Blog post #6

Post to the blog EITHER:
   (a) on Hursthouse (available here) by Wednesday at 11:00 PM; OR
   (b) on Marquis/Thomson (now available on the S-drive) by Monday at 11:00 PM.
The content of your post should be either:
   (I) An argument against something in the material; OR
   (II) An argument for something in the material.

Means and Ends

While reading Kant's Groundwork II, I was especially confused by the idea he expressed about rational beings work not just merely by means but ends as well. The quote from the reading that I focused on by far the most (since it took a while to understand in the first place) was the following:

So act that you use humanity, in your own person as well as in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.

After then reading the four following examples, I gathered that Kant is saying that rational beings cannot just be used as means or commit actions that are just means but also must be ends in themselves as well.

My only question with what I believe I understand is Kant's idea, is whether a person can use another person simply as a means without being an end in itself? If, for example, someone wanted to start a rumor about another person so they tell a lie about that person to a third individual who then proceeds to spread that lie to another and so on, would the people spreading the rumor not merely be means to the greater end of spreading the rumor?

It may be argued in this case that the person spreading the rumor is acting irrationally, but if that is the case, does his idea only come into play when a person is actually acting as a rational being?

Categorial Imperative

While reading the piece I noticed a point that I did not get the first time around which was the idea of categorial imperative. The idea we have seen before is hypothetical imperative which is showing about how to get to end result that would make the person most happy. Categorical imperative is the idea of  actually choosing the right action to get to that end. Its a bit of an inception-esque idea in a  decision within a decision within a decision but it is trying to find the moral logic within the decisions of the end results that make us happy. Because we cannot be sure that people make certain decisions of pure interests solely we have to to assume that the idea of categorical imperative is a derivation of the piori. Therefore people do things even if it be for circumstantial interest because otherwise the logic to reasoning could not actually go forward. Kant brings up very good examples about debts and and suicide in that they represent categorial imperative. One being that debts are payed not only because of interest but also because money needs to circulate for life to continue, and suicide isn't performed because people believe life is precious and needs to be kept sacred, but also because if everyone killed themselves life could not move on so we could not procreate.

The inherent unreasonability of happiness

From the last paragraph of 4:417 to the end of the paragraph that runs into 4:419, Kant speaks on reason and happiness. He begins by saying that “…the concept of happiness is so indeterminate…” that one can never say with determination what they actually wish or want for themselves, because all of “…the elements that belong to the concept of happiness…” must be borrowed from experience. He goes on to list some ways in which things that people think may make them happy might have unintended consequences, implying that omniscience would be required to know with certainty what would make someone happy. To BE happy, then, one cannot act on any principles that can be objectively reasoned towards, but only on experience with what has generally advanced well-being in the past. Further, no actions can be said to be a necessary step towards happiness, but must instead be considered as reasonable councils. In fact, nothing can be said to be necessary for happiness, because happiness in itself is not able to be reasoned to. Reason lets you know how you may be able to act or conduct yourself in such a way that you might be able to achieve something that you THINK will allow you to achieve happiness, but once you achieve your ends under that reason, any happiness gained is not necessarily due to the achieved ends, but instead due to the intentions one had for them.

Price and Dignity

Kant makes a fair point when he explains the difference between price and dignity. An object of price can be replaced, because it has an equivalent. Anything with dignity has been elevated above the level of price, and therefore has no equivalent or replacement. One of, if not the most, prominent example of a perversion of this rule of thumb is the systemic enslavement of a race of people in America that took place between the late 1600s and the mid-1800s culminating in its abolition. People residing in Africa were robbed from their homes and brought to work in this country in a system of stolen labor. These individuals, who have dignity, were relegated to the realm of price. They were placed alongside livestock and evaluated as if they were just another animal, incapable or any thoughts or feelings. Many sickening and unthinkable arguments for this treatment were brought forth, which hold no merit and need no discussion. The point remains that Kant handily touches on why the system of slavery in American history is generally viewed as one of the worst events that has ever taken place. These people of dignity were used as a means to an end, instead of being recognized as ends in themselves. Thankfully this institution in America finally came to an end, but it cannot be send that transgressions of this nature have ceased around the world. Factory workers in Asia, while they are paid, still work in factories with nets hanging around the sides of them in order to prevent people from jumping off the top of the in an attempt to commit suicide. Not only is this horrifying but it stands as an example of a modern day scenario in which people have been robbed of their dignity and been assigned a price. 

The Desire to Do Good

Kant sets himself apart from the utilitarians by distinguishing the rational and the empirical.  The utilitarian view posits that every action is based on pleasure and pain, and that in cases where people make some kind of sacrifice for a greater good, this can be explained because they are gaining mental pleasure by being able to feel good about what they have done. 

