#BlackLivesMatter

Black lives matter.

Black. Lives. Matter.

     It is so strange to think that these three words have such a huge and powerful meaning behind them. And yet, these words are the saying a movement. A movement to remind our nation that a large portion of its population is being systematically targeted and murdered in the streets.

     Innocent people are being murdered at the hands of those they are supposed to be able to entrust their lives. And yet, so many people are acting as if nothing has happened. They should be scared. They should be outraged. They should not being acting as if these young people deserved the gruesome deaths that fell upon them. They should not be calling these deaths justice.

Catfish

     Catfish is a documentary that follows Yaniv “Nev” Schulman on a journey through an online relationship. It started when Nev received a painting of one of his photos from an eight-year-old artist named Abby Pierce. After receiving the painting, Nev and Abby became friends on Facebook. This opened the flood gate to include Abby’s family: her mother, Angela; her father, Vince; and her attractive older half-sister, Megan. Through their correspondence, Nev develops a strong friendship with both Abby and Angela. But with Megan, the friendship is on the verge of evolving into a relationship. And it is that relationship that is the focus of the documentary.

     Not many who watch the documentary expect a happy ending for Nev. Most can tell that there’s just something not quite right about Megan’s story. And that suspicion gets solidified when she sends him MP3s of song covers that she claims to have performed for him. But, Nev discovers that they are all taken from performances on YouTube. He later finds evidence that Angela lied about other details of Abby's art career, like the gallery they claimed to have bought. Nev & co. decide to travel to Michigan in order to make an impromptu appearance at the Pierces' house and confront Megan directly. While talking with Abby and her friend alone, Nev learns that Abby never sees her sister and rarely paints.

     When he confronts Angela, she admits that she lied about the whole thing and that she was Megan. She claimed that Abby really did have a sister named Megan, and that she was checked into a rehabilitation center called Dawn Farms. But, this was later revealed to be a lie. At the end of the film, we find out that even after all of the lying and deceit, Nev still remains friends with Angela.

Morality of catfish

At the end of the semester, we finished watching catfish. On the last day of class, we talked about how the actions of the woman is either good or bad. In my opinion, I thought what she did was immoral. She lied to the guy in the documentary about who she really is. She lied that the daughter painted but it was really the mother who painted. So pretty much, it would be immoral because of all the lying. While discussing about, some people say it is not because of how the mother made sacrifices to take care of the two sons that were handicapped. Still, it would be immoral because she lied and trick the guy to falling in love with somebody that never existed in life. So, catfish would be considered immoral because how it makes people believe that there is this person in real life that they fall in love with. To find out that in the end, the person never existed and it absolutely destroys the person who was lied to. In retrospect, it can also be good because people sometimes end up falling in love the person that was lying to them. The question is catfish moral or immoral because there many outcomes to the situation? It is up to people on what they think it is.

Dr. Johnson Contemporay Moral issue class

This semester, I took Dr. Johnson Contemporary Moral issues class. In the class, we learned about different philosophers and their philosophy. The different philosophers had different views on what it means to be considered morally good. The philosophers that we covered are: Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Mills, Sartre, Marx, and Epictetus. They all had their own perspective on what it meant to morally good.  During the semester, we would discuss about how each philosopher would say about different situations in the world. We had symposiums to where we would pretend to be the philosopher. We were given situations and we would have to explain how it go against our philosopher's philosophy. Also, we would ask question about other group's philosopher about how would they say about the situation as they are pretending as their philosopher. In honesty, symposiums were really fun because we got to practice what we learned and argue about it. Then, we watched a documentary called catfish. It is about this woman tricked a young man into falling in love with a fake person that she created on facebook. In the end, the guy finds out she lied and that still they are friends on facebook. We discussed how it is moral or immoral that the woman did this to the guy. Overall, I loved the class and the teacher. I learned a lot on how to take certain situations and apply what I learned and see if my actions to it would be considered moral or immoral. Also, it will help me to become a better person in the world. I will miss the class and everybody in the class.  

#blacklivesmatter #knowledgeispower

Listening to Dr. Johnson and Dr. Gross speak last night was phenomenal. It was great gathering around with people not only from CBU, but all around Memphis and surrounding universities. The best part of the presentation was Dr. Johnson arming the audiences with responses to ignorant statements and questions from people that oppose or are confused about the movement #blacklivesmatter. For example, when people who say "I don't agree with black lives matter, all lives matter." Yes, all lives DO matter, but systematically, the odds are against the black population, especially young, black men. So, a great way to combat this remark is to agree that, yes, all lives matter. Saying black lives matter does not imply that other lives don't mater, but it is rather a call to arms to make people realize how often black men and women are killed without a trial or even an arrest.

Catfish

Last week and this week, we watched Catfish. I've seen the documentary before, but I never thought about it morally until Dr. Johnson asked us to. I think that Angela was morally wrong for fooling Nev like that, but I do believe they had a real relationship beyond the point of the lie on the surface. I also find Nev to be a rational and even-tempered individual, because instead of going off on Angela and saying, "You're crazy and I hate you", Nev attempted to find reason for her actions by talking it out.

Dr. Taylor- What We Wanted Recovering From The Obama Era

I attended the lecture by Dr. Taylor called "What We Wanted Recovering From The Obama Era". Dr. Taylor spoke very well and quite gracefully about the idea of post-racialism. He told us that the phrase, "What we wanted", came from a man named Stokely Carmichael. He began by describing the social view of what it meant now that we have a black president. Many people saw Obama as "the rock on which history broke itself". Many people wished to believe that this was the turning point into post-racialism which Dr. Taylor quickly said was a false reality. He began by describing the racial inequality and racial gaps that were still very present today. He went through 4 different moves that were used to describe how to reach this post-racial stage but were ultimately failures. The thing was that Obama was a man of the people, but would say one thing and do another. To the people he would say that racism is still alive and completely disavow the Color-Blind Project but politically he would advocate the Color-Blind Project. He ultimately brings it back to Stokely Carmichaels phrase, "What we wanted", by saying that back then we should've wanted more for than what we were aiming for. The lecture introduced me to a new topic and allowed to get input from some great philosophical audience members when they asked questions.

Acceptable use of "cat-fishing?"

After recently watching the documentary, I gained insight on the topic in general and the original story. I, like most others, agree that it is a very strange and immoral because, the person in question is essentially lying for one reason. However, what if you used it for good? Say, to catch someone doing this to other people or just criminals in general? I do believe we had a similar discussion about lying earlier in the semester and that this is basically the same issue, but say the government used this method to track terrorists, or criminals, or whoever they might be looking for (for whatever reasons, that's another issue). I guess depending on the philosopher you might agree with, might determine whether or not you think this could be moral.

Catfish

This week we finish off a documentary that was really creepy towards the end as we found out the truth about the family.  It made me think of all the people who actually get on social networks and stalk people, or create a profile to harm others. In the film it was almost unbelievable what the women did just to be able to talk to Nev. I can't think of no moral way of defining what this woman did, I might be wrong and anyone correct me, but I am sure I wasn't the only one who felt weird and kind of mad in class after knowing the truth.

Catfish, is it morally right or wrong?

