Author: luccabatt

Apr 29/30 – Blog #20

Don Heider delivers a very concise, yet informational pitch as to why society should be prioritizing a rejuvenation of the economy. In it, he lays out several different approaches in an effort to make a compromise for the situation. From the perception of the general welfare of society and for the sake of any economic interest at all, it is paramount that we think utilitarian. The approach for a Bentham-minded society would make people think about all factors of the crisis, not just the ones motivated by fear. People have been blind to a large part of life, unable to see things that don’t concern them(or at least they think so).

The rate at which life in society has literally morphed into something different is unprecedented, shocking. Three months ago, kids were eating lunch in cafeterias, NBA games were on TNT every Thursday, and people were going to concerts. We have been so shocked from such a dramatic change in our lifestyles that we have lost sight of intangibles. The economy collapsing for starters. We should be worried about how the increase in government spending is going to cripple us long-term or where all the people getting laid off right now will be in 6 months. These are very difficult and prerogative questions to answer, but the hypothetical must be considered.

Although, through a brief analysis of all of the different approaches, it seems that none of them are the objective right answer. Considering all the factors, and taking into account every single person’s opinion on it would still come short of accurately answering the question: What is the one right thing to do? It’s a terrific question but there is no hope of attempting to solve it without the cooperation of the general commonwealth. Everyone has to offer some sort of input and help to find a compromise with the 7 billion people on this planet.

In response to the second article I read pertaining this pandemic, I have to say that I have become very impressed with people’s show of blind ignorance in a time like this. It’s just like Appiah said, “Driving with your eyes closed down a highway at night for 10 seconds, you’re pretty unlikely to hit anyone, especially if other drivers are properly alert. But if everybody did it, lots of people would be maimed or killed.” If everyone took this for what it is and decided to do their part in containing the virus, we’d all be better off.

By this same token, Kant’s harm principle would be equally applicable in this situation. “A person can do whatever they want as long as their actions do not harm others.” In this case, the roommate’s actions are directly affecting her and potentially putting her at risk of catching the virus. It is important to take this into account when trying to decide what is the right choice in this situation.

Sources: Weighing Values in the Midst of a Pandemic & THE ETHICIST: My Roommate’s Boyfriend Still Visits Despite the Outbreak. Can I Object?
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/19/coronavirus-effect-economy-life-society-analysis-covid-135579

507 words.

Apr 27/28 – Blog #19

The Feminist Challenge attempts to outline a more informed description of what “feminist ethics” entails. It does good in comparing itself to more conventional forms of ethics. It contradicts the stigma that women are morally inferior men and does so with convincing satisfaction.

Feminist ethics places a heavy emphasis on moral issues surrounding close personal relationships. Specifically, compassion, faithfulness, kindness, and love; it is a soft form of ethics that is less involved in legalistic moral matters. It seeks to question pre-existing moral principles and establish new ones in accordance with their beliefs. “..The cornerstones of the ethics of care are not rules but feelings.” Feminist ethics aims to achieve their goals with a more sensible approach rather than one dictated by various laws pre-held rules of ethics. In this way, it separates itself from any other kind of ethics.

Impartiality is another important aspect of feminine ethics, as it understands that as humans we are naturally partial towards different people. Meaning we would not treat our mother the same way we would treat a stranger on the sidewalk. This is taken into account when making moral decisions by the laws of feminist ethics. One could argue that this same impartiality is required to make any choice by any standard of ethics. Although, in actuality partiality is largely present in society, in theory, we could make more educated, moral decisions by utilizing the laws of impartiality. It allows us to see everything on a level playing field and make more informed decisions.

This is an important concept, not only just in an ethical sense, but for developing a better world view. It allows us to view the world from an unbiased perspective, with an open-mind. Feminist ethics follows the same sort of ideologies. It aims to create a positive environment in society free of prejudice and disagreement. It attempts to solve any ethical dilemmas in the most civil way possible, which is a very important path of ethics required in this world. When comparing conventional ethics(Kant, Mill) against feminist ethics there are clear distinctions between the two, but also a number of similarities. It is crucial that both are taken into account when attempting to make a moral decision. This along with a feminine-motivated worldview is an essential element for developing a strong sense of ethics.

See The Feminist Challenge for more.

Sources: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-ethics/

395 words.