Kant observes that under this view, one might think that there is really no morality at all in the world.  He counters this possibility by adding a third factor to their pleasure/pain dichotomy: duty.  Kant believes that duty goes beyond simply feeling a greater amount of pleasure.  He believes it is another factor entirely, dependent on reason and not on emotion.  For this reason, he argues that the only way to avoid thinking that there is no virtue in the world is to hold the conviction that “reason by itself and independently of all appearances commands what ought to happen.”

I would add to Kant's argument that while he is right that it is essential to have a part of duty that is completely rational, duty done because someone gains pleasure from it can still have moral value.  If someone, because of their experiences, is able to draw more and more pleasure from doing their duty, this is a desirable outcome.   Aspiring to achieve this state would come from good will, which Kant believes is intrinsically good.  If one strives to be the kind of person who gains pleasure from doing good, this has moral weight because they have not actually received said pleasure yet, and the actual receiving of the pleasure when they accomplish this goal does not diminish the initial moral weight of the desire to do good. The initial desire for pleasure through good deeds is more than just a desire for pleasure, because they could find any number of other ways to take pleasure, but choose to do it through their sense of duty.

Moral law

Connor Newlin

In an attempt to clarify some things for myself and others I will try to summarize Kant’s thoughts on moral law towards the end of the chapter. A universal law of morality is a very difficult thing to try and pin down because there are almost always exceptions to a given situation. Kant I believe then tries to convey the message that people are the solution to finding a moral law. The human brain at work after being presented with a situation and considering actions and consequences of actions is itself a working solution to the question of moral law. While we cannot pin down a single blanket statement for a universal moral law we can say that a rational human being’s intuition about a situation would generally be thought of as the most common solution. Moral law is that which is generally accepted in daily lives of those who perform actions.

Consequences of actions seem almost irrelevant in Kant’s eyes as he sees the important part of morality being the intent of a person to do good. Human beings think of their actions of good or bad usually by the consequences while Kant is trying to zero in on just actions themselves being intrinsically good. Some may argue that Hitler meant to do good in his extermination of a religious people but this was a consequence of a complex situation and Kant may say that his small actions leading up to this event were somewhat harmless by themselves.  

Blog Post #5

Kant’s argument surrounding good will is essentially that a person who acts without regard to themselves, without receiving any benefits to themselves whatsoever, has truly done a deed in good will fully. We had the example of a person who was in a horrible mood but still did good will anyway. Kant mentioned that the person who acts with regard to themselves, saying they enjoy helping others, and committing acts that constitutes as good will has less moral worth than that of someone who does goodwill without regard to themselves. If this is so, where would Mother Teresa fall? She the piety of good will and charity; what she has done for the world should value much higher. Would she still befall the “less moral worth” category because she herself enjoys helping others?

Motives for Goodness

In the book Kant brings up the question of whether or not people do good things because they know that they're good and because they adhere to a strict moral code or if it's because doing good things makes people feel good. This is an interesting point, but I feel like the problem with it is that it can never be answered for most cases and doesn't always apply. Someone who sacrifices everything and puts themselves into a terrible life for the good of others doesn't necessarily do it for satisfaction or even because they know it's right. An example of this would be someone who knows that an innocent person will be convicted of a crime and sent a hellhole prison so they volunteer to go instead so that the innocent person can be free and live their life. You would think that at some point in the prison the person inside would be completely miserable and regret it, but say they don't regret it. Suppose they say that the fact that the innocent person was able to be free keeps them from regretting it, despite the fact they they're miserable in prison, since they know that they would never be able to enjoy their life if they let an innocent person rot in jail. It would seem like this person is only doing this because they believe it's right and not for any personal satisfaction of doing a good deed, but it then could be argued that he's not doing it necessarily for satisfaction, but instead to prevent himself from feeling terrible about it for the rest of his life.
                        This brings up the question of even if you're not gaining any personal satisfaction from doing the moral thing, are you doing it because it's moral or because it'll cause you inner pain to know that you did the wrong thing. This seems like an important distinction between gaining pleasure from something and simply not letting it cause you pain. So if this argument is true it would make it even more difficult, if not impossible, to see what people motives actually are when doing the right thing.