This week in class, we started watching a documentary called " Catfish". Later, it was taken up by MTV and turned into a TV series. The documentary is about this guy called Nev who has been talking to this family for a while now. He receives paintings that is from the youngest daughter of the family. He then become friends on Facebook with the mom, dad, brother, youngest daughter, and her sister. Then he starts fall in love with the sister and start having this " online relationship" with her. They exchange pictures and message each other and talk to each other. Then the sister starts sending him covers of songs that she did and he starts finding out that she is just taking them from YouTube. So he becomes upset and does not know what to do. So he , his brother and his friend decide to visit the family to make sure if it is true. So they drive all night and decided to see if the house where the sister is true. they reach the house and looks to see if there are horses in the barn because the sister told him that she owns horses. It turns out as fake , and decided to meet the family during breakfast to  find out the truth. He meets the family and it turns out that all of it was a fake. The Facebook profile of the sister was set up by the mom and that there was never this sister. Also the paintings were not from the daughter, it was from the mom. Also the pictures of the sister are from a professional photographer. So the question is this, Is it morally right to lie to people about who they are and get them to like or fall in love with a person that does not exist. Also, why do people do this for their amusement? Is it morally wrong to make it into a tv seires?

Response to ABrown

I can see how you came to your interpretation. However, I thought the quote was referencing the fact that man should strive to be like God in all situations. It reminds me of the quote "What would Jesus do?". Yes man's flesh is power driven but in a religion like Christianity, man's ultimate goal is to strive to be like God. One must follow in his foot steps and seek answers from him. Man must strive to become one with God.

Response to Swamy

I totally agree with you. People don't understand the dangers of becoming friends with people on social networks. There are a lot of people who seek out vulnerable young teens in order to take advantage of them. In this case, a man is being taking advantage of just for the purpose of his naivete. This situation is stranger than most because nothing clearly makes sense. Plus, this situation involves more than one persons.  

Response to Jahleel

I think that the enjoyment comes from not setting up someone for failure but to showcase how manipulative a person can be. It also shows how naive the other person is. This movie has confirmed that social media can cause a lot of problems. We here the stories of how old men prey on young girls, making the girls believe that they are only a few years older in order to try and lure them in. I think it's interesting how they have created an entire movie devoted to the uncertainties of the people we think we know through social sites. I believe that it is morally wrong because the person that created the fake identity is being deceitful about his or her identity. It causes more moral issues when emotions and feelings get involved. The whole tactic is to see how far they can keep up with their charade before being caught.

Catfish

This week, we started watching a movie about people creating fake Facebook accounts. The person named Nev, was made to believe that he was in a relationship with this family, and slowly unravels the lie that was told by the family. I believe this was a very informational documentary to others, so that social networking is more careful. Most kids these days post everything they see or want, and not one person realizes the danger they put themselves in. 

Catfish

This week we had the chance to watch the original documentary Catfish. It's about a guy who meets with a young lady online and to make a long story short, the lady is not who she says she is. The movie has now turned into a tv show on the famous network MTV. I admit, watching several episodes at at time provides entertainment for me. It's funny how people meet online and have all these bizarre excuses of why they can't meet (if they live in the same city) over and over again. Some people have been in a cyber relationship for more than a year and have never talk to their significant other in person. To me that is crazy!! After revealing that the person isn't who they claim to be they get mad. In most cases it's the person's on fault. But there have been some instances where family members have played jokes on other family members by making people up and making their relative believe that they're talking to a real person. To me that's where I would draw the line. It isn't morally right to set someone up for failure. Or is it? Why do people do this outside of it bringing enjoyment into their lives?

Jean-Paul Sarte

I recently went back to Sarte to read his thoughts on "The Desire to be God." I found one quote interesting. "To be man means to reach towards being God."My interpretation of this quote means that man's ultimate purpose is to seek power. That everyone has a subconscious goal to be successful or powerful. Now obviously this is not true in all cases. We have religious peoples from various religions that choose a life of poverty. But, if you were to look at this from there point of view, doing this would make them "successful in the eyes of their gods. So it seems that all people seem to have the same same desire, more or less. They just have different ways/preferences that they go about attaining that goal. This is just something I though about after reading that line. Any thoughts on this?

Racial Profiling: A Problem in Today's Society

On August 9th, cries rang out against the injustice done to an African-American boy in the neighborhoods of Ferguson, MO. Every year, stories are told over and over about unarmed teens getting shot. It does not only follow the trend of white officers shooting black teens, but it is also vice versa. The moral issues of everyday racial profiling is still prevalent in today's society even though this nation is called the great mixing pot. A lot of countries look at America with respect for trying to accept all cultures, but once the people have experienced what it is to be an American we lose some of that respect. Racial profiling goes towards all colors in this nation. Especially since 9/11, "brown" people are treated with caution, and we are "randomly searched at airports and other events. My belief is that the only way to solve all these problems is to accept and forgive the past which we can't change and mold the future together.   

Pray for Ferguson

On August 9, 2014, my cell phone alerted my via social media and CNN about another teen killing. I didn't think anything of it at the time, until I read the story. An unarmed BLACK teen was shot by a WHITE police officer. This took me back to last year with the Trayvon Martin story, Oscar Grant, Sean Bell and various but similar stories. Why does this keep happening every year? Protesting went on for awhile. Fast forward 100 days, and the judicial system that is suppose to protect all of us as Americans, says that there's not enough evidence. The judicial system makes me question who it really protects. I feel that if the pages were turned, and Mike Brown was white and Darren Wilson was black, Darren Wilson would have been taken into custody as soon as the police came. Yes, I believe that Mike Brown's body would have not been left in the middle of the hot street in the summer. The decision for a court hearing would have been put into place if the officer was black. He would have served time as well. Why is that? Why is the race card still being played in 2014? Do African Americans not deserve justice just like the rest of the Americans in this country? It's time to step and make a change. We have got to stop hating each other and come together as a nation.

Gender Inequality

I believe there as always been a gender inequality when it comes to many different aspects in life. In my opinion men has always been the superior one. In many cases men can do certain things that women can not. For example if a woman was to wear something that is revealing and a man stares, she instantly gets called something derogatory when it's actually the man's fault for staring.Also men will typically make more money than women even if she is more qualified. For example a woman who made straight As in school will be paid less than a man who made Cs. Society often looks at men as the the person who brings everything to table as far as finances and being the "head" of the household. I feel as if woman can work as hard as a man sometimes harder.  In my opinion, women are faced with so much and are expected to do so much,but women are not appreciated for what they do. .Since the earliest times, women has always been looked at as the person who sits home and their goes through unpleasant changes in order to have children, care for the children, clean the house, as well meet the husband's needs while being submissive.

Thoughts about Ferguson

I believe that we live in a world where blacks are thought of as aggressive and violent . Some people believe what is going in Ferguson is a riot but I personally don't consider it to be, I feel like the people are protesting and the brutality of the police is causing them to react violently.I honestly feel like situations like this will continue to happen because no one is attempting to put a stop on it. Time after time, justice is not being served.  I don't understand how we could continue to live in this crazy world and situations like this go on . It took 100 days for them decide whether are not this will have a trial . in my opinion they were not worried about the injustices and wrong doings but to explain to the world that his death was justified and that Wilson did nothing wrong. A innocent unarmed teen is now dead and no one is being punished for his death but himself . But why is he being punished? Is it because the officer "felt" threatened or was his life actually in danger?  Even if he felt like he was in danger he could have shot him maybe in the leg or something. Wilson obviously shot to kill. Oh yeah Wilson had a mark on his face yet this boy got multiple bullets shot into him and then his body was left in the street for 4.5 hours. People are trying their best to justify the situation. I feel like if the races were reversed the black cop would have faced some type of punishment. I feel black people have been constantly hurt and killed by the ones that were put in place to "protect us"  now we are trained to have fear that we will be the next victim . That is absolutely sad. I also am bothered when people try to say that it happens to everyone, no it does not. More blacks are being killed than any other race and the sad part most come from as I stated earlier the ones who are there to "protect" us. I feel like a innocent life should have not be gone and I will never see a way that it could be justified to be right that it happened. What do you think?