Apr 15/16 – Blog #15

In Book 3 of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he states that there are three types of friendships: pleasure, utility, and virtue. A friendship of utility consists of a one-sided relationship where the one side seeks to gain something while not benefitting the other person. This kind of friendship tends to be the most “toxic” one and can prove to be the most damaging to both parties. A pleasure friendship is possibly the most common one, when both parties are fully involved and it is balanced. People who partake in a friendship of pleasure are not necessarily virtuous, but they do in fact have good morals because they are not just in it for themselves. The third and final type of friendship according to Aristotle is one of virtue. A virtuous friendship is characterized by both parties appreciation for one another. This kind of friendship is highly uncommon and is most nearly like a romantic relationship than anything.

As outlined in Aristotle’s teachings, the three types of friendship are universal, but is not necessarily true in its entirety. His definition of a utility friendship is accurate in that there are plenty of relationships in business and casual ones that exist solely for the purpose of one person trying to get something out of it. An example of this is a relationship where one of the friends only hangs out with the other person if they give them something they want. This could be anything from possessions to some sort of recognition that comes with being that person. I agree with Aristotle on this one. The second kind, of pleasure, I also agree with because this is probably the most common kind of friendship. Most friendships are for pleasure, where both parties seek to benefit from it, most of my friendships are like this. The virtuous relationship exists, but is highly uncommon and I don’t fully agree with Aristotle’s definition of it. Although very uncommon, his defined caveat that these kinds of friendships never separate no matter what is slightly wrong.

Speaking from a personal experience, I have been in a virtuous relationship where everything was fully mutual and we wholeheartedly enjoying time with each other. Like Aristotle said, it was almost even romantic at times. But, the circumstances of it were highly unfavorable and because of outside influences and the disability to express feelings because of those influences, we were forced to not be friends anymore. As unfortunate as it was, it happened, and that was probably the most genuine friendship I’ve ever had. The point being that virtuous relationships are not always unbindable, and that they can be separated on rare occasions. The idea of an unbreakable relationship is hard to grasp for humans because things are constantly changing everyday, especially friendships.

What kind of friend are you? Do you seek solely pleasure or utility from a relationship? Are you a virtuous friend?

Nicomachean Ethics Book 8

Sources: https://associatesmind.com/2013/11/04/the-great-conversation-aristotle-on-friendship/

487 words.

Apr 1/4 – Blog #14

“A virtuous action must be voluntary in order for it to be virtuous.”

According to Aristotle, the “incontinent man” is a man who has the ability to deliberate on whether or not to make the right decision. The incontinent man unlike a normal virtuous man, who tends to do the right thing when given a chance, he is unable to reach actuality with that deliberation. All of humanity should strive to have the virtues of the incontinent man, but unlike him, follow through with the action. In this way, we are able to assess a situation and how your moral compass reacts to that situation. Aristotle states that the golden mean of being “virtuous” is having courage and being honest. Based solely off this, right or wrong actions can be judged off of simply whether or not those actions are courageous or honest. But, the one flaw in this is that it all depends on the situation. The right or wrong choice varies from situation to situation. As he also said, “if you do the right thing over and over again, it will become part of your character,” which in turn is obtained by emulating someone else who possess the same virtues you desire. When you fully realize virtues, you do the right thing no matter what, and this is the pinnacle of Aristotle’s argument.

Aristotle developed a principle called Eudaimonia, which in short is the one word to describe someone who lives a life of striving for new things, full of success. A person who lives in Eudaimonia is someone who is always setting new goals for themselves and trying to develop new muscles everyday(not literally). This goes hand in hand with his prior teachings in Nicomachean Ethics because Eudaimonistic people live virtuous lives and are constantly trying to do good in the world. This also correlates directly back to what he says about virtue becoming part of one’s character through repetition. Eudaimonia is the actualization of someone who builds their character and virtues through doing it everyday. It is the epitome of these writings.

I hate to be that guy that just up and front agrees with everything Aristotle says, but I really do. I think that in order to be a virtuous person, you must do so through constant repetition in order to fully achieve those virtues. It’s with anything, learning a language, playing an instrument, anything that requires effort and practice is structured in the same way that becoming a virtuous person is. In this way, Aristotle states that in order to be happy as humans we must do the right thing. So by this same token, if we want to be happy, we must live virtuous and honest lives, which means doing the right thing voluntarily and not telling us to do the right thing before we can do it ourselves.

So, this brings me back to the “incontinent man.” The incontinent man cannot exercise his ethical knowledge because he is not aware of his knowledge. Aristotle compares the incontinent man to the likes a drunk person. “If a drunk mathematician were presented with a calculus equation, the likelihood that they are able to solve the problem correctly and consciously is very low, because their knowledge is hindered.” Similarly, the incontinent man is unable to judge whether a situation is right or wrong because one’s perceptual knowledge is dragged out and blinded by their passions(vices).

Read up on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics here.

Sources: http://www.owl232.net/papers/arist1.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrvtOWEXDIQ

580 words.