Post 5

“Act only according to that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (Kant, 34)

and

“So act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature” (Kant, 34)

I chose these two quotes to clarify because I think that they go hand and hand with each other.  In addition, I think that it also relates to what we were talking about in class about the “golden rule” of treating others the way that you want to be treated.  I think that the first quote is trying to say that you should act on something not because it is a universal law, but by you acting on it, you are making it one.  So although you may not want to do something, you should do it for the fact that it is for the better and will lead to good.  The second quote is playing right off of the first one and saying that you should act on something not because it is a law and you feel the obligation to, but by you doing the action it will become a universal law.  I think that Kant is trying to stay with what he said in the first section about it meaning more for someone to do something that is more out of character than for someone who is always doing good to do more good.  I think that he is saying that although in both cases it is good, it means more to will yourself to do something that is not a universal law.  I may have missed the mark completely, but from what I understood from the section, he is further backing up what he said in the first section of the book.

blog 5

It is rather tough to say exactly what Kant’s main arguments are that he is discussing in section two in the text. One point that Kant does make is that pure expression of the law can have power over the heart stronger than all other forces because one thinks only of reason, and not of reason as well as incentive. To go along with that point Kant also stated that generally laws help everyday lives or us live out. He says that a person will only follow these laws because of a will or a practical reason for what is good. The choice is then based off of a question was the choice a subjective decision? According to Kant the “moral law “ is to act in an agreeable way with the demands of practical reason. The theory of Categorical Imperative has three rules that must be followed in my eyes they follow as moral laws should be followed by everyone, if someone else is doing “it” then it must be okay because it’s the right thing to be doing, and treat the cause for what it is and not what it could lead to after the fact. The actual three rules stated that only act according to the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law. Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end. And the third rule so act though you were through your maxims a law making member of a kingdom of ends.

Epistemic Knowledge and Morality

When discussing morality and how to objectively distinguish good and evil Kant says,

“But such a completely isolated metaphysics of morals, mixed with no anthropology, no theology, no physics or hyperphysics, still less with occult qualities (which one hypophysical), is not just an indispensable substrate of all theoretical securely determined cognition of duties, but at the same time a desideratum of the highest importance for the actual execution of its prescriptions” (Kant, 4:411).

I believe Kant continues to say that it these types of thinking can lead to wavering of motivation and a chance to do good but also the ability to do evil. While I am asking for clarification on his views, I am ultimately wondering is if it is even possible to have a scenario where a person would not possess any epistemic knowledge, of any type that he mentions? And then what implications said knowledge would have?

Assuming then always carry some of that mental baggage would Kant believe that we are even capable of true moral decision making at all. From the rest of his book I’d also assume yes. I was just hoping for some further clarification as well as to see if anyone else sees a potential discontinuity.  

I KANT See Any Perfectly Good People (ha ha)

Kant discusses the logic behind doing good and what motivates us to do these good actions. In his essay Kant also brings up the idea of how good cannot be judged based on a “model”, or a person who holds all values of what it means to be good, until they are “judged according to principles of morality”. I think it is impossible to find someone who is completely good and can be a perfect “model” for goodness. There are always ways we can be better, and though we can never become our ideal, perfect selves, we must work every day to get closer to that point. Kant supports this when he cites Jesus. We think of Jesus as being the ultimate symbol of morality and goodness, but according to Jesus only God was perfect, “’Why do you call me (whom you see) good, there is none good (the archetype of the good) but one, that is, God (Who you do not see)’”

After reading this I do not believe anyone physically on this earth can contain all things that make one good. People are still trying to figure out what it means to be good, much less having all good attributes. We all have varying ways which we are good, and we are all better in some of these ways than others. For example John might be more respectful then Fiona, and Sophia may be more generous then Gloria. I think these distinctions are essential in the human condition because we are all, or we should be, pushing ourselves to be better and closer to what the ideal, perfect good is. In Kant’s essay he supposes that God is that perfect good, which makes sense to me because we all have different interpretations of what that is. If there was a man or woman, let say, that contained all ideals that supposedly make a human good, would we all agree that they are perfectly good?

This just made me think a lot about what is good and how we can be good, and thanks to CIE I’m relating it a lot to Mencius and The Allegory. 

Categorical Imperatives and Duty

       After arguing that the lone categorical imperative is to “act in only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law,” Kant lays out four commonly thought of duties to show how they fit this defined categorical imperative. His first three examples (on suicide, lending money, and the cultivation of talent) appear to fit in Kant’s categorical imperative framework. However, his fourth example appears flawed, and I will argue that certain cases prove that assisting others in need cannot conform to Kant’s categorical imperative like his other three examples.

       Kant writes “I shall take nothing from him (person in need), nor even envy him; only I do not care to contribute to his welfare or to his assistance in need.” Kant acknowledges that “if such a way of thinking were to become a universal law the human race could admittedly very well exist.” To get around this argument, Kant argues that if individuals followed this duty of not helping others, humans would rob themselves of all hope of getting assistance in the future.