Feminism

Last semester I took the class “Women and Theory” taught by Dr. Maloney, and because of that course Feminism is a topic I find very interesting.  While many people view Feminism as a movement to change the patriarchy into a matriarchy, this is a gross misunderstanding. Modern feminism can be divided into three different phases, or “waves”, to characterize the progression of feminism. Many people attribute the second wave of feminism to encompass feminism as a whole, and it is through this that feminism got its unpleasant reputation. The second wave of feminism began around the 1960s and continued into the 1990s. It is this wave that had the loudest voice and most visible protesting, such as bra-burnings and picketing male dominated businesses. While these women were important to the movement, Feminism for the last 20 years has progressed to the third wave. This wave focuses on gender equality within a currently patriarchal society. This ddoesn'tmean get rid of gender all together, but instead to not define someone by their gender. If a woman wants to wear a low-cut dress, she should be allowed to without being called a slut. If a woman has the same job as you and does the same work, they should get the same pay. All major social institutions have been characterized by male dominance including:

economy, politics, family, and religion. This needs to change, but I guess the real question is how?

 Also if you have a couple minutes, here are some videos that rock:

Warning: These videos have some NSFW language

The Office- Business Ethics

In class we discussed business ethics after watching an episode of The Office. We could identify the things that they saw as ethical problems to be just issues in the workplace called ethical dilemmas. These problems weren't necessarily ethical issues. As we watched we began seeing these normal issues being overshadowed by actual ethical issues in the workplace. When Dwight says he never steals time therefore he is implying he is an ethical man. He engages in sleeping with an engaged woman which is very unethical. When dealing with an "unethical" situation it is best to know exactly what you're dealing with.

Thought on Capitalism

While searching for a blog topic, I thought back to capitalism and how it was discussed during the symposium. Several pros and cons were brought forth by the various philosophers. While, pondering these, I thought about how we hear stories all the time where people start up businesses from nothing and are now insanely rich. Are they in the wrong for becoming part of the "rich" class? Or do they deserve it to be there? I know this was discussed briefly in class, but I cannot remember all the details. It is an interesting topic regardless.

Since, this is a by-week for the blog and I need to make one up for not doing one last week, I thought I would just talk a little bit about Frantz Fanon. Fanon is noted for being one of the most prolific black philosophers. However, what really interests me is at what time this philosopher lived.  To me, philosophy has always been something of the distant past. When I think of philosophy I think of the ones we learned at the beginning of the semester, such as Aristotle, Plato, or Socrates. Even Kant was born in the 18th century. Yet, Fanon was born in 1925 in France, and was only thirty-six when he died. He lived in a time where being black was viewed as being the "other race." At this time it was socially acceptable to harass a man without fear of many (or any) consequences. He definitely is a good representation of the social movement going on in that time.  Much of his philosophy, as we have learned about, deals with isolation. This makes since, because as a black man he was isolated from much of the world. Even more, being an educated black man made him isolated from much of his own class at that time. Just through doing some research on him, I've realized how segregated Fanon must have felt from the rest of his society. One of his books that really caught my eye is "Black Skin, White Masks." In essence, it is a review of what it is like to be a black man living in a white man's world. Fanon really is a revolutionary of his time. His philosophies transcend race, and relate to a variety of people.

Capitalism

 This entire week we have been discussing the systems of capitalism and communism, and how it relates to the people and philosophy. I've learned that in capitalism the workers don't have any control over the means of production and not even the necessities of surviving. While the rich people who contribute less work get rewarded with the control of means of production and the profit of work. Communism on the other hand seems to be a better idea as described by one of the philosophers, its sort of a robin hood system where the wealth is distributed evenly within the poor people. However no real form of communism have been display in other countries, so there is no telling weather it could be a better replacement for Capitalism. Anyone have any thoughts?

Equal Opportunity

Over the past few weeks, we have discussed numerous philosophers and their beliefs. Nietzsche has two stages regarding morality: the pre-moral and moral stages. The pre-moral stage, the Noble Mood of Evaluation, claims that good is always determined first and bad is the afterthought. The necessity of creating values comes from the inside. The Morality stage, Slavish Mood of Evaluation says that evil is determined first and good comes second. Marx's stand point on the class system relates to two types of classes. The bourgeoise and the proletariats. The bourgeoise own the means of production and the proletariats produce products and work for the bourgeoise. The capitalism fundamental contradiction is the proletariats contribute the most but receive the least, the bourgeoise contribute the least but receive the most. Jean-Paul Sarte believes that one should subjective and not objective. During our symposiums we discussed a lot about why Marx's theory/point of view still exists today? Why are there still people who are barely making it in America? Why aren't we all equal? Why do the bourgeoise get all the praise and credit for the means of production? What can we do as a society to make everyone comfortable? Doesn't everyone deserve a piece of the pie?

Reflection on the Symposium

On Wednesday, we had a Symposium and I was Jean Paul Sartre and/or Fanon. Sartre and Fanon are both existentialists. One of Sartre's beliefs is bad faith which is lying to yourself. They both present many examples of bad faith or how people look at themselves as on a object. I realized that Fanon and Marx had similar definitions of alienation.

  We also connected the symposium to what's going on in Ferguson Missouri. It is where a police officer murdered the UNARMED black teen. There has been many protest going on throughout the world since this first happened. The grand jury is supposed to read the results any day and many cities, including Memphis, are preparing for the protests. In my opinion, people should not be arrested or punished for peacefully  protesting but there have been many arrests anyway. It's like the government wants people to react violently. Do you believe the officer should be charged with  murder? If so/ not, why or why not? Was it morally  right or wrong for the officer to murder the teen?  Another question is should the protesters be arrested or punished if there are doing it peacefully?

Here are some links about what's going on.
http://news.yahoo.com/ferguson-braces-finding-shooting-unarmed-black-teen-044312927.html
http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/story/27407428/missouri-governor-activates-national-guard-in-ferguson-as-grand-jury-decision-nears

Bad Faith

In class, we discussed the topic of having "bad faith". Originally when Dr. Johnson asked us, "What is bad faith?" most of the class was silent. It was my understanding that to act in bad faith is to trust someone despite their previous irresponsible behavior or undesirable traits. For an example, my idea of a person acting in bad faith is a roommate allowing his or her roommate to continue living in their home despite this person's inability to pay rent. You hope that the person will get a job and contribute even though all of their previous behavior shows that more than likely they will not pay rent. Perhaps a devoted wife continuing to believe her cheating husband will be faithful and committed to her despite his lack of action to prove otherwise. These were my previous understanding of acting in bad faith.


Sarte's definition closely aligns with my idea in the sense that it is a lie to oneself. I believed acting in "bad faith" was lying to yourself about the ability of another person. Sarte literally means that we are lying to our self about our actual self. We talked about the TGIF waiter who says that he or she is just a waiter in the way that a chair is just a chair. This is simply not true. We have the freedom to be and do whatever we want to do (within reason). While the chair is simply a chair and will always be just a chair. As humans we take for granted the freedoms that we have everyday. Even a slave or prisoner has the freedom to think, feel, and imagine.

Jean-Paul Sartre

Jean-Paul Sartre is the most famous existentialist. His most famous belief is the idea of "bad faith" which can be defined lying to one's self. He believes that people are describes by facticity and transcendence.
Sartre's story about the waiter is an example of someone completely objectifying himself and describing himself by only facts. The other story about the woman walking in the park is an example of someone thinking of themselves in complete transcendence.
People should have a balance between the two stories. They should embrace what's happening around them and also recognize facts about themselves.

