Blog Number Six

In blog number five I was asked to consider a question relating to my topic and then stake my claim. The question was why are we moral? A lot of my response had to due with the fact that I think we act morally because it’s the way we were raised. I also brought up the Social Contract Theory. The social Contract Theory “implies that the people give up some rights to a government and/or other authority in order to receive or jointly preserve social order” (Wikipedia). James Rachels states that living morally is in our self-interests. That’s the statement that I will focus a lot on in my final paper.

In regards to the Social Contract Theory, a counter argument might question why it’s important for us to try and maintain a cooperative society; if this requires me to act morally, how will this benefit me as an individual? In response to that, I would say that living mutually and accepting the idea of a cooperative society would be benefit us in the sense that we’d get reassurance that the cohesiveness of the structure of society will be maintained. More or less, it means that we can live comfortably, at least somewhat. By maintaining this cooperative society we are agreeing to follow a standard of moral codes.

Blog Number Five

I think it’s important to discuss why we’re moral (at least most of the time), rather than just why should we be moral. Morals, as defined by wikipedia, are a system of principles and values. Like I stated in my first blog I believe that not everyone is moral; to be moral is a choice. I would say that a majority of people would agree they are moral because it is the right thing to do. As cliché as that sounds, I do agree with them. I think generally speaking that a lot of people act morally because that’s the way they were raised. There is also the idea that religion is influential to people’s ideas of morals. I did not however grow up in a religious family. I do share some ideals of moral behavior that are represented in the Bible, but I also have several gripes (which I will discuss in the final paper). What I’m trying to get at is that I don’t think being religious is a direct correlation with being moral and that there is some contradiction in that thought process. I wouldn't ever agree that you have to be religious to share some underlying morals as someone who is religious. With that being say I’ve taken a much more of a cognitive approach, which is through logic and experience, in determining what I believe to be moral, and why it is that we act accordingly. I’ve read an article several times online that offers a little bit more to this question of “Why are we moral”. The author states that “other philosophers would argue that being moral is logically required on penalty of being irrational”(Burns). It’s an interesting point to bring up because it supports the idea that being moral is synonymous with being rational. I’d like to think most of the time this is the case, but there are instances where I’d disagree. There are times where I would argue that as individuals, we are acting rational, but perception of moral would deem them to be immoral. I think that we are moral because we believe it’s the right thing to do: there are situations that we might consider something right, but others don’t. Again, this is true to the idea that we are moral because reasoning and logic tells us the decisions we make are moral. It’s a question that is very tough to answer, but it’s an important one to address.

Burns, Stuart. "Why be Moral?." 10 Jun 2008 http://www3.sympatico.ca/saburns/pg0412.htm.

*This post was edited 6/10/2008 @ 8:33pm est for citation purposes only.

Blog Number Four

In this blog I have been asked to define important terms and concepts related to the chapter I'm writing my final paper on: Why Should we be Moral?

These are referred to as “Conceptual Clarifications”. Some of the terms are fairly basic, but I believe to be essential to discuss in the final paper.

1. Moral(s)-of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical (Dictionary.com).


2. Ethics- also called moral philosophy involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. Ethics is then broken down into three general categories: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics (Fieser).


3. Utilitarianism- Utilitarians hold that one principle sums up all of our moral duties. The ultimate moral principle is that we should always do whatever will produce the greatest possible benefit for everyone who will be affected by our action. The “principle of utility” is a combination of three ideas:

1)We should be guided by the consequences of our actions-we should do whatever
can be reasonably expected to have the best outcome.

2)We should give the greatest possible weight to the benefits and harms that
would be caused.

3)The principle of utility assumes that each individual’s welfare is equally
as important as anyone else’s. (Rachels)


4. Benevolence-which is defined as “the expression of kindness and altruism.”

Benevolence is "a commitment to achieving the values derivable from life with other people in society, by treating them as potential trading partners, recognizing their humanity, independence and individuality, and the harmony between their interests and ours." as defined by David Kelley in his book Unrugged Individualism (Wikipedia).

5. The Social Contract- The social contracted was declared philosophically by John Locke in the 1960’s. Locke states that:

“Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of his estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent, which is done by agreeing with other men, to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living, one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it.... When any number of men has so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic”.

”After that, majority rule prevails”.

”Locke's theory of self-government and the social contract became the philosophical basis that moved Western civilization from authority to agreement as the basis of the civic duty to obey society's rules. It constituted one of the greatest paradigm shifts in history” (Grant).

Works Cited


Dictionary.com Moral. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral

Fieser, James. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ethics, 2006 http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/ethics.htm

Grant, Robert. "The social contract and human rights." Humanist. 01 Jan 2000 eLibrary. Proquest CSA. FLORIDA CMTY CLG-JACKSONVILLE. 03 Jun 2008 .

Rachels, James, Problems from Philosophy. Pg. 179-180. 1st Ed. New York: McGraw- Hill, 2005.

Wikipedia. Benevolence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolence

This works cited is rough. I'm sure there are several things missing, but these sources should be easy to find with the information provided.

Blog Number 3

First off, I know this video is kind of long, so I apologize ahead of time. I also want to say that I think morality is a tough issue to discuss. I say this because there really are so many ideals of what’s right and what’s wrong. In my first blog post I was left with the question of whether morality is objective or relative.