       This argument assumes all humans will eventually need or will want some form of assistance when they are in need. Individuals in need may turn down assistance for a multitude of reasons including, pride and wanting to pull oneself up to not wanting to be a burden on others. While I sympathize for those who feel this way, I do not think it is an irrational belief. Extreme examples of poverty or danger that involve life and death may have less examples of individuals who live by this philosophy, but I do think Kant underestimates the pride that can exist in humans who want to save themselves. For this reason, I do not believe assisting others can be a duty in the same sense that not committing suicide, not paying back loans, and not cultivating talent are duties. 

Price versus Dignity

"In the kingdom of ends everything has either a price, or a dignity. What has a price can be replaced with something else, as its equivalent; whereas what is elevated above any price, and hence allows of no equivalent, has a dignity."

First, I don't necessarily agree with his notion of what has a price can be replaced with something else. For example, if I go out to dinner with my mother, I am able to put a price on the food, on gas money, and any other miscellaneous item involved in our outing. Our outing does not have to be a dinner date and can be replaced by another activity, however the moment we share during our date does not have a price and can not be replaced with an equivalent. The moment may be replaced with another moment but the same mood, conversation, and other circumstantial factors will not be the same. What has a price can be a means to something beyond the physical.

Second, in this quote, and in Kant's interpretation, dignity has no equivalent. I agree yet am conflicted with this statement. It brings me back to our discussion in class, if I had to chop up one person, to save all of New York, would I? Part of me wants to say no because of the dignity of the individual. However, another part believes that by not chopping up the individual and thus allowing millions to die, I am not respecting their dignity.

A more modern example, Apple released the IPhone six a week or two ago. Whenever apple releases new products the whole world goes insane and buys them out. There is nothing wrong with wanting the newest technology, however behind these phones is a deadly market, and even when people are made aware of conflict minerals in these phones and the inhumane conditions the laborers work in, everyone still runs out and buys these phones. They are valuing the product more than the dignity of those individuals who suffer and sometimes die. As a society, we are valuing products more than we are valuing one another and act as though what has a price can't be replaced with an equivalent and what doesn't have a price (dignity) can be replaced with an equivalent (technology/ iPhones).

                One of Kant’s main rules of morality is how one should go about borrowing money. Kant states that in order for it to be morally right to borrow money, one must have the intention of paying it back. If people were to not pay back their debts, there would be no more institutions lending money. Basically, those who are in need of money but don’t intend to pay it back expect others to follow the laws but want an exception to be made for them. Kant then goes on to describe a person in a desperate situation where they need money but don’t have the means to pay it back. This person is essentially choosing between performing an immoral act or dying of starvation.

                I don’t agree with Kant’s argument of borrowing only if we have the intent to repay the debt. He is saying that the desperate person should not seek the help he needs so as to not set an example for the rest of society. If this desperate person were to go around the laws and borrow money without the intention of paying it back, who’s to say the rest of society wouldn’t follow suit. Wouldn’t this be contradicting his first argument? He makes the claim that it is our duty to not commit suicide because it would cause the existence of nature to cease. But if this man doesn’t borrow the money he needs to sustain himself, wouldn’t he be essentially killing himself? I don’t think this person should disregard his needs in an attempt to keep the society in order. Lending companies often make exceptions and forgive loans, and yet they are still up and running today. What is to be said about someone who intends to pay back a debt but doesn’t have the means to do so? Is that considered wrong as well?

Rational beings

I am going to try to clarify and then make an objection to the implications of Kant's categorical imperative to "act only according to that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law." (Kant). I think that Kant is talking somewhat to the well-known Golden Rule- do unto others as you would have them do unto you- in this part. However, he seems to not accept the happiness and general benefits to the person who is acting this way. I believe instead that Kant thinks you should do that not because of any of the benefits you will receive, but instead because in order to act morally, you must do this strictly from duty. My first objection is that when he posits this, he only talks about rational beings being the ends to consider. This is a very anthropocentric view, as we can only prove that humans have the capacity for rational thought- which means that any duty we have towards animals is going to always come back to what it means for humans. While I am apprehensive to make the argument that animals should have inherent value as well as humans, I do believe that because humans have the capacity for rational thought, we accrue a moral duty to those that do not, whether they are animals or babies or other humans with mental handicaps. It would be nice to just make a normative statement that this should be so by asserting that living things have intrinsic value- but that means there is value without anyone to value it- and since valuing is done by the humans who are doing the philosophizing, I don’t think the inherent value argument stands. Instead I think this good can come from something like holding ecosystems as a good on a whole, which is where all of these other conceivable goods come from.