Frantz Fanon

Frantz Fanon was a black man born in Martinique, formerly a colony of France. He had a very interesting life. He was sent to Paris to study psychology, psychiatry and philosophy. During his education, World War 2 broke out, so he joined the French army to fight. Shortly after joining the arm, he moved to Algeria, another country formerly colonized by France. He taught the Algerians how to survive French torture tactics. He survived 2 car bombs and an ambush of gunfire in his hospital room. He studied Jean-Paul Sartre and took a lot of Sartre's beliefs on existentialism. One of the biggest similarities between the two philosophers is the belief of facticities.
Fanon mentions how he feels when a child calls him a "negre". He alienates himself and can picture exactly what a black person "is". He also feels objectified; as if being a black person is completely a facticity and has no transcendence.
I can relate to Fanon's experience being not only a black person, but a woman. Being in both minority groups gives me a lot of struggle to be up against.

CAPITALISM

 

During class we were given a better understanding of Capitalism. Capitalism is a system of production that produces the class struggle in the most violent form. We learned that under Capitalism the classes are reduced to only two; those are the bourgeoisie “owners of the means of production” and the proletariat “the workers”. We also learned that under Capitalism these two classes rest on a fundamental contradiction. Although both contribute to the means of production the bourgeoisie get the most while the proletariat get the least yet they are the ones that work the most. 

So my question is, how can we break this system so we can all be benefited equally or do you think that the rich deserve the most because they have “worked” hard to earn their money?

Frantz Fanon

Today in class we talked about Frantz Fanon and the chapter "The Fact of Blackness" in his book "Black Skin White Mask." The main point Fanon makes is that black and white people do not live the same lives. Back then when black people were considered objects as if being black was the only thing they could be. This objectification and alienation of black people was just how things were, but Fanon did not approve. Ignorance of this sort sadly still exists in our society today, but how we react to these situation are important as well. How should we react to the someone who tries to degrade us with their words? Should we react at all?

Existentialism

This week in class we discussed existentialism, which is based on the idea of human freedom, and two philosophers of existentialism, Jean Paul Sartre and Frantz Fanon. In Sartre's book, "Being and Nothingness", he tries to explain what kind of being a human being is; a being-in-itself or a being-for-itself. Beings-in-itself are objects that are entirely defined by facticity. For example, a table will always be a table. "It is what it is, in the mode of being". Beings-for-itself are the class humans fall into. They are subjects that are still somewhat defined by facticity, but are also defined by transcendence. "It is what it is in the mode of not being it".

Frantz Franon uses the idea of a being-in-itself and a being-for-itself in a chapter from his book "Black Skin, White Mask". In this book, Franon describes the existence of blacks being different than the existence of whites. He uses life examples to describe the different existences. In one example, he recalls a time when he was on a bus and a young white child turned to their mother and basically said look mom there's a dirty nigger. Franon describes the feeling he felt as being a being-in-itself. What the child did was objectified and alienated Franon as if him being black was like a table being a table, and that's all he was and would ever be.

Freedom/Purpose

I found the topic of freedom very interesting. This coupled with beings-in-themselves/beings-for-themselves created a  very thought-provoking topic that I regret that I did not weigh in on. Regardless, when discussing how we are never in an situation where every aspect of our freedom is revoked, I first thought this was not possible. Upon further discussion, however, I saw how this works. Basically, even if by some chance that you happen to be held against your will confined to a single room, you can still think for yourself. You have the freedom to be really annoying if you so choose. Now, I find the second part of this interesting in the fact that everything can be grouped into two categories. Basically, objects and things fall in the being-in-itself section while people fall into the being-for-itself. Now, I was wondering if a table (for example) is no longer being used as it is intended and is utilized in a different way that is no longer typical of tables, has it "transcended" from being just a table? Or is has it merely been re-purposed and taken on the mode of its current use?

Karl Marx

This week in class we've been learning about Karl Marx and his ethical theory. Marx believes that the existence of classes is bound up with particular historical epochs, the current one being Capitalism. And that the class struggle will inevitably lead to the dictatorship of the proletariat. But, that will only be a transitional phase to a classless society. Marx also believes that human labor is a free, conscious activity and the one thing that separates us from animals. And one of Marx’s issues with capitalism is that it’s dehumanizing us by making us feel least like ourselves while doing the most human activity and most like ourselves when we are free of work and doing the most animal things like sleeping and eating.

He also believes that capitalism has produced one of the most violent class struggles. The reason for this is because there are only two social classes: the Bourgeoisie (or owners of the means of production) and the Proletariat (or the workers). With only two classes, there is no spread of animosity; all of the anger is focused on one target. Another reason for the violent struggle is the fundamental contradiction produced by capitalism. The proletariat class puts the most labor into making a product but receives the least amount of profit in return. And inversely, the bourgeoisie class puts the least amount of work into the production but receives the largest amount profit. And as the system continues, the poor get poorer and more numerous while the rich get richer and fewer in number.

Capitalism is a system that depends on alienated labor. It alienates the worker from the product of his/her labor by setting wages so low that they could never afford the product that they produce. The worker is also alienated from the process of production by being forced to work solely for the purpose of producing a profit for the bourgeoisie class. Workers are alienated from what Marx calls their “species-being,” or what makes them human. And it also alienates the workers from each other by producing a system of competition.

Marx believes that all of this will eventually cause a class consciousness in which the proletariat class will revolt against the bourgeoisie class.

Marxism's fall in the Soviet Union

After the overthrow of the Russian monarchy in 1917, Communism and the theology made famous by Karl Marx took control of the Russian Empire.  Communism, established by Vladimir Lenin, thrived and grew in Russia as well as China, Cuba, and much of Eastern Europe until its collapse in the 1980's and 1990's.  As Marx states, Communism is better for society as a whole and far superior than Capitalism.  If the Marxist theory was true, why did Communism fall to Capitalism? What would Marx's response be if he were alive today?

Rich vs Poor

Recently in class, we have been discussing Karl Marx and his views on capitalism. This has been very interesting because, to be honest, I have heard of capitalism, but never put two and two together until last class. Basically what we have been discussing is the classes. There are only two classes under capitalism: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. These two classes are at two different extremes of the wealth scale. The bourgeoisie are the owners of the means of the production and the wealthy while the proletariat are the workers and the least wealthy. Marx goes on to say that there is a fundamental difference in the classes with the bourgeoisie producing the least and getting the most while the proletariat produce the most and receive the least. 

We also talked about the way jobs are set up. The proletariat basically see each other as competition and in order to get the job, they either have to outperform the other person, or under wage them. This means that if two people are fighting over the same job and have the same qualifications then the person who offers to work for the least amount of money will most likely get the job. This is because the less the bourgeoisie have to pay the proletariat to work, the more money they can make in profits. In addition to this we also talked about how, although the proletariat may work making cars or fancy phones, they will probably never be able to afford to purchase the items that they produce. This is what Marx calls alienated or exploited labor. Marx believes that labor is free and conscious decision and that the work that the proletariat do is far from it. They feel more like themselves when they are at home indulging in basic animal instincts (sleeping, eating, etc.) than when they are doing the one important human function of working 

Karl Marx

Class this week has given me a much better understanding of Marx. Prior to this week, whenever I thought of communism, I thought of a society that received the same amount of goods, no matter what they contributed. For example, if everyone in our class got a C despite the work they put into the course, the people who previously had an A would quit working and the people who had Fs wouldn't stress anymore. I now know that this is a poor example of communism and community. Now that I am aware of Marx's critiques on capitalism, I can see why people favor communism. Not only does capitalism screw a lot of people over, if disadvantages the people who do the majority of work for the society and rewards the people who do nothing but are lucky enough to own means on labor. I think Marx made a very good point when he stated that the proleteriats would eventually revolt and that the revolution will be the downfall of capitalism and the transition into a classless society.