Unfortunately, this video doesn’t offer interpretation of both sides of the question. The main concept however is very clear. The author states that morality is for the people that want to behave morally. He states that a relativist approach is that morals are for us to tell ourselves what to do, where as what we tell others to do is objective. He also specifies his "cornerstones" of morality, which is seemingly the majority of the video. Honestly speaking however, I'm not fully sure I underdstand these "cornerstones".

I've spent the last couple of hours browsing youtube for videos all relating to this question of "why should we be moral". I would still say that we are moral because we believe it is the right thing to do (it's the way I was raised). I unfortunately have not formed my own opinion as to whether or not morality is relative or objective. It's a question that I suppose I will be asking myself all semester, maybe even longer than that. I understand that this post was not terribly long. As a result, I have the intention to continue to post new videos pertaining to my topic as well as any opinions I might form throughout the semester.

Blog Number Two

In my last blog post I picked two chapters from our “Problems from Philosophy” book that most interested me. I’m choosing to further explore the chapter “Why should be moral” and am including internet-related articles concerning my topic. I don’t necessarily feel the following are ideas I learned, but they’re more so ideas in which I feel are important to include in my final paper.

In “Why be Moral”, the author states that “other philosophers would argue that being moral is logically required on penalty of being irrational”. The idea is that being moral is synonymous with being rational, where as being immoral is irrational. It’s not a statement that I ever particularly thought about. The subject is very much open to interpretation and a subject I’m definitely interested in exploring. The question is whether or not there could be a situation in which your thinking seems rational, but your actions could be perceived as immoral. I think that there are definitely cases in which this question is more of a true statement than a question at all. For example: Stealing is something I think most people would consider immoral. If you were a parent and you found yourself in a situation in which you and your child were starving, it may be perceived as immoral to steal food, but in that circumstance the need to survive would supersede morality.

http://www3.sympatico.ca/saburns/pg0412.htm

On everything2.com I read an article on an individual’s perspective of why we should be moral. The author states that individual, or private morality, is the moral code by which one (IE. the individual) decides to live by. Most often is it dictated to and directly influenced by the moral code of the society in which one lives. This is a point in which I think is really important to bring up. I think a valid example would be that of James Warren Jones. Jones brought a group of individuals (members of the People’s Temple) to Guyana, South America where he established a “benevolent model communist community (wikipedia). He persuaded these members that the morals of the society in which they lived were in actuality immoral. In the end he created a completely new society in which he influenced people inevitably participate in a mass suicide. With this being said I would definitely say that the society in which we live generally speaking has a tremendous influence of the morals in which we live by. James “Jim” Jones is a sound argument in my opinion because he manipulated a society into believing that something immoral as killing yourself was the right thing for them to do.

everything2.com/index.pl?node_id+1872504
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_jones

I also read about Immanuel Kant’s ideas of moral order, which is as follows:
1. The summum bonum is where moral virtue and happiness coincide.
2. We are rationally obliged to attain the summum bonum.
3. What we are obliged to attain, it must be possible for us to attain.
4. If there is no god or afterlife, it is not possible to attain the summum bonum.
5. God (or the afterlife) must exist.

This is a summarized version that can be found at wikipedia.org. For further information I found a site that involves a much more detailed explanation. The site can be found here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/

Although I understand Kant's moral order, I can definitely see Jophn Locke and Thomas Hobbes's argument that moral requirements are based on standards of rationality

Problems from Philosophy Blog # 1

The two topics that really intrigue me are: Why should we be moral? And The Problem with Evil. Unfortunately I haven't received my copy of either of the books yet (I pre-ordered them from the bookstore) so I'm not able to use any examples from the book. I will however make any additions I have in a seperate blog when I finally do so that I can better support my answer.

Why should we be moral?

Morals are described by wikipedia as a system of values and principles. "They are evaluated through logic, experience and proper judgment, whether this originates from culture, philosophy, religion, society or individual conscience. In normative and universal sense morality refers to an ideal code of conduct (wikipedia)." There are many different opinions as to how to actually judge what is moral and what is not. Not everyone is moral, because to be moral is a choice. Most of the time I find myself doing something considered "moral" because to me it seems to be the right thing to do. No one is perfect though, and sometimes I am even guilty of doing things some would consider immoral; that would just be based off of you're conception of what being moral actually means. Morals mean different things to different people. Something I consider moral might not be ethical to you. I would say that my parents have instilled certain morals in me over the course of my life and some I have discovered on my own. I'm really interested in the topic because there are obviously so many different ideas/opinions as to what it means to be moral, let alone why we should be moral. It's a subject that is open to interpretation and I think it would make for an interesting final paper.

I thought there were some very interesting thoughts at the following links:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/saburns/pg0412.htm
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080505062033AA7QidK"

The Problem with Evil

"The problem of evil is the problem of reconciling the existence of evil or suffering in the world with the existence of God, a force for infinite good(Wikipedia)." I’m not sure honestly what to expect from this topic. I did a little glancing around and read quite a few blogs concerning what people had to offer. Overwhelmingly knowing the difference between moral and natural evil was what was stressed. According to Rick Rood, moral evil is the stuff we have control over (Murder, Stealing, Lying, etc…), where as natural evil are the events we can’t prevent like natural disasters (Hurricanes, Tsunamis, Floods). I think that evil plays an important role on society and I don't think there is any convievable way of the world being free of evil. Although this is not likely to be my choice for my final topic, I am curious to to learn more about the chapter.

Rick Rood wrote one of the articles I read online. If you’re interested, it can be found here www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/evil.html
and of course http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

Again, the book would have helped, but I will make any additions in a seperate blog once I actually get my hands on them.

Philosophy Rap