Korsgaard, Christine M. (2012-04-19). Kant: Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy) (Kindle Locations 1659-1661). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

argument for freedom

In chapter 3 of the text, Kant is elaborating on his idea of freedom and what it actually means to be free. To him, being free is untethering ourselves from the earthly tether that bounds us, which are the rules that the government makes to control us. By being free, we are breaking away from those rules and subsequently living on our own rules, which can either, are good or bad. I completely agree with Kant’s idea about freedom. To add, not only rules but also stereotypes as well. Rules aren’t the only ideals that bound us and keep us from being free. In today’s society, racism is a big concept that bounds people from being free. Because of racism and all of the other unethical concepts, it stops people from being what Kant would say is being free.  For example, in certain areas in the United States, there is a high statistic of suicide because people are different. Not everything in the world is the same. Some people are Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, like grape jelly on their French fries, etc; but because of the negative stereotypes, it blocks people from being them and doing actions that ultimately are theirs and not what society wants them to do/say. If they want to be free, in Kant’s point, they must pursue a course of action that is unconditionally truth- that is, truth that is different from our society and all of the things that binds us. Say, for example, they continue to be themselves and go on and live their dreams and do whatever they want. If that means breaking the law, then so be it because they are not bound to nothing but themselves; their limit is only themselves. To go back to Kant’s point, I totally agree that by following your own rules, either good or bad, that is ultimately going to make you free. The rules that bind us like: traffic laws, do no murder, and not running red lights- even though they are in our minds wrong, mainly because the government instilled them in our minds for so long that it becomes second nature to us, they are stopping us from becoming free because it’s stopping our freewill from doing something that it might want to do. So I totally agree with Kant on that view about freedom.

Blog 5

This was an interesting part of Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. One part that stood out to me was the section on will. “The will is thought as a capacity to determine itself to action in conformity with the representation of certain laws. And such a capacity can be found only in rational beings” (39).   I’d say that I agree with this. He goes onto talk about incentives and means. He talks about all ends are subjective, but I wouldn’t say this is true necessarily, he talks about absolute worth, which means that the existence of something in itself is an absolute worth, and as a result, is a determinate laws, meaning that the existence of a human, with absolute worth justifies the use of the will. 

The idea of priori

Though while reading through Kant many parts were challenging and unclear there was one part that I felt became clear to me after reading several times and understanding some of the meanings of the words used. It becomes clear to me that Kant is demanding more of us than just to be good people. He has this idea that we cannot simply just observe good things happening but instead must be grasped a priori. Which means people must learn what is morally in a way based on theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation. He puts forth this in defense of this view “But whence do we have the concept of God, as the highest good? Solely from the idea that reason a priori devises of moral perfection, and connects inseparably with the concept of a free will” (Kant 4:409). He then goes on to say “Practically good, however, is what determines the will by means of representations of reason, hence not from subjective causes, but objectively from the grounds that are valid for every rational being, as such” (Kant 4:14). I would tend to agree with what Kant is stating here, from what I could understand he is saying that good is determined by our ability to reason within ourselves not always from past experiences but more or less from our ability to naturally know if an action is good. I would agree with this statement because there are things that people have not had experiences with, yet they just know that that action would not be an appropriate thing to do. For example not every person has committed a crime and been punished for it in their lives, yet those people know not to commit crimes without having any past experience to teach them otherwise.    

Blog post #5

Post to the blog by Wednesday night at 11:00 PM concerning Kant's Groundwork, Section II (and the first couple pages of Section III) (that's German pages 4:406–4:448). Write on one of the three following options: (a) defend an argument in the reading; (b) object to an argument in the reading; or (c) clarify an argument or passage in the reading.

In defense of vagaries, or possibly a defense through vagary.

I tend to feel that the more specific something gets, the less defensible it becomes. That being said, I believe a very general take on the promotion of positive mental states is the most easily defensible of many of the theories that we’ve been speaking on in class up until now. The benefits of promoting positive mental states are obvious: people are happy, to be in a scenario where positive mental states are possible, making the world a better place must be a priority, and people, in seeking happiness, will tend to agree with the concept, making it a practical concept.

 

If you take the theory in a sufficiently nonspecific fashion, it also becomes possible to defend against the objection of the Happiness Machine thought experiment. In promoting positive mental states in humanity, it cannot be said to be a correct or defensible action to put oneself on a theoretical happiness-inducing machine. In doing so, one is no longer available to contribute positively to humanity, making the choice to go on the machine an inherently bad one, considering that being able to promote positivity is inherently good.