Karl Marx Proletariat vs. Bourgeoisie

In class this week we discussed Karl Marx and what really stood out was the two classes, Proletariats and the Bourgeoisie.  The Proletariats are the workers; furthermore, the class that does most all of the work and receives the least in return.  so all in all, doing more for less.  The Bourgeoisie are the owners of the means of production.  They are the "wealthy class" and do very little labor but receive the most.  This goes back to the scenario we talked about in class about apple.  We could work for apple and do all the labor of building the phone but at the end of the day we still would not be able to afford the iPhone. So if i was the worker, I would be the proletariat in that circumstance and Apple would be the Bourgeoisie.   Marx also believed in these three points: The existence of classes is bound up with historical epochs, the class struggle will inevitably lead to the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the dictatorship is only a phase to a classless society.  How do you determine if you're in the Proletariat? can You be wealthy and still be a Proletariat? I think Marx is right that Proletariat can lead to a dictatorship because they are so much larger than the Bourgeoisie. But could they ever get as much power as them?

Karl Marx

After we discussed Karl Marx in calss, I went and did some extra research. Karl Marx was a philosopher from Germany who expressed the idea of communism. His belief was that capitalism would eventually fall due to the difference in classes. His belief was the bourgeoisie would be overthrown by the proletariat masses. He also believed that the more you earned the more taxes you should pay. He also believed that the land we live on is supposed to be shared by all and not owned by a person. As far as I read, he was a strong supporter of the weak and impoverished. 

A Change in the Game

In today's society, the way the world functions in my opinion is the opposite of what it should be. We live in a world where basketball players and rappers make more money than doctors who actually save lives and make difference in the world. While discussing Marx this past week, I have gained a better understanding of the two classes Marx has established. The first class he states are the bourgeoise and then the proletariats. The bourgeoise are the rich and powerful people of society. Marx defines them as the owners of means of production. The proletariats are what you call the blue-collar workers; the people who work for the owners of production. We learned that capitalism is the system of production that produces the class struggle in the most violent way. With the capitalist system, it itself produces a contradiction. The contradiction basically says proletariats contribute and or work the most but receives little to nothing. On the contrary, the bourgeoise receives the benefits of the workers, but do little to nothing. This way of living and producing goods has been around for years, maybe even centuries. When is enough, enough? In the present time, I feel like everyone should not have to struggle in society. Everyone does not necessarily, have to hundreds of thousands of dollars in the bank, but people should have the basic necessities in order to survive. Everyone should reap the same amount of benefits, no matter if they contributed time/effort or money/resources. Everyone deserves fair chance. So my question is why do you think people in society allow this trend continue? Why hasn't someone tried to change the game?

Karl Marx - Bourgeoisie and Proletariat

After all we discussed in class, Karl marx was a philosopher born in 1818. He is from Germany and his most famous book calls The Communist Manifesto. Karl Marx started argued against the capitalism, his first idea was not to create socialism, it happened after all the point he showed against the capitalism. 

He reduced the classes to only two: Bourgeoisie (owners of the mean of production) and Proletariat (workers). From his argument, "Capitalism rests upon a fundamental contradiction" - it is contradict because the proletariat class works the most, and gets the least. On the other hand, the bourgeoisie class works the least and gets the most. It is an inverse proportion. But why? He says it is the capitalism. For instance, assuming that a company spends 2 dollars to product a shirt, and sell it for twenty-five dollars, that difference (twenty-three dollars) goes to the Bourgeoisie, the owners of the company. All the people that actually produced the shirt will get the least from what Marx called the SURPLUS VALUE, in other words profit. From this case we can assume that people who are poor, would get poorer, and people who are rich, would get richer. We have a system that is immoral. System based on exploration of the workers.    

What is your opinion about that? And what kind of solutions to our system you would provide?

Karl Marx

I agree with a lot of what Karl Marx says. Especially the Bourgeoisie doing the least and getting the most, ad the porletariat doing the most and getting the least. However, I have a hard time totally agreeing with him. I don't think the two classes are that black and white. My boss makes more money than I do, I make a higher salary than the employees I manage, and they make a higher salary than people working at Mcdonalds. I think there's different levels to both classes. If the Bourgeoisie were truly the 49 or so people in the US that make up 50% of the wealth, I would completely agree with him, but I don't believe that's who the Bourgeoisie is. My boss, for example is the owner of the means of production for our company, making him the Bourgeoisie, and making him the wealthiest in the company. However, he is far from being in the group of 49 people making up half of the US wealth. so does that make him a part of the proletariat group? I don't think so. He also has done every position in our company, he started from the bottom with the lowest pay and now he is the owner. This brings up another disagreement I have on Marx's criticism of capitalism. Most of the wealthy people; business owners, CEO's, etc. have worked incredibly hard and deserve the wealth they have gotten. I think people are in the position they deserve. I can't justify saying the wealth should be distributed evenly. I think that's honestly stupid and ignorant. I'm in college because I want to get a better job when I graduate, and eventually have my own business or run a business. I would be horrified if someone else who hasn't done anything or worked as hard as I have in their life made the same amount of money as me. I think people get and deserve what they work for, and if you don't have what you want, work harder.

Nietzsche

      In Nietzsche class discussion we learn that he states the weak created morals to protect themselves from the strong. To a certain point I agree with his philosophy, but I don't agree with is that the strong are actually bound by this. If they are truly the strong than wouldn't they just use that power to over rule what the weak consider right? The strong however have a weakness that the weak have as a strong attribute which is their numbers. I believe that the reason the strong don't show their strength is because in the end the weak are just as strong as they are.Does any one agree with that?
  something that got my attention is what he said about "god being dead", I think most people took that the wrong way. I believe what he meant to say was that we as humans where loosing faith in our different religions. Does anyone think alike or disagree with me?

Nietzsche

I understand Nietzsche’s philosophy, but I do not agree with everything that he says. He states that moral values were invented by the weak to protect the weak. By having this set of values an individual is given the opportunity to blame someone else for his action or given the opportunity to excuse his action. What this means is that the person is being allowed to separate his or herself from what he actually does. This is a silly way to view things since we can't say that our actions don't determine who we are as a person when action are exactly what determines who we are.  

I also understand that we cannot just allow the strong to take advantage of the weak simple because they are strong; so the question is, should we use moral values as a way to protect the weak, or should we allow the strong to show their strength with strength instead of weakness?

All this week we have been discussing the Philosopher Nietzsche. The thing about him that stood out to me immediately was he said that "God is dead." Before hearing the context of the quote I thought this would be a philosopher who I would disagree with on a lot of views, but it wasn't until it was explained that I realized he was right. Nietzsche meant that religion is dead in the world so therefore "God is dead." I feel like this statement is very relatable today, because I feel as if these days people are more attached and faithful to material things and themselves rather than  religion.  This kind of ties into the other aspect I agree  with Nietzsche on. He believes the stronger and more noble people in the world should look out and help those who are weaker and less fortunate. I agree with him on this because just because someone is better at something that doesn't make them superior to others. God created us as equals and that's how it should be and how we should treat others.

All this week we have been discussing the Philosopher Nietzsche. The thing about him that stood out to me immediately was he said that "God is dead." Before hearing the context of the quote I thought this would be a philosopher who I would disagree with on a lot of views, but it wasn't until it was explained that I realized he was right. Nietzsche meant that religion is dead in the world so therefore "God is dead." I feel like this statement is very relatable today, because I feel as if these days people are more attached and faithful to material things and themselves rather than  religion.  This kind of ties into the other aspect I agree  with Nietzsche on. He believes the stronger and more noble people in the world should look out and help those who are weaker and less fortunate. I agree with him on this because just because someone is better at something that doesn't make them superior to others. God created us as equals and that's how it should be and how we should treat others.

