converted to being a Catholic Christian, I would say my religion has had a huge influence on my moral and ethical beliefs. As I have learned more about different philosophers, I realized that I often end up agreeing not in totality, but in certain pieces, with the ideas of several different philosophers. One of the first that comes to mind is Plato. I very much agree with his statements that our world is an imperfect version of a non-physical realm. This non-physical realm is what I believe to be heaven.
As far as ethics go, the philosopher that I would end up disagreeing with most would likely be Neitzsche. His idea that morals hinder creativity and that each person should live in whatever way makes them happy, is something I feel ultimately produces a miserable society. I believe that without following a higher power, a person becomes lost and has no grounding to truly understand who they are. While I understand God to be merciful, I also have grown up with a strong sense of justice. While evil may not be visibly punished on earth, I feel that there is another realm (the idea of heaven and hell) where those who haven't looked for forgiveness of sins, will end up going. I do also feel that there is a "hierarchy of sins," and those are what are called "mortal" or "venial" sins. Mortal sins come from actions such as murder, and venial sins would be something such as stealing a candy bar from the store.
To me, there is a difference between happiness and joy. Happiness is a superficial feeling that can be felt from following one's pleasures and ignoring right and wrong. Joy is something that is transcendent and lasting, and comes from following God's laws, which are the same for all people.
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Morals and Philosophy
Moral values, although affected by society, are also greatly individualistic. I believe wholly that morals should not equate with religion. By that I mean that morals should be followed for the greater society and individual feelings about said actions, rather than what is told is wrong or right by a book or written code. Spirituality is an individual path, not dictated to society as a whole. Ethics should be understood in religion, but not something that restrains and individual from freedom of expression, and the ability to question these rules. At our core we reject morals when survival is threatened. In our most vulnerable moments, when our lives and the lives of those we love are at risk, we will murder even if it is not morally correct in any other circumstance. At a basal level we are all animals, with instincts similar or the same to many 'less civilized' creatures we see. Civilization is an illusion, because what separates us from animals is reasoning and morals. Morals are abandoned when we are at risk and peril of losing our lives, because we still act off of emotions and instincts one way or another. Therefor, morals are nothing but false beliefs, no matter how true and individual lives by them. For example if you or your child's life was threatened, you would kill. If food was scarce, you would lie, cheat, and harm others to insure the survival of ones own self and offspring.
Many of my beliefs I realize are very similar to Nietzsche. With the reaction of religion as a Master/slave mentality where the Master will always be good and the slave always be trying to repay for their own wrongness. I reject organized religion, as Nietzsche has written it off as being ignorant. I also see how Nietzsche values self expression and rejection of morals to further oneself. I also believe that by questioning rules, you find self fulfillment. Wether Nietzsche seems selfish, he is right when he states that we hold no true responsibility to care for others but ourselves first, because in truth there is no karma or divine intervention. These things are only beliefs, and as an individual we have the right to believe whatever we feel is right to us.
Many of my beliefs I realize are very similar to Nietzsche. With the reaction of religion as a Master/slave mentality where the Master will always be good and the slave always be trying to repay for their own wrongness. I reject organized religion, as Nietzsche has written it off as being ignorant. I also see how Nietzsche values self expression and rejection of morals to further oneself. I also believe that by questioning rules, you find self fulfillment. Wether Nietzsche seems selfish, he is right when he states that we hold no true responsibility to care for others but ourselves first, because in truth there is no karma or divine intervention. These things are only beliefs, and as an individual we have the right to believe whatever we feel is right to us.
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
My Own Constitution
There have been two basic trains of thought that have been constant throughout this unit. The first opinion is that morals hold you back, complicate life and shouldn't be based on what others thing. Philosophers such as Nietzsche, Hume, and Camus are seminal to this philosophy. It is true that in a personal sense, you would be more free to do as you please without any regard for those around you, thus progressing your personal growth and wealth of experience, but many will find it difficult to completely detach from the lives of others. Humans are essentially pack animals. We care for one another at our roots. The other opinion has similar problems. This is the opinion that you should abide by the morals set by your community and society and always do what is best for the whole: utilitarianism. This idea is stressed by the extensive works of Bentham. While our personal growth would not burgeon as strongly as it would in the former opinion, a group mentality serves to keep humans focused and on task. If we were to completely buy in to a personal philosophy that stresses disregard for others, we would be so caught up in what we wanted to do that nothing would ever get done to benefit society as a whole.