What's good, man?

Without a doubt, taking a stand on “what is good” cannot be encapsulated by any one of the six categories we discussed in class.  Because they all have their merits, choosing just one necessarily excludes major factors of good, so we can only choose what is most important.  The well-being of people is the most important in my opinion because it can mean a society full of happy people.  I believe that the largest contributor to the well-being of the citizenry is the narrative perspective, because people are much more sensitive to changes in conditions than they are to the conditions themselves.  If an average person is dropped into a randomly chosen situation somewhere on Earth, regardless of how shocking the difference might be at first, the person will eventually grow to think of that situation as “normal,” and will achieve a sort of mental homeostasis.  People’s happiness is influenced infinitely more by the changes they experience than their objective circumstances.

This perspective has limitations, however, in that it does not provide a limit for how bad conditions can be, whatever improvement someone makes in their life, if they are living as a slave, it will still not be good.  This also allows for unlimited unfairness, and so is not a perfect representation of good, but is the most influential factor.

Within well-being, the objective list theory is the best of the three.  It allows for many diverse factors to influence the good in a person’s life.  Mental state theory is good, but falls apart if we think of people who enjoy the misery of others being happy, or someone plugged into the matrix who thinks they have great well-being.  Desire satisfaction theory falls apart for the same reason that the narrative theory has so much merit.  People don’t always desire what is actually good for them, and having attained those desires does not make them as happy as making the progress itself.

Theories

I find different portions of each of the three theories appealing. While, I do enjoy the expansiveness of the Objective List Theory, which would appear to cover the other two theories—thus making it seem the clear winner in regards to being the best theory or having the most intrinsic value. I am troubled by the paternalism objection to this theory. I wonder what Utilitarians who believe firmly in the Objective List Theory would think about the quality of wellbeing of a person unable or unwilling to strive for the things on the list. Would your life be lacking if you were missing out on knowledge, achievement, or beauty? What if an individual was sick or had a disability and could not strive for things that would be on the typical list. What if an individual was happiest being solitary and human interaction made them uncomfortable therefore messing with their mental states? Also, what would the Utilitarian say to a person when the things on one’s list are in conflict with one another?

Obviously, I understand the objection to my questions would be that the list is “Objective,” which means everyone makes up their own. So, maybe there isn’t one list and I can appreciate the subjectivity, but I still worry that making lists can fool people into thinking they need all of the things on their list to be happy or have wellbeing.

I think I would like to look at these theories all as equally applicable. Some days I feel as if I am only concerned with mental states and other days I’m more interested in desires. Then I think about the other things in my life that provide happiness and warm fuzzies and I would lean to perhaps making a list. I also think this varies by person. These three theories exist because they all still resonate with people.

However, an objection to the view of accepting all theories would be to question whether we potentially as humans could even accept multiple theories at the same time. Could we ever appreciate not having a theory to describe happiness or the ultimate good? We are also a species immersed in the obsession for the quest of knowledge or maybe the fear of the unknown. These can be added to the Objective List Theory.  

My subjective rejoinder is that while I see why the Objective List Theory would seem superior, and I’m presenting a very relativist perspective, which is not always beneficial, I am ultimately not comfortable with a list theory even an objective one. Along with relative my view directly opposes the point of philosophy in general. However, I maintain that there is beauty in being happy or seeing the good in life and perhaps not questioning where it’s coming from or why you’re feeling it. Maybe I’m just not a very good philosopher, and I talk myself in circles. I clearly have lots to learn.

objective list

Connor Newlin

I would have to say the Objective List Theory is the most defendable of the three arguments. The theory states that intrinsic good comes from a solid list of human needs: pleasure, desires satisfied, knowledge, achievement, beauty, relationships, and freedom. Just from reading this list one may think: what more do you need in life? The theory is hard to argue because the list seems like a blanket statement covering random human desires and needs. Aristotle states that many of the things on the list are connected in a way which makes the list seem much less random than one may initially think. This is one of the major objections, however the list doesn’t seem to need any additions and the ones on the list are hard to fight. This list is thought out and targeted to cover the exact needs and fits perfectly. Another objection is that this list is too paternalistic but to the list is not a governing nature it is simply observing what humans need and desire the most. The reason it has such good intentions like a “father” is because human’s intrinsic good looks out for our best interests and what we need deep down.

Most acts that we do to feel good about ourselves are striving towards one of the things on this list. One way or another, happiness comes from one of the key principals and as argued by Aristotle they all tend to connect to each other. Having extensive knowledge will lead to achievement and relationships lead to pleasure, the list goes on and on. If people were to set goals to achieve things on this list they would surely find happiness as they pursue it. In a way I would argue this can be used as a guide to intrinsic success but many will find happiness and realize it all came from elements on this list.