Nietzsche

This week, we learned about Nietzsche and his belief that morality was created by weak, slavish people who had ressentement (or envy) towards the strong and their advantages in the world. The weak decided that God loves them simply because they were weak and since they are the majority, this belief has been carried down for centuries. Nietzsche also says that morality is a fabrication because values differ between each individual, and there is not a set of values that can be given out to everyone.
The issue with this morality is that it keeps strong and intelligent from using their full potential to get what they want. Nietzsche and his beliefs remind me a lot of a short story called Harrison Bergeron. In the 1962 tale that is set in the future America, there are new Amendments that give a a lot of "equality" to the country. To summarize the story, everyone who has an advantage- intelligence, strength, beauty, etc., is handicapped. The strong carry sand bags to make them weaker, the intelligent wore a radio in their ears that rang a piercing a sound every twenty seconds, and the beautiful wore bags to conceal themselves. The main character,  14 year old Harrison, is very strong and very intelligent boy who escapes from jail with the intent to overthrow the government. His parents watch him on the breaking news as he declares himself emperor and selects a gorgeous empress to rule beside him. In his very brief ruling, he ordered musicians to play their best, not averagely like they always had. As he danced with his empress, he was gunned down by the government because they cant have anyone with an advantage running around.
As soon as we learned about Nietzsche, Harrison Bergeron stood out to me. If you want to read it, here's the link:

http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

Friedrich Nietzsche

This week we started on Nietzsche. He was famous for saying "God Is Dead".He was an atheist.  I think what he meant was that there was a decline in belief in God or a decline in religion itself and more people were becoming atheist. When I first started reading the essay I was confused but as I continued I began to grasp understanding. Based on the class discussion, I would rather live in a world with Noble mode of valuation. I say this because I believe that you have strength, you shouldn't have to act as if you're weak. I feel as if you should determine to the good in people first instead of the evil or flaws. Any opinions?

Friedrich Nietzsche

Throughout this week we have been discussing in class the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche's work Beyond Good and Evil, discusses the origin of morals into to to different groups. The groups consisted of: what is good or bad and what is good or evil. The concept of morality comes from the weaker group the ones that choose between good and evil. The good and evil group have a "slave" morality, consisting of things in society that most deem as undesirable, The slave-morality group sees things differently from the good and bad group. The good and bad group concentrate on the strength and weakness of the body, strength being good and weakness being bad. While the good and evil group do not follow the inequality of the other group and choose to create their own for of what is right by escaping and getting away from their inferiority of the other group. Creating what we consider as morals. Do you feel that Nietzsche's representation of moralities is accurate? Tell me in the comments below.

Friedrich Nietzsche

Over the past week began our discussion on Friedrich Nietzsche. We discussed his genealogy of moral. It was seen that the "good" people were seen as noble or powerful ones. It was seen that these people were beloved by God. Nietzsche disagrees with this is a sense that God loves the weak and the ones unable to protect themselves. In his story with "The Lambs and the Birds of Prey" Nietzsche  does not disagree with the preying on the lambs because that's the circle of life. To ask the birds to not kill would be just as strange as asking the lambs to go kill something. I tend to agree with Nietzsche in the sense that the powerful should look after the weak. The weak are the ones who struggle and are less corrupted by greed and many other sins which earn them a certain love from God that many people of wealth may lose through their actions.

Noble vs. Slavish

Nietzsche two modes of valuation are (1) Noble mode of valuation (good and bad) and (2) slavish mode of valuation (good and evil). The first mode focuses on the fact that good is determined first, and the second determines evil first. The Noble mode of valuation portrays that the stronger, more beautiful, smart people are the ones who should create the moral values. The slavish mode of valuation portrays that the weaker should make the moral values. This mode allows for the weak to be stronger in moral values and the strongest to be weaker due to moral values. According to Nietzsche, this disrupts balance because the slavish mode is made solely for the weaker people. It creates sick forms of values and offers imaginary moral strength. It does not convey true strength, only philosophical strength.  Although this is present in society now, is it beneficial as a whole? Or does it make the human race weaker? If the Noble mode of valuation was used more, would the human race be stronger?

The Noble Mode of Valuation

On of the concepts in class that we discussed on Nietzche is the Noble Mode of Valuation.


This was a mode of evaluation that was taken from the ancient Greeks.


First you have to identify what is good. The nobles are good, because they are noble, powerful, beautiful, happy, and beloved by God.


The people who are not noble and considered weak are the slaves. They are full of resentment, because when they feel affronted by the world they cannot discharge that resentment and it poisons them.


So the slaves came up with the "Slave Revolt in Morality" and decided that since they are beloved by god, they are happy, beautiful, powerful, noble, and good. Essentially they are saying that god loves the weak and those that suffering. This is believed to be the beginning of morality.


I have trouble with this concept, because I find it hard to believe that people only do good to protect the weak. I feel like we are all born with a conscience and that feeling to do what is right overwhelms most of us. I do feel like morality does benefit the weak, but at the same time it benefits the people with strength as well. We all are mostly strong and full of life at a young age. However, we do age and lose our strength. If we kill off all the weak people, than we will be killed off by our own children, grandchildren, and neighbors children. True enough, we are now the weak and need to be protected, but the knowledge of the weak could be of some greater intellectual service.

Nietzsche, pt. II

Upon reading the Nietzsche essay we were assigned, I found it difficult to understand at first due to the sentence structure. Fortunately, I came across a bit in the second section that was much easier to understand and found very interesting at the same time. He talks about the origin of "good" action and what other philosophers think. In a nut shell, these philosophers believe that peoples unegoitistic actions, that is actions that benefit only the receiver, where praised by those who gain from said action. Thus, through time, the origin of this praise was lost to time and that these actions were inherently good. Nietzsche on the other hand, states that the original "good people" were actually the more privileged and powerful. He calls this distance between poor and rich a pathos of distance. The area between the ones who set what is "right" of "good" and the ones who cannot have such influence. I personally find both presentations interesting and plausible at the same time. I do not, however, favor one over the other as of yet. Further reading and understanding of his works may help me to do so.

Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, First Essay

You can read the First Essay of Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals by clicking here.

MIDTERM STUDY GUIDE

CLICK HERE to view or download a copy of the Midterm Study Guide.

The Categorical Imperative vs. Utilitarianism

This week we had our symposium about Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. And we talked about some of the major differences in their moral theories.

Kant was a non-consequentialist. His theory was a deontology, or a duty based theory. He believed that the only morally good actions were done for the sake of duty. He says that you should act in a way that your maxim could be willed as a universal law. You should treat people as free, rational, autonomous agents. And act in a way that any other rational moral agent would act. Kant tells us that actions are morally good or bad because of their maxims, not the consequences they bring about.

Mill says the exact opposite in his moral theory. His theory is a consequentialist theory. Mill practices Utilitarianism, which is a form of hedonism, and believes pleasure is an intrinsic good. The main goal of utilitarianism is to maximize “utility.” It seeks to have the greatest amount of pleasure, or least amount of pain, for the greatest amount of people.

Rawls

Until today when as we started our discussion on Rawls, I did not understand how one could practically apply the teachings of Kant into everyday society. I find Rawls incredibly interesting because of his "justice as fairness" theory, which in reality just want to give everyone equal footing. Instead of making the rich richer and the poor just as poor, Rawls idea to give the greatest benefits to the least advantage really speaks to me. Politically my ideologies lean more to the left, so I agree with the diffusion of wealth to the poor. Even briefly looking at the points it is not hard to tell that this Rawls has greatly influenced the world, as well as the American government. Our Bill of  Rights holds almost all of what Rawls believes you be basic liberties among men including:

• The right to vote/ hold office
• Freedom of speech/assembly
• Private property
• Due process/equality before the law
• Freedom of the person
• Freedom to contract

I found Rawls actually really interesting, so I looked up some quotes by him and found one from his book A Theory of Justice that I really enjoyed and agreed with . It states:

  “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many. Therefore in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests.”