Apr 1/2 – Blog #12

The Dalai Lama is a philosophical figure not only for Buddhism, but all around the world. His ideologies are accepted and respected all over the world. He has a peaceful and understanding attitude towards virtues and ethics.

The main belief surrounding religion and ethics is that there are multiple different religions and that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and values. However, the Dalai Lama believes that instead of getting caught up in our national interests, everyone should be taught how to love, show compassion, practice mindfulness, and peace. He believes in a greater emphasis on these inner values. A world where all of these things exist is one where people can live happily and in harmony, he argues. One of his main commitments is that intolerance leads to hatred and division and that dialogue is the best way to solve this division. The Dalai’s opposition to religion brings him to the conclusion that ethics are rooted in human nature. In this way, we need to embrace our differences and focus on our commonalities.

I believe that in comparison with my own personal beliefs, the Dalai Lama is pretty accurately describing the world we live in. In particular, setting aside our differences and our interest in nationality, and delving into the global ethics of our world, we can curate a better world. I do believe that religion can help to a certain degree, like he says, but a stronger sense of inner values and ethics is necessary to harbor peace in the world. Most of what he preaches is beneficial because it solves deeper rooted issues in the world. Yes, there is no shortage of political, economic, and social issues, but the argument he makes is that all of these can be solved with more value placed on ethics and morals. Which in part I agree with because without a strong sense of morals, there are very little problems that can be solved, with difficulty in making the right decisions.

This principle is prevalently visible in the world today. Historically and presently, the root of corruption and faulty systems in the world have been the cause of a misappropriation in ethics. As fate would have it, this lack of ethics in our world has lead to a multitude of government mistakes made by important people, and a weakened sense of values when it comes to making moral decisions. Not only, is the Dalai Lama preaching for a more ethical society, but he is doing so in a justified effort to make the world a better, more peaceful place for years to come.

For more on the Dalai Lama’s commitments. Dalai Lama: “We need global, secular ethics”

450 words.

Mar 25/26 – Blog #11

The Noble Eightfold Path as defined in the context of Buddhism are the eight things required in a path to liberation. It’s stated that ethical conduct, mental discipline, and wisdom are the essential elements of said path. In today’s society, we strive for perfection, and we aim to be as perfect as the models we look up to everyday. However, each part of the eightfold path has its own significance and can serve a grater purpose in anyone’s life without the dependance on the other parts of the path.

When looking at the essential elements of the eightfold path, wisdom is the one that stands out to me. Wisdom is an intuitive trait that provides useful in almost every walk of life. It is necessary when making moral decisions, giving important advice, or even simply thinking of what to say to someone. It is an important characteristic no matter who you are, but since we are talking about me, I will tell you a little about how it relates to me.

In some capacity, Buddha states that if the eightfold path is not followed in some manner, suffering will occur. This is to say that if we do not live wise and ethical lives, it will lead to suffering. In my own life, I have found that this is an accurate prediction, most of the time. As humans, we can be as ethical and wise as possible, but by no means does this guarantee us salvation, or a happy life. Aside from conformity, there is the usual case of bad luck, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, that may alter the course of following the eightfold path. This is evident in most areas of my life, prevalently so when I do something with good intentions, but it turns out to backfire on me. What I mean to say is that we can do everything in life with good intentions, and try to live as ethically as possible, but not everything goes our way, and that is just a facet of life. Unfortunate, but true as it may be, we must take this into account when following the eightfold path(if that’s what you choose).

Read the full description on The Noble Eightfold Path.

380 words.

Mar 2/3 – Blog #7

For Immanuel Kant, there is two forms of duty based ethics, characterized into imperatives, the hypothetical and the categorical. He states that not everything good is classified as pleasure, meaning that if helping someone in need does not produce pleasure of some sort, then it is unnecessary to act on. “If a good will is a good without qualification, then it is just as good in a foolish person that causes much harm while meaning to do well as it is in a person that succeeds.” Kant believes that one should base the moral evaluation of acts solely on the goodness of their consequences, which in turn leads him to come up with the hypothetical and the categorical.

The hypothetical states that “the practical necessity of a possible action as means to something else that is willed.” This means that the action is not necessarily duty-based, but rather used as a means to something done out of good will. The categorical on the other hand, entails the more certain aspects of will based ethics. It represents “an action as objectively necessary in itself apart from its relation to a further end.” So in other words, it mandates that the action is completed in order to fulfill a specific end that achieves something higher than that which is currently present. Essentially, Kant is saying that everything must be done out of good will, but only when necessary, must that other second purpose be served(hypothetically or categorically). These decisions that follow the imperative guidelines can be characterized by the degree of inclination we display in making a decision.