Blog 4

           I think the best theory in regards to intrinsic value here is the OLS, Objective List Theory.  I personally think that while the Mental State Theory promotes a nice idea that all happiness can come from within, but I don’t think it is very realistic to believe that considering that a lot of things in one’s life can affect them internally in an unhappy manner.  I also don’t think that the generality of the desire-satisfaction theory is very realistic either.  It makes for the possibility of some pretty broad desires.  Some of which could be considered unethical and/or immoral. 

           I think the Objective List Theory is the best theory because it hits specific things that I would personally consider necessary for happiness. You also don’t necessarily need to be “okay” in all those different aspects to be happy. It does divide happiness into individual categories which I think is more realistic than having general happiness externally or having all happiness come from within.

Well Being/Objective List Theory

After looking over the factors that qualify as intrinsically good, I found well being with a focus on the objective list theory behind it to be the most defensible. One disclaimer that I have to put on it before I explain my reasoning is that in class we defined this theory as external, but I think that it is both external and internal due to its elements. With that being said, I think that only adds to its ability to be defended. In class the elements under this theory were defined as pleasure, desires satisfied, knowledge, achievement, beauty, relationships, and freedom. Pleasure, knowledge, and relationships were also given as directly related to well being in the rejoinder to the "hang together?" objection.

First and foremost, one reason that the objective list theory is so defensible as intrinsically good is because of variety of elements that the list covers. Without going over each factor and explaining why each of them is "good", it will be assumed that all of these factors are "good" or at least result in more good than bad. These seven elements, while providing a range of effects that we deem to be "good", also provide that intrinsic good in both internal and external ways. By this, I mean that individuals can receive improvement in their internal well being as well as use some of these elements to improve external well being in either small or large ways. These elements can also reduce suffrage in the same way, both internally and externally.

The other reason that I find this theory to be the most defensible is due to the vagueness of the other two theories (Mental States and Desire-Satisfaction) as well as the fact that they are included in the elements under the objective list theory. I also that other factors that we listed as intrinsically good like equality, beauty, narrative, ...etc. a little too simplistic as well as vague based on the line that may be drawn on what makes them "good".

Mainly I would say that what makes the objective list theory the most defensible as intrinsically good would be the overall good that the theory itself covers.

Ecosystem theory of goodness

I think that the theory of goodness that I most align with and can subsequently can best defend is the ecosystem theory of goodness. Ecosystem is a hugely encompassing term. Ecosystems are all around us, they include the classrooms we learn in, the microbes that make up the majority of our body, and organisms in Hunsberger Woods. Ecosystems are composed of communities of living organisms and the nonliving environment that they interact with. To start, this is the foundation of life itself, if there are no ecosystems, there is no life. More importantly, I believe that making the foundation of morality promoting healthy ecosystems (and subsequently communities) is the best way to foster other goods such as equality, and well-being. There are two components to how this can play out: one is probably what most people think of when considering an ecosystem, that we should foster a healthy environment. We should care for the earth and other organisms under this theory of goodness. I believe that this is true but perhaps not to the degree that is expected with environmentalism, we also need to understand that any group of organisms is going to have to live off the earth, so this does not mean leaving the earth and other organisms alone entirely, but doing so with respect and with stewardship- these things are necessary for promoting healthy ecosystems.  I think that fostering healthier environments and valuing sustainable living will subsequently promote equality as there would be less resource monopoly. Next: the theory of ecosystem goodness can be applied directly to human communities as well. I think promoting the good of all ecosystems includes human civilization. What is the good of this ecosystem you may ask? Things most people seem to already really value, healthy relationships, freedom, pleasure and the absence of suffering, equal opportunities, beauty. This may seem like a stretch for most people, however, I think if you stop dichotomizing the world between “nature” and humans, the all-encompassing goodness coming from valuing ecosystems becomes apparent. Still, people may object to my reasoning because it is not placing humans above other organisms, or even say a rock. My rejoinder to this is that placing value in all of those things does not mean that we necessarily treat them all the same or with the same amount of regard. That is not what valuing the ecosystem as goodness dictates. This theory as I conceptualize it does not mean that we care just as much about ants as our fellow humans, but rather we respect all forms of life and the ecosystem on a whole, where some death and consumption must occur; the theory however dictates that we do this in a thoughtful, responsible and sustainable manner. 