I feel as though Rawls understands the importance of justice through this quote, and calls people to not just accept what they have been told. If something is wrong, then as why and fix it. Do not allow for it to keep persisting because that it one of the most harmful things to society. Ignorance is not bliss; Ignorance is laziness.  Let's get out from behind the veil of ignorance. Let's make a change. How do you think ignorance is affecting today's society? Do you agree with Rawls views about equality?

 

Rawls

Today in class, we started to talk about John Rawls and his "Theory of Justice". This was very interesting to me because it relates to us in a way that the others haven't. The example given was that of the "original state/condition" where the moral agents creating the society are behind a veil of ignorance. We were asked about different liberties or freedoms that we thought the agents would develop for their new society. Most of them were ones that we have such as basic political liberties, freedom of speech/assembly, freedom of conscious/thought, private property, due process/equality before the law, freedom of the person and freedom to contract. One of the discussion we entered into about these liberties was if the 2nd Amendment (the right to bear arms) would be a logical liberty for these agents to develop for their new society. Some of the arguments were things like "what if people wanted to hunt" or "what if they were starving". I feel like these were really decent points.

The other things we talked about were Rawls's principles. The first was the Liberty Principle which stated that each person is to have the most extensive set of basic liberties compatible with the same liberty for everyone else. This is how we got on the discussion from above. The second principle was the Different Principle which stated that social and economic inequalities will be arranged such that (a) they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and (b) they are attatched to offices and positions open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

My question is: What do you think of these Principles so far? Do you think that the Second Amendment should be a basic liberty given to everyone? Are there any other basic liberties that you would think a rational moral agent would give to their new society?

Utilitarianism - John Stuart Mill

To begin, some questions to reflect: What does determine, according com Stuart Mill an action to be good or bad? What is the criteria to evaluate them? Is the action good because the consequences are good?

As we know, utilitarianism has a theory that says: the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest amount of people, which is also called hedonism. According to Mill, actions are just when it brings happiness and unjust when it brings the opposite. Happiness is pleasure without pain, and unhappiness is pain without pleasure. Actions are good when bring happiness.

Overall, Mill's point of view seems really good for us. Who does not want pleasure without pain? For Mill, we should calculate ours consequences in order to get pleasure. From this point, his theory becomes a little bit difficult. Would you do something "moral wrong" in order to bring happiness to you? Would you lie to friend?
Well, according to him. if it brings pleasure for the greatest amount of people you will.

From this idea, don't you think that the Utilitarianism is egoistic? Even though he says: "for the greatest amount of people" but at the same time it seems a theory based on the consequences, and a theory that you would do almost everything to bring happiness to you.

KANT symposia

In today's symposia discussion we where faced with the "classroom dilemma" in which we choose to live or kill the classroom next to us. Most of the Mills in the classroom agreed that it was the right thing to push the button, because it is the rightful thing to do. Kant might argued that if we push the button we are willing to desecrate other human lives as a merely choice of death or keep living. Based on the prepositions it is in our duty to do the moral action; however, when faced with a situation like this what would be the moral action for  everyone in both classrooms? What would be some questions or thoughts that would justify our action in the limited time we have to decide who lives and who dies?

Kant

Through out the week of class we have discussed the ideals of Kant. Kant had many ideals such as the belief that a human action is morally good, not because it is done in immediate inclinations but rather because it is done for the sake of duty. For example the action of helping an old woman across the street is only morally good because you wanted to do it, not because the old woman was actually a millionaire and is willing to give you money for doing the action. He also believed in the use of the Categorical imperative, which consists of three parts. One, act only in such that you can will your maxim (principle in which one acts) of your action as a universal can. Two,Act only in such away that you treat humanity whether in your own person or another never merely as a means, but always as an end in itself. Three, act in accordance with the maxims of a member giving universal laws for a merely possible kingdom of ends. So in the end of our weekly discussion I am left here with two important question. What does a morally good action mean to you? Do you agree or disagree with Kant's stance?

In Mill's Defense

When discussing and going over Mill's work in class I found it to be most interesting because you could come to a good understanding of what it is to be utilitarian simply by reading his defense towards critics. I felt that this gave the us, the class, a general understanding of Mill's stance on what it means to be utilitarian, which as we also talked about was different from the traditional utilitarian perspective like his father and Jeremy Bentham would have belived.

                                   

So my question is: do you think this was an effective way for Mill to convey the proper way to be and understand utilitarianism or do you believe there could have been a better method used? Perhaps Mill could have gone about it as Kant did by categorically listing off points of his philosophy? Or maybe through works of discussion between two differing parties as we read from works by Socrates/Plato? Tell me what how you feel on this and if there is anything else you might want to add on the subject of Mill's own defense for utilitarianism. 

Kants categorical immperative

In the past week, we have discussed in detail Kant's formulations of the categorical imperative. I agree we should all act in a way the abides by these three formulations.

First formulation: we should act only in such a way that you can can will the maxim of your actions as a universal law. This simply means that we should act in a way that we could rationally compel anyone else to act. We should make our actions an example for everyone else to follow.

Second formulation: act only in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or another, never nearly as a means but always as an end-in-itself. I completely agree with this formulation. Kant believes to be a part of humanity means you are rational, free, and autonomous. Anyone displaying these characteristics should be treated like part of humanity.

Third formulation: act in accordance with the maxims of a member giving universal laws for a merely possible kingdom of ends. By a kingdom of ends, Kant means if everyone were free, autonomous, and rational in a way everyone would be their own king. Simply, imagine a perfect world, make your actions resemble the actions of the perfect moral agent making the laws.

Over the past week, we have discussed the opinions, thoughts and beliefs of Mill and Kant. I can see where both philosophers are coming from. In particular, John Stuart Mill believes that utility or happiness is most useful. Utility is defined as pleasure itself, and the absence of pain, also known as the Greatest Happiness Principle. Mill has 10 misunderstandings that are addressed and he gives his point of view on each of them. Towards the end of the misunderstandings, the claim is made the utilitarianism is a goodness doctrine because its moral foundation is human happiness and not the will of God. His rebuttal is that it depends the character of God. He says God wants his creations to be happy. It's meant for us to be happy. Which brings me to my next point. What is the definition of happiness? Happiness is indeed a pleasure. The quality of pleasure and satisfaction. There are some people in the world who live a "happy life" but are doing things that are normally not happy or pleasurable. For example people who find happiness in seeing other people suffer. In reality most people would say that these types of people are miserable and aren't happy. With that being said, how can one define the true definition of happiness when someone's motives and intentions are the opposites of what they should be? What do you think Mill's rebuttal would be?




JN

Kant's Utilitarianism

I think that the ways that Utilitarianism is criticized is very interesting and thorough. The aspects of Kant’s answer are even more outstanding because he has a set explanation for every criticism. Kant’s overall philosophy of Utilitarianism is to maximize utility and states that “one finds the greatest amount of pleasure or the least amount of pain for the greatest amount of people. I like this philosophy because it seems to focus on humanity as a whole and not tailored or limited to certain group of people. This theory of philosophy uses Felicific or Utilitarian Calculus. This calculates how much pleasure or pain an action will have. This is interesting because I, from a personal standpoint, do this all the time. I have to plan out my actions so that I can figure out how they will affect other people. I had not realized that I was doing this or using this type of method until learning about Utilitarianism. It is ironic to me how people can go through their everyday lives doing certain things, and then find out it is a part of philosophical theory.