Inclination defined by Kant, is “the dependence of the faculty of desire on sensations.” It is anything that stems from our sensible nature and anything that opposes our rationality. In other words, it is the devil on our shoulder convincing us to do the wrong thing. Inclination states that this is because of our desire to feel any number of sensations; sex, drugs, gluttony; anything that is a “guilty pleasure.” It is because of this inclination that we make morally wrong decisions, but by definition, it is our duty to resist these desires and make the right decision, whether it be hypothetical or categorical. This is the epitome of duty-based ethics and is one of the most commonly practiced form of ethics today.

Read more on Kant’s categorical imperative here.

Sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bIys6JoEDw

403 words.

Feb 10/11 – Blog #2

Ethical relativism is the theory that suggests morality differs from culture to culture. Ruth Benedict claims truth to this and also says that it is the exact reason we have such things as “socially-accepted” behavior. We gauge what we believe to be morally right, by judging our own personal moral compass, not by what others may believe to be right. This very principle is predicated on Benedict’s argument that morality is different through every society.

Take for example, a majority of a given society favors capital punishment and opposes abortion. Benedict’s theory states that what is habitual is synonymous with whatever is normal(in a societal context). Based on her theory, we can conclude that capital punishment is right and abortion is wrong. Going solely off of her logic, it makes sense, and builds a case for her argument. Although, looking at it subjectively from my perspective, from a completely different, more variable moral point of view, one can say that it is far too vague. It could be more refined, and made a particular argument in defense of a more universal truth.

When it comes to issues such as these and particular stances that different ethicists and philosophers take, there is a clear distinction between right and wrong in each of their cases. Although, when conflicting perspectives interact, the lines between what can be agreed upon begin to blur, and that’s where one could come in and put down those pre-held notions. This is where the foundation of the debate for ethical relativism resides.

A lot of political and religious conflict still exists in the world because of ethical relativism. It has grown to become a real issue on both ends of the spectrum. Historically speaking, there have been wars started as a result of disagreement on ethics and values. Something of this nature cannot be solved with a simple poll to try and amend the situation as Benedict might be inclined to do. Rather, a more sophisticated, possibly aggressive approach is required to be able to “agree to disagree”. It is quite unrealistic to believe that everyone can come to an agreement, especially in a hostile environment where disagreement is the root of the problem.

Read more on ethical relativism here.

A Defense of Ethical Relativism

379 words.

Feb 26/27 – Blog #4

Utilitarianism at its core, is the principle that allows us to create a situation that offers the most benefits for the most amount of people. If, for example there was circumstance wherein which we could choose between 10 or 100 people dying, according to utilitarianism, no matter what, we would choose the option where 10 people die. So, when it comes to consideration upon keeping our international borders open or not, there are several things that we must take into account.

Firstly, open borders, would mean a much larger influx of people moving to different parts of the world. In the past, large masses of people traveling across the world, has been both problematic and beneficial for cultures everywhere. Inevitably, the incorporation of impoverished peoples into developed societies, will in turn decrease poverty rates. Additionally, overall world GDP will see a definite increase because the flow of impoverished people acquiring more jobs and increasing general output.

In the Columbian Exchange for example, the same influx of people caused the migration of multiple diseases, foods, and different vegetation from country to country. Nevertheless, there are many other issues introduced by opening borders. In this article by Bryan Caplan, he builds a case for why it wouldn’t work, specifically due to a clashing of cultures and the disruption of political, social order. The argument being that the mixing of impoverished and uneducated peoples with those who are not that, will decrease technological innovation and see a net increase in total utility. I believe this argument is very weak and does not give a lot of real world evidence to back it up. Although, there are not many benefits of open borders, there a even fewer objections that actually make sense and support the argument correctly.

One of the main ones that most efficiently supports the argument is that it does not account for future generations and their welfare. This piece in particular is significant because it takes into account the possible unforeseen effects of open borders. On top of that, if we come to consider the clashing of cultures between different world populations, it tends to be problematic. Take for example, a world culture that relies on primarily pork and beef for their cuisine, but by this same time, the neighboring country has transitioned into a completely vegetarian lifestyle. This could become an issue when it comes to making informed decisions or trying to agree on something would lead to widespread disagreement, therefore chaotic unrest.

I could be very far out here, but personally I believe that open borders would cause a lot more problems than actual benefits. Cultural differences, mistranslation of currencies, language barriers, the list goes on. It is simple to imagine a world with open borders, but then again the world will never know.

See https://openborders.info/utilitarian/ for more information.

469 words.