I have to say that my personal believes are a mix. Perhaps 60-40 in favor of the former. It is very important to develop at a personal level and strive to achieve what is good for you. This thinking paired with a curiosity that is not easily quenched leads me to favor a philosophy that promotes self-growth without restriction outside of yourself. I do believe that acting for the good of the group is important, though, because there would not be as much advancement in the world otherwise. The lifestyle that I am choosing to lead after high school, one of traveling around the world, supports this type of selfish thinking, making it easier to functionally apply it to my life.
Monday, May 4, 2015
Commandments vs Precepts
Both the Ten Commandments and the Buddhist precepts deal with how members of the religion should lead there lives. They both expect followers to refrain from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, and lying. These are all things that are necessary in being a good person. Other similarities arise in the assumptions made by both. They both assume that the reader is a follower of their religion, and that these rules are absolutely correct.
It is much easier to detect the differences in the two. The precepts are more of a moral guideline, not a strict set of rules like the commandments. Buddhism has no god or deity that could take out revenge on the members that do not adhere to the rules. The precepts are just a list of things that allow you to be a good person in this world, a path of wellness. The Ten Commandments have a few commandments that deal with worshiping God, where Buddhism has no god.
It is much easier to detect the differences in the two. The precepts are more of a moral guideline, not a strict set of rules like the commandments. Buddhism has no god or deity that could take out revenge on the members that do not adhere to the rules. The precepts are just a list of things that allow you to be a good person in this world, a path of wellness. The Ten Commandments have a few commandments that deal with worshiping God, where Buddhism has no god.
John Stuart Mill: The Efficiency of Utilitarianism
I decided to go more in depth with my investigation of John Stuart Mill, since he was the philosopher that I most closely identify with. His major impact on philosophy came as he aided with the early evolution of utilitarianism in the mid 1800s. Mill was a child prodigy, fluent in Greek by age three, Latin by age five, and was an accomplished economist by 16. He was educated by his father with the aid of his friend Jeremy Bentham. Through them, Mill developed a background in utilitarianism - and began thinking like a philosopher.
Utilitarianism is the theory of ethics that describes the most moral decision as the one that maximizes utility. Mill strongly fostered this belief, and even went on later in his adult life to write System of Logic (1843), which described the way one should go about deduction in the most efficient manner. It also highlighted the "proper" methods of science and their applicability to various social and political situations. This book ignited worldwide interest in utilitarianism, and a great reason why is it did an exceptional job of allowing the general (unphilosophic) public to understand Mill's principals.
After digging deeper into Mill's philosophy, I do tend to agree with the majority of his main points. I feel that the most responsible way to approach an issue is to maximize the amount of utility (usefulness) it can provide. I also believe that, in most cases, the "ends justify the means"; this is a popular opinion of utilitarian philosophers, as utilitarianism is a branch of consequentialism.
I will admit, when we took the test in class, I was a bit dubious about how accurate it could really be. But after really looking into Mill's main ideas and philosophies, I am pleasantly surprised at how well they represent my own opinions. I was disappointed that Mill was not selected by the class to research, but he was somewhat represented by Bentham, so at least that utilitarian mind set is still present.
Utilitarianism is the theory of ethics that describes the most moral decision as the one that maximizes utility. Mill strongly fostered this belief, and even went on later in his adult life to write System of Logic (1843), which described the way one should go about deduction in the most efficient manner. It also highlighted the "proper" methods of science and their applicability to various social and political situations. This book ignited worldwide interest in utilitarianism, and a great reason why is it did an exceptional job of allowing the general (unphilosophic) public to understand Mill's principals.
After digging deeper into Mill's philosophy, I do tend to agree with the majority of his main points. I feel that the most responsible way to approach an issue is to maximize the amount of utility (usefulness) it can provide. I also believe that, in most cases, the "ends justify the means"; this is a popular opinion of utilitarian philosophers, as utilitarianism is a branch of consequentialism.
I will admit, when we took the test in class, I was a bit dubious about how accurate it could really be. But after really looking into Mill's main ideas and philosophies, I am pleasantly surprised at how well they represent my own opinions. I was disappointed that Mill was not selected by the class to research, but he was somewhat represented by Bentham, so at least that utilitarian mind set is still present.
Sunday, May 3, 2015
Evolving Ethics
Throughout our lives we develop a set of ethical and moral beliefs. The world we live in, our relationships, family life, and religious backgrounds all play a role in determining our thoughts. Often one of these plays a much larger role than the others. For example, for people raised in a very strict religious household their religious background plays a huge role in their ethical and moral beliefs.
