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?