Utilitarianism has nine oppositions and nine responses from Kant. The three criticisms and responses that stood out the most are two, four and seven. The second critique claims Utilitarianism is based on or demeaning because it reduces the whole meaning of life to pleasure. Kant’s answer is that there are distinctive human pleasures which intel rational thinking; there are only certain pleasures that humans can perceive. The fourth critique states happiness can’t be a rational aim of human life because happiness is unattainable. Kant’s response was people are happy, and we want the happiness that maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain. I like this answer because I believe that happiness is attainable. I also believe that happiness produce a great amount of pleasure. The seventh claims that Utilitarianism is a Godless doctrine because its moral foundation is human happiness and not the will of God. His answer was it depends on what one determines the will of God to be, it’s God’s will for humanity to be happy. I agree with this answer completely. The answers that Kant gave to these three critiques stood out the most to me because of what they were based on. What critique and answer stood out the most to you?

Kant and the categorical Imperative

Kant

This week in class we discussed Kant and the categorical imperative.  In Kants summary the categorical imperative will always help guide and lead you to doing the right thing if you follow the categorical imperative. 

The Categorical imperative states that you should act only in a way that you can will the maxim of your action as a law. To me, this basically means that you should act in a way that you would want everyone else to act. The next part is act only in such a way that you treat humanity. And last, act in accordance of the law.  Which to me, means that you believe everyone should abide by the law and the world would be a better place; for example, obeying the speed limit leads to safer roads however if you go over the speed limit you would contradict yourself to others bc you’re not following the categorical imperative. You should only commit an action if the consequences are in accordance with the law. You should treat everyone humanely because it would be irrational to not. 

I can definitely agree with Kant’s points and ideas, however hard they may be to sufficiently act out in your day to day life. But I do think that the categorical imperative, if followed will help you act in a way you should act and help society become a better place. Thoughts?

The First Fomulation

During class we discussed the Categorical Imperative and the three formulations. The first formulation states, “Act in such a way that you can will the maxim of your actions as a universal law”. This formulation can be tricky because one’s first thought about it is that it is similar to the Golden Rule, but it isn’t. The Golden Rule is saying that one should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.  The first formulation is saying that an individual should act in such a way that he or she can obligate the rest to act in that very same way.

The example that was used in class to understand the first formulation better was the act of lying. According to the Golden Rule, we should not lie so we won’t have to be worried about others lying to us. If we didn’t follow this rule we would never be sure if someone is telling us the truth or not. The first formulation, on the other hand, is saying that we should not lie because it is an immoral thing to do period. This formulation makes more sense in comparison to the Golden Rule because if we are trying to become better moral agents we should behave in ways that will not only benefit us, but benefit the rest as well.

I hope I explained things better instead of confusing them even more.


This is just a link to a picture I found. I think it relates to my topic.
http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6590132_f520.jpg

The Supreme Law

                           

On Monday, we finalized our discussion on Kant's Metaphysics of Morals and Ethics. In this particular session, we spent majority of the time period studying the categorical imperative, also know as the supreme law. According to Kant, this law will always guide you to do the right thing no matter who you are. 

Here is my summary of the three formulations of the Categorical Imperative:

• Only do an action if the purpose behind that action is in accordance with the law (when I say law, I mean any social rule or legal rule that we can all agree is wrong, such as lying)
• Treat everyone, including yourself, humanely, because it is not rational to do otherwise.
• Imitate a perfectly moral agent so that the world will become perfectly moral.

I feel that Kant's theory is completely logical if being used as only a starting point upon which we should guide our actions. However, I feel like the categorical imperative is very black and white. There is no room for grey areas, which makes it impractical. There will always be situations where you can refute his formulations.

• In the trolley problem we are willing the death of one person,but in doing so we are saving multiple lives. (Yes, I know that Kant is a non-consequential philosophy)
• Do we treat a serial killer or child molester humanely?
• Do we imitate someone's good deeds, but not necessarily know why the things he/she is doing are good in the first place?

What do YOU think?

I can't comment on anyone's post, so here are my comments.

Shannon Little Response

Before this discussion, I hadn't realized that the Golden Rule was based off of self-interest. I understood the concept of treating people the way you wanted to be treated, but never actually took out the time to figure out what it meant. I understand why Kant says that morally good deeds should not be based on self-interest. Self-interest kind of implies that people are looking for rewards and have ulterior motives for performing good deeds. The morality of the deed becomes skewed and less about the actions, and more about the person doing the action.

Jessica Voyles Response

I think that having a hidden agenda for doing a good deed is no longer a good deed. The person who does something for a reward is not thinking about the act itself but for personal gain. However, nowadays doing good deeds can be morally good and filled with self-interest that is pure. For example, S.O.S. is done to help others, but when you ask people why they serve they respond "Because I love to help others", or "Because I feel great when I help people". Occasionally you get answers like "Because it's the right thing to do", but most of the time we serve or do good deeds to gain happiness. It's hard to remove emotions when you are helping someone else. I don't believe that it is morally wrong to do good deeds because you are overcome with emotions. It is morally wrong when one looks for a reward.

Immanuel Kant

In our class, we have begun to discuss the views of Immanuel Kant, an Enlightenment thinker.  During this era, there was a cultural movement towards the pursuit of knowledge. This era wanted to bring out individualism rather than go by what the Church says. In this era, Kant talks about three branches of philosophy: logic, physics, and ethics. All three of these are formal areas of inquiry in which Kant goes into detail.

Kant’s first branch, logic, is a non-empirical type of philosophy. You gain this area of philosophy by studying rather than practice. His second branch, physics, is an empirical type of philosophy. This area of philosophy is gained through practice and observation. The third branch, ethics, is a mix of both empirical and non-empirical. You learn ethics from others and also through observing. Kant believed in a need for a “pure” ethics in which the good will reign. Kant believed that good will existed, which opposed Aristotle, to help bring logic into our lives. He believes in telos, purpose of something, to help achieve the good will.

As I said earlier, Kant differs from Aristotle in beliefs. Aristotle’s belief that virtue is for eudemonia differs from Kant. As time progressed, society reformed and it was not as civilized as the time Kant lived in. Therefore, their difference of views are evident cause of the time change. In my opinion, if Kant had lived in the same time as Aristotle, they would have agreed with each other on views more.

Kant

In our class discussions, we have begun talking about Kant’s views on morals and what he calls “the good will.” He opposes Aristotle’s view that humans live their lives in search of happiness. Kant believes that if we were to only seek happiness, there would be no point in having reason or logic; instinct would suffice if our only goal was to attain what made us happy. He believes that reason’s purpose, or telos, is to produce a will that is good in itself (“the good will”). And to achieve this good will, you perform morally good actions. 

In Kant’s view, the only way to be a morally good person is to perform morally good actions, that is to say actions that are done for the sake of our duty. For an action to be morally good, it should not be done because of immediate inclinations or self-interest. An action obtains its moral worth from its maxim, or the principle upon which you act. Thus, the goodness of your will is not derived from the results of your actions, but from the purpose behind your actions.

After talking about the three propositions of duty, we discussed Kant’s Categorical Imperative. It says that you should act only in a way that you can will the maxim of your actions as a universal law. In class, someone said that this sounded similar to the “Golden Rule.” But, there’s a big difference between the two. As Dr. Johnson pointed out in class, the Golden Rule is subjective; it deals your own personal views. The Categorical Imperative is objective; it deals with a way in which everyone “ought” to act.

Another difference could be made from Kant’s view. In his first proposition of duty, he say that a human action is not morally good if done in self-interest. The Golden Rule tells you to treat others the way you want to be treated. Kant could argue that this rule is an act of self-interest, and thus could not be considered a morally good action.

-SL