The philosopher match quiz lined up my answers with the beliefs of John Stuart Mill. Mill writes about determining the moral worth of actions by their consequences. This idea of the "ends justifying the means". He also wrote about the "general happiness", an idea of decided what is best based on the action that will cause the greatest happiness for the masses. I can see where both of these ideas are similar to mine. However they are not exactly the same. The idea of attaching a value to an action based on the consequence and weighing options that way is something that I believe. But the idea of the consequences being the only thing that matters is not accurate. I believe in the value of the reasoning behind the actions. Its not just enough to do the right thing, you need to do it for the right reasons. I can except the concept of the general happiness much more easily. The idea of doing things for the 'greater good' or to benefit the greatest number of people aligns with my priorities.
In class as we shared the different philosophers we studied I could pick out different idea from most that I agreed with. Despite disagreeing with most of Bentham's ideas I agree with the idea that good laws help the greatest number of people as well as the importance of government intervention in order to help the common good. Kant's idea of acting so that your actions could be moral law is appealing and the desire to connect science and philosophy and religion but I don't fully agree with the idea that knowledge is based on experience. This went on for each philosopher. Each one would have a few things I agreed with and a few I didn't. Even Rousseau, the last match has some concepts I agree with such as the social contract.
As we looked at our own ethical and moral beliefs in class and which philosophers we most closely identify with I find the origins of our beliefs even more interesting than the beliefs themselves. I could recognize some of the beliefs of the philosophers I was matched with with the ideas of my parents or close friends. Your experiences effect your beliefs even if you don't realize it right away. For example I firmly believe in the importance of voting. This believe could come from the fact that my parents always made a big deal about voting and dragged us along to the polls on election day, the fact that my family votes on most things from restaurants to board games, or that we go to a church with a principle "The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregation and in society at large".
Despite the fact that my own ethical and moral beliefs incorporate ideas from a while range of philosophers, the quiz did a pretty good job of matching me with those I had the strongest connections to. Utilitarianism does reflect my own ideals about doing good for the greater good and although I don't believe the consequences are the only mean of judging an action I definitely believe in the idea that the consequences play a huge role in determining the moral value. Also Mills idea of pleasure vs pain, is another aspect of his beliefs I can relate too.
Its hard to say exactly what your ethical and moral beliefs are as they are complex. The quiz was interesting as it made an attempt to match us with our philosophers but even the 100% match wasn't perfect. Our beliefs are a collection of ideas picked up from various experiences and as we continue to live they continue to change.
The philosopher match quiz lined up my answers with the beliefs of John Stuart Mill. Mill writes about determining the moral worth of actions by their consequences. This idea of the "ends justifying the means". He also wrote about the "general happiness", an idea of decided what is best based on the action that will cause the greatest happiness for the masses. I can see where both of these ideas are similar to mine. However they are not exactly the same. The idea of attaching a value to an action based on the consequence and weighing options that way is something that I believe. But the idea of the consequences being the only thing that matters is not accurate. I believe in the value of the reasoning behind the actions. Its not just enough to do the right thing, you need to do it for the right reasons. I can except the concept of the general happiness much more easily. The idea of doing things for the 'greater good' or to benefit the greatest number of people aligns with my priorities.
In class as we shared the different philosophers we studied I could pick out different idea from most that I agreed with. Despite disagreeing with most of Bentham's ideas I agree with the idea that good laws help the greatest number of people as well as the importance of government intervention in order to help the common good. Kant's idea of acting so that your actions could be moral law is appealing and the desire to connect science and philosophy and religion but I don't fully agree with the idea that knowledge is based on experience. This went on for each philosopher. Each one would have a few things I agreed with and a few I didn't. Even Rousseau, the last match has some concepts I agree with such as the social contract.
As we looked at our own ethical and moral beliefs in class and which philosophers we most closely identify with I find the origins of our beliefs even more interesting than the beliefs themselves. I could recognize some of the beliefs of the philosophers I was matched with with the ideas of my parents or close friends. Your experiences effect your beliefs even if you don't realize it right away. For example I firmly believe in the importance of voting. This believe could come from the fact that my parents always made a big deal about voting and dragged us along to the polls on election day, the fact that my family votes on most things from restaurants to board games, or that we go to a church with a principle "The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregation and in society at large".
Despite the fact that my own ethical and moral beliefs incorporate ideas from a while range of philosophers, the quiz did a pretty good job of matching me with those I had the strongest connections to. Utilitarianism does reflect my own ideals about doing good for the greater good and although I don't believe the consequences are the only mean of judging an action I definitely believe in the idea that the consequences play a huge role in determining the moral value. Also Mills idea of pleasure vs pain, is another aspect of his beliefs I can relate too.