Objective List Theory

While I don't entirely agree with the objective list theory it definitely seems like the most defensible of the ones we talked about in class. The objective theory seems to be the best theory out of the ones mentioned because it also seems to somewhat fulfill several aspects of the other theories since many of the things deemed good on the list should help lead one to a good mental state. Several things on the list such as pleasure, freedom, knowledge, and fulfillment should already make most people happy so it covers some of the mental state theory that Mills eventually settles on.

       While it certainly has its fair share of problems, such as what gets to be on the list, it does seem like there is much less grey area in what is good than the mental state theory, which can have many conflicts in what puts you in a good mental state. The Objective List Theory also includes achievement and fulfillment and says that achievement is a good thing. This can be a slight problem with the other theories, such as in the mental state theory where learning a skill would be irritating and put you in a bad mental state for a long time before you are finally satisfied with your skill. The Objective List Theory seems to include fulfillment into pleasure and isn't just whatever makes you feel good without hurting other people. So overall the theories seem to try to guide one toward ultimate happiness, but the objective list theory states it in a better way and deals with the fact that just because something is puts you in a bad mental state now doesn't mean that it wont cause you pleasure later.

Equality

The most defensible theory of good is that of equality. The main objection is Mother Theresa and all the Nazis would thus be treated equally. Unfortunately this is true and a valid objection. However, it remains an unfortunate consequence I would be willing to accept, because equality is the only theory of good that is truly fair. And while it is true that good and bad people alike would begin to receive the same treatment, once it started, everyone would be the same. The Nazis in the example would no longer be able to abuse anyone, and Mother Theresa would have no need to help anyone anymore, because everyone is the same. Everyone’s slate is wiped clean, no matter who you are, and everyone is treated in the exact same manner as everyone else. Wellbeing is certainly important, but really only fair if everyone has the same amount of wellbeing. Desert too is important, but who decides? We as people are extremely and unfortunately prone to bias, and to varying degrees we struggle to overcome it. Then there is that matter of consensus. We can barely decide, in this country, on a wide ranging number of issues, such as abortion, immigration, marijuana use and gay marriage. Even balancing the budget because an implosive issue. How would we ever decide as a people who deserves what? To me, the answer is we wouldn’t, and everything would need to be divided up equally. Narrative is certainly desirable, but it’s likely true that if your life is going downhill, then so is everyone else’s. At that point, at least you’re with a group of people who understand what you’re going through. Better to suffer together, in my opinion. Beauty and Ecosystem are much to subjective and dependent on the individual to stand up to the test of most defensible theory. Truly, Equality is the only one which outmatches them all. 

Well-being

       I will argue the theory of well-being is the most defensible theory of goodness our class has discussed. I will begin by examining the flaws of equality and deserts, the two theories I found most compelling following well-being. I will then argue the benefits of choosing the objective list theory within well-being, and then conclude by offering a few responses to the objections raised in class. Beginning with equality, I do not believe equality is intrinsically good. I do not believe a lazy worker is entitled the same benefits as a hard-worker, as long as some form of a social safety-net exists, or that those who do good work should be equally happy as those who commit acts of evil. Moving to deserts and borrowing from John Rawls, I believe there are too many factors outside of an individual’s control, including biological luck, to simply say goodness should be based on factors like cumulative moral goodness or past receipt.

       The objective list theory lists things that make well-being go up, things that include, but are not limited to, mental states, desires satisfied, knowledge, achievement, beauty, relationships and autonomy. When considering what is good, humans have the capability to determine what makes us happy in the short and long term, and by rationally considering what makes us happy, we can determine ways to maximize goodness.

       The objection that the view is too paternalistic is flawed. Humans judge the worth of things we consider all the time, and using the objective list theory allows individuals to thoughtfully reflect on their definitions of the good. Second, I believe the Aristotle rejoinder to the objection that the list is just a grab bag is successful. As rational social beings, humans are built for relationships, pleasure, and knowledge, all of which should allow us to pick and choose which of those elements reflect goodness. 

Blog 4

According to Mill Utilitarianism is defined as the belief in which an action or actions can cause a person to be happy. More times than not the action is based from a consequence or outcome of particular outcome. If a certain action can bring the utmost amount of happiness or pleasure to the greatest number of people, then it is according to Mill the right thing to do. In my own opinion out of the three theories I think that the objective list theory can best relate to present day society. This theory mainly deals with knowledge and friendship. Objective list theory however can be more combatable with a bigger group of people instead of individuals.  I think that it is fair to say that a majority of the things on this list are things that people wish to have in their everyday lives. Through knowledge and relationships I think that happiness is gained.  By gaining more knowledge and gaining more friendships/relationships this opens up to the bigger picture of trying to work with a larger group of people.