Its hard to say exactly what your ethical and moral beliefs are as they are complex. The quiz was interesting as it made an attempt to match us with our philosophers but even the 100% match wasn't perfect. Our beliefs are a collection of ideas picked up from various experiences and as we continue to live they continue to change.
How to live with myself
Morality, from my point of view, both renders at least one purpose and requires at least one motivator to fulfill moral obligations. A primary motivator for me is fear of failure. Failure to fulfill a moral obligation is unacceptable, therefore I strive to avoid such a fate. The obligations in question are similar to that of Bentham's moral obligations, being those that give the greatest number of people the most happiness. However, I do not desire to serve the largest number of people, but to provide the greatest service to those I hold in high esteem. Other individuals follow a hierarchy of importance, and my drive to provide those people with service follows that hierarchy. It stands to reason that I want to help people who matter the most to me because doing so feels right, and invokes a feeling of satisfaction.
The punishment/reward system described by Hume seems quite applicable, with acts I deem or have to raised to deem negative invoking unpleasant feelings or discomfort, and acts I consider appropriate invoking pleasant feelings. The most pleasant feelings I experience on a regular basis, in regards to morality, arise from when I am useful. Providing the best service to those who deserve that service allows me to feel positively about my actions. Acting opposingly to those who deserve service invokes the most negative of feelings, and is not the result of mere lack of usefulness, but rather becoming an obstacle. Nietzsche's idea concerning primarily providing for the self is abhorrent to me, as it runs contradictory to my belief of proving aid to those who most deserve it, and choosing to aid myself before others is akin to neglect, a reaction born of ignorance, and thus a failure.
Puzzlingly, I do not find near the same level of fault in others for such thing as I do myself, as holding myself to higher than reasonable standards yields results, while holding others to the same standards both yields disappointment and breeds unjust judgments. An essential part of my moral code focuses heavily on what is fair. If something is not just or balanced, then it must be made so. How balance is sought is a subjective matter, and depends on emotional state, distressed emotions provoking a "fight fire with fire" response and more easing emotions provoking a soothing response, akin to Nodding's "one-caring" character.
I also hold myself responsible for as many of my actions as I might consider possible. I do not often attempt to explain away failures on my part as the result of some other's actions or failings, though I have, on occasion, delegated credit to others despite having held more responsibility than said other. I do not consider myself guided, as being guided leaves the possibility for being led astray. I also do not consider my actions to be at the whim of forces higher than that of my own consciousness or a direct authority, as doing so again leaves a possibility to delegating blame to an inexplicable factor. While I do not deny such powers exist and do, in fact, consider there to be a very real possibility of such powers, I act on my own authority (or at least believe I do).
The punishment/reward system described by Hume seems quite applicable, with acts I deem or have to raised to deem negative invoking unpleasant feelings or discomfort, and acts I consider appropriate invoking pleasant feelings. The most pleasant feelings I experience on a regular basis, in regards to morality, arise from when I am useful. Providing the best service to those who deserve that service allows me to feel positively about my actions. Acting opposingly to those who deserve service invokes the most negative of feelings, and is not the result of mere lack of usefulness, but rather becoming an obstacle. Nietzsche's idea concerning primarily providing for the self is abhorrent to me, as it runs contradictory to my belief of proving aid to those who most deserve it, and choosing to aid myself before others is akin to neglect, a reaction born of ignorance, and thus a failure.
Puzzlingly, I do not find near the same level of fault in others for such thing as I do myself, as holding myself to higher than reasonable standards yields results, while holding others to the same standards both yields disappointment and breeds unjust judgments. An essential part of my moral code focuses heavily on what is fair. If something is not just or balanced, then it must be made so. How balance is sought is a subjective matter, and depends on emotional state, distressed emotions provoking a "fight fire with fire" response and more easing emotions provoking a soothing response, akin to Nodding's "one-caring" character.
I also hold myself responsible for as many of my actions as I might consider possible. I do not often attempt to explain away failures on my part as the result of some other's actions or failings, though I have, on occasion, delegated credit to others despite having held more responsibility than said other. I do not consider myself guided, as being guided leaves the possibility for being led astray. I also do not consider my actions to be at the whim of forces higher than that of my own consciousness or a direct authority, as doing so again leaves a possibility to delegating blame to an inexplicable factor. While I do not deny such powers exist and do, in fact, consider there to be a very real possibility of such powers, I act on my own authority (or at least believe I do).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)